Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-59
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Amendment of Service and Eligibility Rules for 
FM Broadcast Translator Stations 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
MB Docket No. 07-172
RM-11338
REPORT AND ORDER
Adopted: June 29, 2009 Released:  June 29, 2009
By the Commission: Commissioner McDowell issuing a statement
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Report and Order, we adopt changes in our FM translator rules to allow AM stations to 
use currently authorized FM translator stations to retransmit their AM service within their AM stations’ 
current coverage areas.  Specifically, AM broadcast stations will be allowed to use currently authorized 
FM translator stations (i.e., those now licensed or authorized in construction permits that have not 
expired) to rebroadcast their AM signals, provided that no portion of the 60 dBu contour of any such FM 
translator station extends beyond the smaller of: (a) a 25-mile radius from the AM transmitter site; or (b) 
the 2 mV/m daytime contour of the AM station.  In addition, AM broadcast licensees with Class D 
facilities1 will be allowed to originate programming on such FM translators during periods when their 
AM station is not operating.  We take these steps to permit AM broadcasters to better serve their local 
communities and thus promote the Commission’s bedrock goals of localism, competition, and diversity in 
the broadcast media.
II. BACKGROUND
2. On August 15, 2007, we released a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (“NPRM”)2 in this 
proceeding in response to a Petition for Rulemaking filed by the National Association of Broadcasters 
(“NAB”)3 and the comments and reply comments submitted by a large number of parties after we placed 
the NAB Petition on public notice.4 Several hundred parties filed comments and reply comments in 
response to the NPRM, almost all in support of the proposal to allow AM stations to use FM translators as 
a “fill-in” service.
  
1 See 47 C.F.R. § 73.21(a)(3).
2 Amendment of Service and Eligibility Rules for FM Broadcast Translator Stations, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 15890 (2007) (“NPRM”).
3 “Petition for Rulemaking of the National Association of Broadcasters, RM-11338, filed on July 14, 2006 (“NAB 
Petition”).
4 Public Notice, Report No. 2782 (rel. July 25, 2006).  The NPRM summarized the comments and reply comments 
received in response to the Public Notice. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-59
2
For decades, AM radio service has been an integral part of American life.  AM radio remains an 
important component of the mass media landscape and a vital provider of broadcast service to local 
communities across the country.  As the Commission has previously stated, AM often offers the only 
radio service to listeners in a variety of circumstances, particularly those living in and traveling through 
rural areas.5 AM radio stations commonly provide unique, community responsive formats to distinguish 
themselves in an increasingly competitive media market.  All-news/talk, all-sports, foreign language, and 
religious programming formats are common on the AM band, as are discussions of local news, politics 
and public affairs, traffic announcements and coverage of community events such as high school athletic 
events.  In fact, over 90% of all news/talk formats are on stations operating in the AM band.6
3. The NPRM noted, however, that the AM band’s ability to serve local needs has been 
threatened by a well-documented shift of AM listeners to newer mass media services that offer higher 
technical quality and superior audio fidelity.7 Although the Commission has taken various steps to 
revitalize the AM band,8 there are inherent technical limitations to AM service for which there is no easy 
solution.9 AM broadcasts provide lower fidelity than other sources of audio programming, including FM 
broadcasts, satellite radio, personal media players and podcasts and audio streams provided through the 
Internet.  In addition, the propagation characteristics of the AM band cause substantially increased 
interference among AM broadcasts at night.10 Accordingly, during nighttime hours, many AM stations 
  
5  See Review of the Technical Assignment Criteria for the AM Broadcast Service, Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 
6273, 6276 (1991) (“Expanded Band R&O”), recon. granted in part and denied in part, 8 FCC Rcd 3250 (1993) 
(subsequent history omitted).
6 See NAB Petition at 2.
7 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 15891; see also Expanded Band R&O, 6 FCC Rcd at 6275.
8  Id., 6 FCC Rcd at 6275-76.  In 1991, after a comprehensive review of technical, legal, and policy issues relating to 
AM broadcasting, the Commission adopted an AM improvement plan comprised of three elements:  new and 
revised AM technical standards intended to reduce interference within AM stations’ primary service areas; the 
opening of ten “expanded band” frequencies (1605-1705 kHz) to select AM stations whose migration would 
significantly abate congestion and interference in the existing band; and various measures affording broadcasters 
greater latitude and incentive to reduce interference through non-technical means.  Id.  See 2006 Quadrennial 
Regulatory Review—Review of the Commission’s Broadcast Ownership Rules and Other Rules Adopted Pursuant to 
Section 202 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 23 FCC Rcd 5922, 5952-53 (2008) (summarizing 
implementation of AM expanded band plan).  As discussed infra, these measures have not achieved their stated goal 
of “revitaliz[ing] the AM broadcast service by the year 2000.”  Expanded Band R&O, 6 FCC Rcd at 6274.
9 See generally Report on the Status of the AM Broadcast Rules, RM-5532 at 32-35 (Mass Media Bur. Apr. 3, 1986) 
(“Naturally occurring atmospheric noise found in the AM broadcasting band is a pervasive source of degradation to 
the AM service that generally limits the minimum usable field strength of the service during both daytime and 
nighttime hours.  In addition to atmospheric noise, the minimum usable field strength of the AM service is further 
degraded by cochannel and adjacent channel interference from other AM stations and man-made noise.  Man-made 
noise results primarily from the proliferation of electronic devices in the home as well as in the work place… 
[T]heoretically, any electrical device is capable of causing interference to AM reception.”).
10 See generally Digital Audio Broadcasting Systems and Their Impact on the Terrestrial Radio Broadcast Service, 
19 FCC Rcd 7505, 7521-22 (2004) (“During daytime hours, AM signals propagate principally via currents 
conducted through the earth, called groundwave propagation.  Useful groundwave signals have a range of only 
about 200 miles for the most powerful AM stations, and less than 50 miles for many stations.  After sunset, changes 
in the upper atmosphere cause the reflection of AM signals back to earth, resulting in the transmission of skywave 
signals over paths that may extend thousands of miles.  Nighttime skywave propagation results in a much greater 
potential for inter-station interference.  With the exception of powerful clear channel stations and relatively low-
power local stations, many AM stations are required to cease operation at sunset.  Most of those that remain on the 
air at night must reduce power or use directional antenna systems, or both.”); Report on the Status of the AM 
Broadcast Rules, RM-5532 at 11-12.  See Comments of Bart Walker, President, WNGS(AM), at 1:  “Man-made 
interference is destroying AM service in large sections of most communities [and] sky wave interference creates 
 (continued. . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-59
3
are required to reduce their operating power substantially (and/or directionalize their signals), thereby 
eliminating service to certain swaths of their audience, while others (daytime-only stations) are prohibited 
from broadcasting at night.11 This situation became worse as of last year, when Daylight Saving Time 
(“DST”) was extended.12 DST now begins three weeks earlier than it previously did, and ends one week 
later.  As a result, during those extended DST periods many AM facilities, and particularly daytime-only 
stations, either completely lose an hour of early morning drive-time programming or are forced to operate 
at very low power during that important period of the broadcast day.  In addition to nighttime interference 
issues, the NPRM and commenters in this docket noted that increased electronic interference to AM 
signals occurs during all hours of the day from various sources.13 We expect such interference to increase 
in the future, particularly as sources of manmade interference continue to proliferate.14
4. The combination of higher fidelity alternatives to AM radio and increased interference to AM 
radio have caused an erosion of the AM radio audience and the loss of young listeners to other 
programming outlets.  Fifty years ago, AM was the dominant form of audio entertainment.  Until 1978, 
AM claimed more than half of all hours spent with radio.  The most recent figures show that AM’s 
audience share has dropped to 17%.  Among younger listeners, the decline is even more dramatic.  
Among persons aged 12-24, AM accounts for only 4% of listening, while FM accounts for 96%.  Among 
persons aged 25-34, AM accounts for only 9% of listening, while FM accounts for 91%.  The median age 
of listeners to the AM band is 57 years old, a full generation older than the median age of FM listeners.15  
___________________________
(Continued from previous page)
even greater problems starting approximately two hours before sunset and continuing until around two hours after 
sunrise.”
11  See NAB Petition at 3-4 (some stations lose 80-95% of their coverage area to protect clear channel AM stations 
often located hundreds of miles away).  Some Class D AM stations are permitted to operate during pre-sunrise and 
post-sunset or nighttime hours only at extremely low power levels.
12  See Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58.
13 See, e.g., Comments of Holston Valley Broadcasting Corp. at 2 (citing increased interference from power lines, 
computers, televisions and other electronic equipment, fluorescent and neon lighting and dimmers used for 
incandescent lighting, electric motors, traffic signal sensors, cable television systems, and even certain types of 
medical devices); Comments of WIFE Radio at 1 (“Our coverage at times is extremely minimal, especially with the 
increased local interference from home wireless devices, business security systems, etc.”); Comments of SB 
Communications at 1 (“Over the past 10 to 20 years there has been a substantial increase in manmade interference.  
This interference has dramatically reduced both our daytime and nighttime coverage . . . and made it difficult for our 
community minded station to fully serve our community of license, let alone the immediate surrounding areas.”); 
Comments of Stewart Broadcasting at 1 (“AM signals have great difficulty penetrating the growing number of steel 
and concrete buildings, and other interference factors that were not nearly as prevalent 20 years ago.”); Comments 
of Bud Janes at 1 (noting that many AM stations have a very limited or non-existent nighttime signal and in the 
daytime are handicapped by interference from a variety of sources, including modern lighting, power lines, 
computers and everyday appliances); NAB Petition at 5 (noting that metal utility poles, which are rapidly replacing 
wooden poles, can radiate AM signals, creating distortion and nulling a station’s signal along roads and highways, 
which are particularly significant coverage areas for radio stations); Joint Comments of State Broadcasters 
Associations at 6 (recounting a situation in which WDXY(AM), Sumter, South Carolina was unable to monitor its 
coverage of local election returns from the basement of a county courthouse located less than 2 miles from the 
station’s transmitter site due to interference from lighting, computers and shielding of the AM signal from the metal 
construction above and around them); NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 15891.
14 When the Commission previously examined this issue, many of the man-made sources of interference described 
in footnote 13 were rare or non-existent.  We do not expect the proliferation of sources of interference to AM signals 
to slow down.
15 See Ex Parte Presentation letter filed by Richard F. Swift, Aug. 6, 2008; David Giovannoni, Radio Intelligence:  
AM/FM Licensees Need Not Suffer the Tyranny of the AM Band, CURRENT, Vol. 10, No. 16 (Sep. 2, 1991), at 1.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-59
4
The story of AM radio over the last 50 years has been a transition from being the dominant form of audio 
entertainment for all age groups to being almost non-existent to the youngest demographic groups.  
5. In view of the technical challenges faced by the AM service, the NPRM proposed allowing 
AM stations to use FM translators as a fill-in service.  FM translator stations are low power facilities 
licensed for the limited purpose of retransmitting the signals of either an FM radio station or another FM 
translator station.16 FM translators were first authorized in 1970 to provide secondary FM service to areas 
and populations that are unable to receive satisfactory service due to distance or intervening terrain 
obstacles.17 To ensure that FM translator stations served their intended secondary role, the Commission 
adopted rules restricting their service, ownership, sources of financial support, and program origination.18  
For example, FM translators are limited to a maximum effective radiated power of 250 watts and may not 
cause interference to the direct reception of the off-the-air signal of any authorized broadcast station.19  
Further, FM translators are restricted to retransmitting the signals of other FM stations only during 
periods during which the primary station’s signal is being broadcast.20 FM translators are not permitted to 
originate their own programming, except to acknowledge or solicit financial support and to provide 
emergency warnings of imminent danger.21  
6. The current rules preclude an FM translator from rebroadcasting the signal of any station 
other than that of an FM radio broadcast station or FM translator.  As we discussed in the NPRM, in 1981 
and again in 1990 the Commission considered and rejected proposals to permit AM stations to use FM 
translators to rebroadcast AM signals.22 When the Commission previously rejected proposals for cross-
service translating, it believed that “the fundamental problems of AM radio – channel congestion, 
interference, and low fidelity receivers – will be resolved by [a] concerted effort with the broadcasting 
community and radio manufacturers” to improve the quality of AM radio through proceedings directed at 
reducing interference in the band.23 The Commission also believed that AM stations did not have 
coverage holes necessitating fill-in service because primary AM signals are ground waves that are not 
impeded by irregular terrain.24 We concluded that authorizing FM translators to rebroadcast AM signals 
“may exacerbate the fundamental problems of the service, rather than ameliorate them.”25
  
16 See 47 C.F.R. § 74.1201(a).
17 See Amendment of Part 74 of the Commission’s Rules and Regulations to Permit the Operation of Low Power FM 
Broadcasting Translator and Booster Stations, Report and Order, 20 RR 2d 1538 (1970); see also 47 C.F.R. § 
74.1231(a) and (b).  Translator stations which provide service only within the primary FM station’s protected 
service area are classified as “fill-in” stations and may use any terrestrial facilities to receive the signal that is being 
rebroadcast.  See 47 C.F.R. § 74.1231(b).  A fill-in FM translator’s coverage contour must be contained within the 
primary station’s coverage contour.  See 47 C.F.R. § 74.1201(g).      
18 Id.  See also Amendment of Part 74 of the Commission’s Rules Concerning FM Translator Stations, Report and 
Order, 5 FCC Rcd 7212 (1990), recon. denied and clarified, 8 FCC Rcd 5093 (1993) (tightening and clarifying a 
number of translator rules in order to return the service to its original secondary role).  
19 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.1203(a) and 74.1235.  The signals of the primary station may not be altered significantly in 
any way except for frequency and amplitude.  See 47 C.F.R. § 74.1201(a).  
20 See 47 C.F.R. § 74.1263(b).
21 See 47 C.F.R. § 74.1231(f) and (g).
22 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 15893.
23 Amendment of Part 74, 5 FCC Rcd at 7224.  See supra, n.8.
24 Id.  See supra, n.10.  In 1981, when the Commission had first declined to allow cross-service translators, the 
Commission also noted certain technical problems with the potential simultaneous receipt by FM translators of 
multiple AM signals.  See Amendment of Part 74, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 49 RR 2d 1499, 1500 (1981).  
That technical issue was resolved when the Commission allowed fill-in translators to use any terrestrial facilities 
 (continued. . .)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-59
5
7. The NAB Petition asked us to revisit the issue of AM-FM cross-service translating and 
amend the Commission’s rules to allow AM broadcast stations to operate FM translator stations.26 Based 
on the comments received in response to the NAB Petition and the NPRM, we have reached the 
conclusion that our efforts to improve conditions on the AM band have been useful, but those efforts 
simply cannot overcome the technical limitations of the AM band.  Accordingly, we find that significant 
changes in the environment in which AM stations operate warrant a fresh look at allowing AM stations to 
use FM translators as a fill-in service.  
III. DISCUSSION  
8. Having largely completed the AM improvement proceedings that we undertook previously 
and having assessed the AM band as it exists today, we now conclude that cross-service translators will 
improve the ability of AM stations to provide service to their local communities by filling in service voids 
in their intended coverage areas.  Our AM improvement efforts have provided some benefits to the AM 
band and the in-band on-channel (IBOC) digital terrestrial radio technology holds great promise for future 
improvements in AM audio quality.  These developments, however, have not overcome the fundamental 
interference problems of AM radio, which have risen to higher levels than ever before.  Those 
interference sources have changed the competitive posture of AM stations, because interference makes it 
impossible for many stations to provide a listenable groundwave signal in a substantial part of their 
primary service areas.  Allowing these stations to use FM translators for fill-in service appears to be the 
best way to help them provide consistent service  throughout their predicted service area, both in daytime 
and nighttime hours. 
9. We disagree with CBS and others that the Commission’s prior reasons for rejecting cross-
service translating remain sound.27 As indicated above, circumstances have changed dramatically since 
the FCC last addressed this issue.  In 1990, having just completed a review of numerous technical, legal, 
and policy issues relating to AM broadcasting, the Commission’s focus was on direct measures to achieve 
“revitalization of the AM broadcast service by the year 2000.”28 Those measures have now been 
implemented, but AM listenership has continued to decline.29  Under the present circumstances, we agree 
with NAB that cross-service translating represents a logical extension of the Commission’s longstanding 
efforts to support and improve the AM service that will provide licensees with additional flexibility to 
respond to the technical and economic conditions facing the AM service.30  In addition, we can no longer 
___________________________
(Continued from previous page)
available, including microwave stations and ISDN lines, to receive the signal being broadcast.  See 47 C.F.R. § 
74.1231(b).
25 Amendment of Part 74, 5 FCC Rcd at 7224.
26 NAB Petition at 12-15.  As we noted in the NPRM, the American Community AM Broadcasters Association filed 
a similar petition for rule making. See NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd at 15892 n.12 (citing and summarizing the “Petition for 
Rulemaking of the American Community AM Broadcasters Association,” RM-9419 (filed Aug. 13, 1997).  In light 
of our action taken here, we will dismiss that petition. 
27 CBS Comments at 1-2.  See John Nathan Anderson Comments at 4; NPR Comments at 2-3.
28 Expanded Band R&O, 6 FCC Rcd at 6274.
29 See supra, para. 4.  We also note that the number of licensed AM stations has dropped since 1990, while the 
number of licensed FM stations has increased considerably.  See Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 1990, 
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/totals/bt901231.html (4987 AM stations and 4392 commercial FM stations) and 
Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2007, http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/totals/bt071231.html (4776 AM 
stations and 6309 commercial FM stations).  This confirms the reduced viability of AM stations compared to FM 
stations.   
30 See NAB Petition at 15 (arguing that “another boost” is needed “to enhance AM stations’ ability to serve 
audiences and compete in the ever-changing media marketplace.”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-59
6
conclude that most AM licensees have no need for fill-in service facilities on the FM band.  It is 
undisputed that many AM stations lose both nighttime and daytime coverage at various locations within 
their protected daytime coverage areas.  The losses occur for different reasons than in the FM service, but 
the record clearly reflects that many AM licensees have a strong need and desire to supplement their 
stations’ coverage with fill-in service.  Cross-service translating would allow AM stations to ameliorate 
their signal losses and provide more continuous and consistent service throughout their protected service 
areas. Just as we have allowed FM stations to use FM translators to provide fill-in service within their 
predicted service areas, we believe AM stations likewise should be allowed to do so.31
10. In addition, we now have the benefit of examining the experience of stations that have 
received special temporary authority (“STA”) to rebroadcast their AM signals on FM translators pursuant 
to the NPRM.32 This experience generally appears to indicate that cross-service translators have 
advanced the Commission’s interest in localism, competition and diversity.  Based on the record in this 
docket, we conclude that allowing AM stations to use FM translators for the limited purpose of filling any 
service voids in their intended coverage areas is a logical extension of our longstanding efforts to support 
and improve service on the AM band.
11. As we noted above, the comments filed in response to the NAB Petition were 
overwhelmingly in favor of allowing AM stations to use FM translators to retransmit their signals within 
each AM station’s current coverage area.33 Similarly, the overwhelming majority of comments filed in 
response to the NPRM support the proposed rule changes.  Many commenters state that the 
Commission’s proposed actions would provide much needed relief to the AM service from both 
competitive and technical standpoints, and would further the Commission’s policy goals of promoting 
competition, diversity, and localism.34 Several commenters claim that many AM station listeners have 
migrated over to newer media, such as satellite radio and Internet radio.35 Commenters state that this fact, 
coupled with increased interference from a variety of sources such as power lines, computers and 
electronic appliances, have made it difficult for AM stations to remain competitive in the marketplace.36
12. Commenters currently broadcasting their AM signals on FM translators pursuant to STAs 
state that they have greatly increased service to their communities of license and have expanded their 
local programming.  One commenter claims that the positive feedback it has received from the 
  
31 We disagree that cross-service translating will fundamentally alter the nature of translator service.  See CBS 
Comments at 3-5; John Nathan Anderson Comments at 3.  The proper role of FM translators is to provide secondary 
service to areas in which direct reception is unsatisfactory.  See Amendment of Part 74, 5 FCC Rcd at 7219.  
Consistent with that role, the rules that we adopt herein will limit cross-service translators to providing fill-in service 
within AM stations’ authorized service areas, rather than expanding service.  To the extent that some AM stations 
will be able to expand their hours of operation, the purpose of that expansion likewise comports with the proper role 
of FM translators to allow continuous coverage within a primary station’s service area. 
32 As of March 19, 2009, the Media Bureau has issued 215 STAs to permit the rebroadcast of AM signals on FM 
translators.
33 See n. 3 supra; see also Minority Media and Telecommunications Council/National Association of Black-Owned 
Broadcasters, Reply Comments at 2, RM No. 11338 (filed Sept. 6, 2006) (“promoting creativity, ingenuity and 
attentiveness to the needs of the public can best be achieved if the Commission adopts policies that tend to enhance 
opportunities for minorities and female ownership.  It is well established that minority ownership must be 
considered in spectrum management proceedings.”  (“MMTC/NABOB Reply Comments”).
34 See, e.g., Comments of National Association of Broadcasters (“NAB”) at 1.
35 See Comments of Jon Thompson at 1; Comments of Named State Broadcasters Association at 6.
36 See Comments of Bud Janes at 1; Comments of Urban Radio Licenses, LLC (“Urban Radio Licenses”) at 1-2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-59
7
community has been “overwhelming,”37 while another calls the Commission’s “trial” period in granting 
STAs an “unmitigated success.”38
13. The licensee of WDXY(AM), Sumter, South Carolina, describes the station’s FM translator 
as “a god-send for the radio station and the Sumter community.”39 The station had been suffering from a 
poor signal, low ratings and very lean business.  Sumter and the surrounding area, including Shaw Air 
Force Base, long ago outgrew WDXY(AM)’s ability to cover the market.  With the translator providing a 
pristine signal, advertising sales have improved and the station is operating at a profit for the first time in 
many years.  The station has hired a new local news person, a new program director and a new producer 
and provides regular coverage of Shaw Air Force Base issues and more coverage of live events, including 
high school sports events that the station could not cover before.  The station also is receiving and airing 
more public service announcements and airs holiday greetings from men and women serving abroad to 
their families in Sumter and the surrounding communities.40
14. Similarly, Holston Valley Broadcasting Corporation, which operates three cross-service 
translators pursuant to STAs, reports that “enhancement of reception of the programming of these three 
AM stations in and around their home communities, especially during nighttime hours, has been 
substantial.”41 Listeners of the stations now have “excellent reception in areas where it had not been 
available in many decades,” allowing them to hear the stations’ local news and sports coverage, as well as 
the stations’ other varied programming.42
15. Alan Miller, Managing Partner of the licensee of WRHI(AM), Rock Hill, South Carolina, 
describes the benefits of that station’s FM translator to the local community:
In many cases listeners within our own community have re-discovered 
what local radio is all about.  In particular at night, we are now able to 
give our community a good clean signal to broadcast our city’s three 
high school football teams.  The community is also excited about the 
upcoming basketball season and our ability to present live play-by-play 
of both our local high schools and Winthrop University basketball.  We 
aired our first political debate on the translator during this past October 
and have been able to deliver other important news with evening reports.
We are also happy to report that we are now able to provide traffic and 
weather reports to our commuters leaving the county for Charlotte.  With 
the shorter days in the Winter, we have previously been handicapped 
with limited coverage of 5-6 miles until after 7 am.  As commuters 
returned home in the evening, we would have limited coverage after 5:30 
PM.  The translator NOW enables us to fully serve our early morning 
and late afternoon commuters with not only local traffic and weather, but
also all the local news of the day.  The FM translator has helped us 
restore the coverage that our community once enjoyed and needed.43  
  
37 See Comments of Our Three Sons Broadcasting at 2.
38 See Reply Comments of MG Media, Inc. at 1.
39 Joint Comments of State Broadcasters Associations at 6.
40 Id. at 6-7.
41 Comments of Holston Valley Broadcasting Corporation at 2.
42 Id.
43 Joint Comments of State Broadcasters Associations at 4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-59
8
16. A few commenters oppose the proposal or question its effectiveness.  National Public Radio 
states that the NPRM fails to explain adequately why circumstances have materially changed,44 while 
CBS argues that the proposal may potentially weaken the AM band by drawing AM listeners to the FM 
band and thus adding to the migration of listeners away from the AM band.45 Some commenters state that 
the proposal will do little to improve the condition of the AM service and will cause increased 
interference to the already congested FM band.46 Others argue that the Commission should first address 
interference issues presented by digital audio broadcasting (“DAB”) in the AM spectrum rather than 
effectively allowing AM stations to operate as de facto FM stations.47  
17. Prometheus asserts that the proposal would take away possibilities from new low power FM 
(“LPFM”) entrants.48 It argues that awarding FM translators to AM incumbents will do nothing to 
advance diversity since that channel will be merely duplicating an incumbent’s signal.49 It emphasizes 
that the Commission should not allow the purchase or use of translators for the repetition of AM signals 
until the pending LPFM rulemaking50 is concluded and the priority issues regarding LPFMs and 
translators are resolved.51
18. Several commenters claim that Prometheus’s concerns are unjustified.  NAB states that 
Prometheus provides no supporting evidence for its contention that the Commission should elevate the 
public interest value of LPFM service over AM stations.52 Saga Communications and other commenters 
note that there is little risk that the proposed rule changes will adversely impact the availability of 
spectrum because AM stations must use already licensed or permitted translators until a window opens, 
and the Commission is expected to open different windows for different services over time to 
accommodate demand for non-translator services.53 Some commenters observe that relatively few AM 
radio stations have applied for STAs to rebroadcast on an FM translator since the Commission began 
granting such authority almost a year ago, and conclude that there is no reason to expect thousands more 
  
44 See Comments of National Public Radio (“NPR”) at 2.  We believe that the foregoing discussion fully addresses 
this concern. 
45 See Comments of CBS Radio Inc. (“CBS”) at 1.  CBS also argues that the proposed rule change will allow fill-in 
translators will be able to operate at higher power than most FM stations, citing the 25-mile limit proposed for fill-in 
AM translators.  Id. at 3-4.  However, the existing effective radiated power limit of 250 watts will apply to these 
translators.  See 47 C.F.R. § 74.1235(a).  As we explain below, the 25-mile limit is simply a constraint to prevent 
high-power AM stations from using fill-in translators in locations outside their core service area.
46 See Reply Comments of NPR at 2; Comments of CBS at 4; Comments of Aaron Read at 1; Comments of John 
Nathan Anderson at 2.  We note, however, that FM translators operate on a non-interfering basis.  See 47 C.F.R. § 
74.1203(a)-(b).  Accordingly, this modification of the FM translator service and eligibility rules will not result in 
new interference.  
47 Comments of John Nathan Anderson at 5-8.  As we explain below, we do not intend to allow fill-in cross-service 
translators to be operated as surrogates for FM stations.  The DAB interference issue is beyond the scope of this 
proceeding and is best addressed in our DAB radio docket, MM 99-325.  See Digital Audio Broadcasting Systems 
and Their Impact on the Terrestrial Radio Broadcast Service, Second Report and Order, First Order on 
Reconsideration and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 10344 (2007). 
48 See Comments of Prometheus Radio Project (“Prometheus”) at 4.  See also Comments of John Nathan Anderson 
at 2-3; Comments of Catholic Radio Association at 2.
49 See Comments of Prometheus at 7.
50 See Creation of a Low Power Radio Service, Third Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 21912 (2007) (“LPFM Third Report”), recon. pending.
51 Id. at 7-8.
52 Reply Comments of NAB at 6.
53 Reply Comments of Saga Communications at 3; Reply Comments of Urban Radio Licenses at 4; Comments of 
NAB at 7.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-59
9
if the proposed rule changes are adopted.54 Other commenters note that the Commission’s recent actions 
in the LPFM Third Report ensure that the current proposal will not jeopardize the LPFM service.  For 
example, MG Media asserts that recent LPFM proposed rule changes and revised processing policies will 
open up more frequencies for LPFM, and that more spectrum will become available for LPFM with 
television stations vacating Channel 6 analog allotments after the DTV transition.55 Clear Channel points 
out that the Commission has made clear that LPFMs, not translators, will have the next opportunity to file 
for additional spectrum.56
19. We agree with the majority of commenters that changing the FM translator rules to allow 
AM stations to use FM translators as a fill-in service generally would serve the public interest.57 This rule 
change will help AM stations retain and build their audiences, furthering our goal of service by stations to 
their local communities.  The rule change will also promote diversity to some extent in the nighttime 
hours by allowing Class D stations to expand their programming to include nighttime coverage of local 
news, sporting events and issues of local interest.  We agree with the commenters who have noted that our 
interim practice of allowing AM stations to obtain STAs to operate FM translators in this manner 
generally appears to have been successful in advancing the public interest goals of localism, competition 
and diversity.  We conclude that allowing currently authorized FM translators – both licensed translators 
and existing construction permits that have not expired – to rebroadcast AM signals would benefit the 
public.  Those licensees that are currently rebroadcasting AM signals pursuant to STAs must file written 
notifications specifying their AM primary stations pursuant to Section 74.1251(c) of the Rules58 to 
continue such operations.  We direct the Media Bureau to cancel all AM rebroadcast STAs and to dismiss 
all pending STA requests on the effective date of this Report and Order.
20. We believe, however, that Prometheus makes a valid point concerning the potential impact 
on the LPFM service if we allowed AM stations to use future FM translator authorizations, particularly 
those currently on file as applications in our FM translator “backlog.”  We recently commented that the 
FM band is “maxed out.”59 Although this comment did not apply to FM translators, which enjoy greater 
flexibility than full-service stations or LPFM stations under our licensing rules, we do believe that 
creating greater demand for future FM translator authorizations by allowing them to be used by AM as 
well as FM stations could adversely affect opportunities for new LPFM stations.  Accordingly, we will 
limit the rule change being adopted here to currently authorized FM translators.60 Specifically, the rule 
change will apply to those translator stations with licenses61 or permits62 in effect as of May 1, 2009.  
  
54 Comments of Clear Channel Communications, Inc. (“Clear Channel”) at 7; Reply Comments of NAB at 8.
55 Reply Comments of MG Media at 4-5.
56 Comments of Clear Channel at 7.
57 As noted by NAB, minority and female owned stations “further the goal of the Commission’s diversity policy –
ensuring that information is available from a multiplicity of sources . . . the action NAB suggests in this Petition 
would help AM stations remain viable and therefore continue to be relevant to their communities, and further the 
government’s interest in diversity.  MMTC/NABOB Reply Comments at 2, citing NAB Petition for Rulemaking at 
3, RM No. 11338 (filed July 14, 2006);  see also MMTC/NABOB Reply Comments at 3 (“[s]uch an initiative would 
do much to increase AM stations’ asset values, and thereby enhance minority broadcasters’ ability to raise capital 
and expand their holdings”).
58 47 C.F.R. § 74.1251(c).
59 See LPFM Third Report , 22 FCC Rcd  at 21932 and 21944-45; see also Comments of John Nathan Anderson at 
3.
60 Given this limitation, we need not address the issue of priorities between LPFM stations and translators here.  We 
will address that issue in the pending LPFM rulemaking.
61 As of March 1, 2009, there were 4,033 outstanding non-reserved band translator licenses, including more than 
2,400 issued out of the 2003 FM translator filing window.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-59
10
Subsequent modification of any such translator station will not affect its eligibility to rebroadcast an AM 
signal.  A translator station’s initial primary station designation is made in FCC Form 349.  Thereafter, a 
permittee or licensee must submit written notification to the Media Bureau of any change in primary 
station designation.  Any application or notification from an FM translator station initially authorized 
after May 1, 2009, will be dismissed or returned without further consideration if it specifies an AM 
primary station.  Any request to rebroadcast an AM station with an expired translator station construction 
permit will be dismissed without further consideration.  Almost two-thirds of all non-reserved band 
translator authorizations were issued out of the 2003 translator window.  Accordingly, we believe the 
scope of the eligibility requirements we adopt today will provide ample flexibility to the nation’s AM 
broadcasters.63 In the longer term, we have already noted that LPFMs, not translators, will have the next 
opportunity to apply for new spectrum.64 After that LPFM filing window occurs, we can revisit the issue 
of expanding opportunities for AM stations to use FM translators.  In the meantime, we wish to 
emphasize in particular that we do not anticipate allowing any party to circumvent the limitation adopted 
here by obtaining special temporary authority for a new FM translator station for the purpose of 
rebroadcasting an AM station.
A.  Program Origination for Class D Stations.  
21. The NPRM tentatively concluded that daytime-only Class D AM stations should be 
permitted to originate programming over fill-in FM translators during the hours their stations are not 
authorized to operate at their daytime power levels.  A number of parties support allowing Class D station 
licensees to originate programming over fill-in FM translators at night, but caution that the “rule change 
should not result in permitting wholesale program origination on FM translators.”65 Radio Broadcasters 
Association of Puerto Rico states that allowing Class D stations to originate local programming at night 
through the use of FM translators would “directly and immediately increase the amount of local content 
produced by AM licensees.”66 Other commenters argue that FM translators licensed to Class D AM 
stations should be able to broadcast 24 hours a day.67 Northeast Indiana Broadcasting, Inc. asserts that “it 
doesn’t make sense for an FM translator to be turned on and off,” and that only full-day operation of an 
FM translator would “provide meaningful service to listeners.”68 A few commenters request that the 
___________________________
(Continued from previous page)
62 As of March 1, 2009, there were 112 outstanding construction permits issued out of the 2003 FM translator filing 
window.
63 See also Letter from the Honorable Mike Doyle, Lee Terry and John Spratt to Chairman Kevin J. Martin, Sept. 
23, 2008 (encouraging the Commission to allow AM stations to use only currently licensed translators and granted 
construction permits until the next LPFM window).
64 See LPFM Third Report, 22 FCC Rcd at 21943 (“The next filing window for a non-tabled aural broadcast service 
will be for new LPFM stations.”).  We also intend to dispose of substantially all of the approximately 3,600 
noncommercial educational FM applications filed in the October 2007 filing window prior to opening an LPFM 
window, to maximize the availability of spectrum for LPFM applicants.
65 Comments of Sutton Broadcasting at 8.  See also Comments of Christian Broadcasting at 4; Comments of AM 
Daytimers Association at 3-4; Comments of Radio Broadcasters Assoc. of Puerto Rico at 3; Comments of Timothy 
Cutforth at 2; Comments of Bart Walker at 3; Landmark Baptist Church at 3; Comments of Larry Langford at 5.  
66 See Comments of Radio Broadcaster Assoc. at 4.
67 Comments of Progressive Broadcasting at 3; Comments of Northeast Indiana Broadcasting, Inc. at 2; Comments 
of MG Media at 5; Comments of Colquitt at 1; Comments of Richard Mangels at 1; Comments of E. Morgan 
Skinner, Jr. at 1. 
68 Comments of Northeast Indiana Broadcasting, Inc. at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-59
11
Commission allow AM stations to conform the FM translator call signs to their AM call signs in order to 
better inform the public that their programs were being carried on FM translators.69
22. We agree with the commenters who argue that an FM translator should be permitted to 
broadcast programming of a Class D AM station during the hours that the AM station is not authorized to 
operate, provided that the FM translator complies with the fill-in restrictions defined by the AM station’s 
daytime facility.  These stations operate at a significant competitive disadvantage due to their shorter 
broadcast day and their inability to broadcast year-round during the entirety of the critical drive-time 
portion of their broadcast day.  Permitting these stations to use FM translators to continue their service to 
the public during these important hours is consistent with the fundamental purpose of fill-in FM 
translators, which is to provide continuity of service within licensed service areas.  Daytime-only stations 
exist only because of AM signal propagation differences at night versus daytime.  FM translators do not 
suffer from the same limitation, so there is no point in applying that limitation to AM stations using FM 
translators for fill-in service.  The comments filed on behalf of stations that are using FM translators 
pursuant to STAs confirm the significance of this change in policy for service to the public by Class D 
stations in particular.70 Importantly, imposition of the proposed FM translator site restrictions will limit 
such operations to those areas in which, and those listeners to whom, these stations provide their core 
service.  Accordingly, our rule changes will allow FM translators providing fill-in service for Class D AM 
stations to originate programming when the AM station is not operating.71  If the Class D AM station 
operates with a reduced power level during certain hours (i.e., pre-sunrise and post-sunset or nighttime 
hours), then the FM translator may only rebroadcast the AM station’s programming during those hours.  
We believe that this change will raise the level of service provided by Class D stations to their local 
communities.  With respect to the issue of “conforming” call signs, adopting the proposed call sign 
naming system would be contrary to the current system utilized by other translator stations. Moreover, 
because the current system for FM booster call sign selection allows for conforming call signs, allowing 
FM translators also to conform their call signs could prompt potential conflicts with FM booster call 
signs. Therefore, we will continue to use the same translator call sign system in place for FM stations.
Stations using fill-in FM translators can and do promote the availability of those translators with on-air 
announcements on their primary stations and other promotional techniques.
B.  Implementation of Rule Changes.
23. While most commenters support the immediate implementation of the proposed rule 
changes, a few parties support a phased-in approach based on an AM station’s hardship or due to 
concerns that implementation of the rules without restrictions would fail to provide relief to those in most 
need.72 Meridian Broadcasting notes that in most areas, the availability of FM translators to rebroadcast 
AM signals will depend on the willingness of the FM translator licensees to sell translators to AM 
  
69 Comments of North Palm Beach Broadcasting, Inc. at 3.  See also Comments of Pee Dee Broadcasting at 3-4; 
Comments of Miller Communications, Inc. at 6-7; Reply Comments of Sutton Broadcasting at 3-4.  Saga 
Communications, Inc. (“Saga”) asserts that this is the current practice among LPTV licensees and requests 
amendment of Section 74.1283(a) of the Rules to allow such call sign changes.  See Comments of Saga at 3-4.
70 See, e.g., Joint Comments of State Broadcasters Associations at 6-8.
71 We are not modifying the existing rules that allow FM translator stations to originate programming in certain 
other situations.  See 47 C.F.R. § 74.1231(f) and (g) (permitting limited program origination by FM translator 
stations for emergency warnings of imminent danger or to seek or acknowledge financial support).
72 See Comments of James Foster at 3; Comments of Talley Broadcasting Corp. (“Talley Broadcasting”) at 4; 
Comments of Broadcast Communications, Inc. at 3; Comments of Pocahantas Communications Cooperative Corp. 
(“Pocahantas”) at 2.  Talley Broadcasting also suggests that the Commission conduct a computer-based analysis and 
to provide each daytimer with at least one FM translator authorization so as to replicate the station’s licensed 
daytime service area. Comments of Talley Broadcasting at 4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-59
12
licensees.73 As such, it states that the public interest benefits to be gained from phased deployment of the 
new rules are not likely to outweigh the benefits of additional service that would flow from immediate 
implementation of the new rules.74
24. Some commenters support the establishment of a priority system for the next translator 
filing window, or a “needs-based queue” for the Commission’s processing of applications.75 Several 
commenters assert that the “daytime only” stations should receive priority.76 Several argue that Class C 
stations should also receive first consideration, and that Class A and B stations should be secondary or 
considered on a case-by-case basis.77 Some commenters maintain that other factors should be considered, 
such as: whether the station serves a minority audience; the size of the station’s market and competition in 
that market; whether the station is locally owned78 or providing the only local service in its county;79
whether the station is licensed on a noncommercial educational (“NCE”) basis; the proximity of the 
proposed translator site to the primary broadcast site; and, whether the station serves an area where no 
translator applications are pending and no translator service now exists.80
25. We agree with the commenters who argue that immediate implementation of the rule 
changes is preferable to phased-in implementation.  For the reasons stated above, the opportunity to use 
an FM translator for fill-in AM service will only exist where a translator is authorized and available.  
Accordingly, we see no need to phase in these rule change.  Our experience with interim STAs indicates 
that there is no need for phased-in implementation because the process has been open to, and pursued by, 
all types of stations. Accordingly, we do not see any meaningful benefit in phasing the rule changes in by 
excluding some stations from the process initially.  Instead, we conclude that the public interest benefits 
from the rule changes will be realized more quickly with immediate implementation rather than phased-in 
implementation of the revised rules.
26. With respect to the suggestions of priorities or preferences in the next FM translator filing 
window, we find no basis in this docket for adopting any priorities or preferences.  For the reasons 
explained above, we are limiting these rule changes to apply only to currently authorized FM translators.  
In the event the Commission later revisits this issue in anticipation of a new FM translator filing window, 
it can decide at that time whether any priorities or preferences would be appropriate.
  
73 Comments of Meridian Broadcasting Inc. (“Meridian”) at 2.
74 See id.  See also Comments of Progressive Broadcasting Systems, Inc. (“Progressive”) at 2; Comments of 
Christian Broadcasting System, Ltd. (“Christian Broadcasting”) at 3; Comments of Astro Enterprises, Inc. at 2; 
Comments of Bart Walker at 2.
75 See Comments of Mark D. Humphrey at 1; Comments of Broadcast Communications, Inc. at 4; Comments of MG 
Media at 3-4; Comments of Larry Langford at 3; Comments of Scott Bailey at 1.  See also Comments of Urban 
Radio Licenses at 6 (stating that the rules should be effective all at once but that the Commission should prioritize 
applications); Comments of Larry Langford at 2 (suggests accepting applications all at once and then assigning 
certain weight to specific classes of stations where there is a conflict in geography or spectrum availability); 
Comments of AM Daytimers Association at 2 (suggesting that the Commission establish a “needs based queue”).
76 Comments of Mark D. Humphrey at 1; Comments of Broadcast Communications, Inc. at 4; Comments of MG 
Media at 4; Comments of Larry Langford at 3; Comments of Scott Bailey at 1. 
77 Comments of Larry Langford at 3; Comments of Bob Bittner at 1 (supports giving AM daytimers priority); 
Comments of Scott Bailey at 1; Comments of Pocahantas at 2; Comments of Sutton Broadcasting Corp. (“Sutton”) 
at 6; Comments of Richardson Broadcasting Corp. (“Richardson”) at 5-6.
78 Comments of Morris Broadcasting Company of New Jersey, Inc. (“Morris Broadcasting”) at 4.
79 Comments of AM Daytimers Association at 2.  See also Comments of Samuelson-Glushko Technology Law and 
Policy Clinic (“Samuelson-Glushko”) at 32 (stating that whether the AM station is NCE, and proximity of the 
proposed translator site to the primary broadcast site, should also be considerations).
80 Comments of George Simmons at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-59
13
C.  Potential Ownership Limits on FM Translators As AM Fill-ins.
27. The NPRM asked for comment on whether the ability to use an FM translator as an AM fill-
in should be limited to those parties who do not own an FM station in the market.81 Most commenters 
oppose the idea of imposing limits on an AM station’s use of an FM translator based on its ownership of 
an FM station in the same market.82 NAB states that whether an AM station is commonly owned with an 
FM station is “irrelevant to the number of translators the AM station should be allowed to use, and to 
impose such a restriction would be discriminatory.”83 Clear Channel and other commenters argue that 
FM translator rules currently do not provide for these limitations, and assert that the success of the interim 
STA grant process demonstrates that there is no justification for the Commission to adopt ownership-
based and usage restrictions.84  
28. The NPRM asked whether there should be a limit on the number of fill-in FM translators 
allowed for an AM station, and if so whether the number should vary based on the class of the AM 
station.85 Most commenters do not support limitations on the number of fill-in translators allowed,86 or 
believe that the number should be restricted to the number of translators necessary to allow the AM 
station to cover its community of license.87 Several commenters note that there is no corresponding limit 
on FM licensees’ ownership of FM translators.88 Some commenters suggest setting ownership limits on 
AM licensees in order to curb speculation, offering proposals ranging from one to ten translators.89 The 
AM Daytimers Association suggests that AM licensees be required to rebroadcast the AM station 
programming on each of the FM fill-in translators, stating that an AM licensee would not be inclined to 
use FM translators that overlap since they will all carry the same programming.90
29. We conclude that we need not impose either type of limit on AM stations using FM 
translators for fill-in service.  These FM translators will be required to rebroadcast an existing AM signal 
during the hours that the AM station is authorized to operate, subject to the limited exception that a Class 
  
81 22 FCC Rcd at 15897.
82 See Comments of Progressive Broadcasting Systems, Inc. at 2; Comments of Christian Broadcasting at 3; 
Comments of Morgan Murphy Media at 3; Comments of Urban Radio Licenses at 7; Comments of Broadcast 
Communications, Inc. at 4.  But see Comments of AM Daytimers Association at 3 (supporting limits if an AM 
licensee also owns an FM station); Comments of Larry Langford at 4 (stating that the Commission must exclude 
those AM stations whose owners have at least one FM station that covers substantially the same market area or 
where the 60 dBu contour overlaps the 2 mV/m contour of the AM station that is co-owned); Reply Comments of 
Prometheus at 7 (only standalone AM stations who do not own an FM station in the same market should be eligible 
for an FM translator).
83 Reply Comments of NAB at 13.
84 Comments of Clear Channel at 9.  
85 22 FCC Rcd at 15897.
86 See Comments of Meridian at 2; Comments of Progressive Broadcasting, Inc. at 2; Comments of Christian 
Broadcasting at 3.  
87 Comments of OneCom, Inc. at 3; Comments of Edward A. Schober at 3.
88 See Comments of Urban Radio Licenses at 7; Comments of Clear Channel at 10; Landmark Baptist Church of 
Haines City, FL (“Landmark Baptist Church”) at 2.
89 Comments of Broadcast Communications, Inc. at 3-4 (suggesting limit of ten); Comments of MG Media at 3 
(same); Comments of George Simmons at 6 (suggesting limit of four, stating that 10 is too high and might foster 
trafficking); Comments of Cliff Davis at 3 (suggesting limit of five); Comments of Colquitt Community Radio, Inc. 
(“Colquitt”) at 1 (same); Comments of Larry Langford at 5 (suggesting 3-5 limit); Comments of Prometheus at 6 
(suggesting limit of one); Comments of Pocahontas at 2 (stating that the limitation on the number of translators 
should be based on class).  
90 Comments of AM Daytimers Association at 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-59
14
D station may originate programming on the FM translator during the hours the Class D station does not 
operate.  Given this limitation and the limitation on the allowed signal contour of this type of translator, 
the FM translator will not be an independent “voice” in the market.  Similarly, we need not specifically 
limit the number of FM translators that an AM station can use for this purpose in light of other protections 
already in place.  Section 74.1232(b) of our rules currently limits the ability to hold “same area” translator 
authorizations, requiring a showing of “technical need” for an additional translator serving substantially 
the same area as the first.91 This restriction will apply to FM translators used as fill-in AM translators to 
prevent an AM station from monopolizing the available spectrum in its area.  The “technical need” 
requirement for a second FM translator serving an area substantially the same as the first translator will be 
applied as it has in the past.92  
30. We do not intend to allow these cross-service translators to be used as surrogates for FM 
stations or to circumvent our local radio ownership limits.93 We would consider it an abuse of our rules 
for a licensee to use two or more cross-service translators to effectively create a de facto FM station.  
Similarly, we would consider it an abuse of our rules for a licensee to use two or more FM translators in a 
manner that circumvents the local radio ownership limits.  In such cases, the Commission reserves the 
right to bar additional cross-service translators and use its revocation procedures94 to terminate specific 
cross-service translator arrangements which it determines are inconsistent with our diversity, competition 
or localism goals.  We also reserve the right to designate particular applications, including license renewal 
applications filed by any licensee apparently involved in any such abuse, for hearing pursuant to Section 
309(e) of the Act.95
D.  Rebroadcast Consent Agreements.
31. The draft revision to Section 73.1232(d) attached to the NPRM provided that an FM 
translator providing service to an AM fill-in area will be authorized only to the permittee or licensee of 
the AM station being rebroadcast.96 However, the NPRM asked whether, and in what circumstances, it 
would be appropriate to allow AM stations to enter into rebroadcast consent agreements with FM 
translator licensees.97 The vast majority of commenters supports this proposal.98 Many commenters state 
that the Commission should apply the same rules regarding financial support to AM as are applied to 
FM.99 Sutton Broadcasting argues that rebroadcasts on unaffiliated out-of-market stations should also be 
allowed, as long as similar financial restrictions continue to be imposed.100 Most commenters assert that 
an applicant seeking to avail itself of spectrum specifically reserved for NCE services must propose an 
  
91 See 47 C.F.R. § 74.1232(b).
92 See Amendment of Part 74, 5 FCC Rcd at 7222 (“To support their applications for multiple translators in the same 
area, applicants will be required to describe any relevant terrain obstruction as a means of showing “technical need”, 
and, if useful, may include a shadowing study.”). 
93 See 47 C.F.R. § 73.3555(a).
94 See 47 U.S.C. § 312.
95 See 47 U.S.C. § 309(e).
96 22 FCC Rcd at 15904.
97 Id. at 15897-98.
98 See Comments of Christian Broadcasting at 3; Reply Comments of Urban Radio Licenses at 6; Comments of 
Holston Valley Broadcasting Corporation (“Holston”) at 3; Comments of OneCom, Inc. at 4; Comments of Eastern 
Sierra Broadcasting at 7; Comments of NAB at 10; Comments of Colquitt at 1.
99 See Comments of Meridian at 2; Comments of Richardson at 7-8; Comments of Broadcast Communications, Inc. 
at 5; Comments of Sutton Broadcasting at 8-9; Comments of Timothy Cutforth at 3.  But see Comments of Talley 
Broadcasting at 5-6 (opposes time-brokering). 
100 Comments of Sutton Broadcasting at 9. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-59
15
NCE service and otherwise qualify as an NCE station.101 The AM Daytimers Association alone supports 
a commercial AM station’s use of a reserved band FM translator, as long as its use is at nighttime or 
reduced power.102
32. We conclude that we will allow AM stations to enter into agreements for the rebroadcast of 
their station on FM translators in the non-reserved band licensed to unrelated entities.  Our goal here is to 
be flexible in finding ways to allow AM stations to overcome their signal limitations, and allowing this 
arrangement when an FM translator meets the contour restrictions for AM fill-in service will serve that 
goal.  However, we will not extend this policy to FM translators in the reserved band.  Historically, few 
NCE stations have operated on the AM band, and therefore we do not see a significant need for reserved 
band FM translators for AM fill-in service.  We also believe that allowing rebroadcasting of AM stations 
by reserved band FM translators would undermine the distinction between the reserved and non-reserved 
bands and present the potential for abuse of our NCE rules by reserved band FM translators.  We also will 
not modify our financial support rule to allow AM licensees to provide financial support for a translator in 
situations where an FM licensee cannot do so.103 Our current financial support rule has worked well to 
prevent licensees from using FM translators to extend their signals beyond their protected coverage 
contour.  We see no basis in the record for any departure from the rule for AM licensees.
E.  Simulcasts or Program Origination on LPFMs.
33. The NPRM asked whether it would be appropriate to allow licensees of AM Class C and 
Class D stations to simulcast and/or originate programming over an LPFM station as a fill-in service 
similar to the proposed FM translator fill-in service at times when the AM station is not authorized to 
operate at its authorized daytime power.  If this were deemed desirable, the NPRM asked for comments 
on how this could be accomplished in a manner that is consistent with the LPFM service and eligibility 
rules.104 Most parties who commented on this issue supported the idea of allowing the simulcast and/or 
origination of programming over LPFM stations.105 Several commenters support the proposal as long as 
the LPFM station’s signal meets the criteria set forth for translators and the LPFM station’s participation 
complies with the Commission’s programming and technical rules governing LPFM service.106 Three 
commenters argue that only AM stations that are licensed to the same community as the LPFM and/or 
completely encompass the LPFM’s 60 dBu contour within the AM station’s 5 mV/m day contour should 
be allowed to provide programming to the LPFM.107 Another commenter supports allowing AM stations 
to simulcast/originate programming over an LPFM station, but the criteria should remain that the FM 
signal should always be the lesser of the (1) AM’s 2 mV/m daytime contour or (2) within a 25-mile radius 
of the AM tower site, as long as harmful interference is not given to already licensed services.108
34. Prometheus opposes the ownership or use of an LPFM station for the rebroadcast of an AM 
signal.109 It notes that rebroadcast of AM station by an LPFM station would likely include commercials, 
  
101 Comments of Holston at 4; Comments of Pocahantas at 2-3; Comments of OneCom, Inc. at 6; Comments of NPR 
at 5; Comments of Timothy Cutforth at 4.
102 Comments of AM Daytimers Association at 3.
103 See 47 C.F.R. § 74.1232(e).
104 22 FCC Rcd at 15898.
105 Comments of Christian Broadcasting at 4; Comments of Talley Broadcasting at 6; Comments of Morgan County 
Broadcasting Company, Inc. at 2. 
106 Comments of NAB at 11-12; Comments of Bart Walker at 3.
107 Comments of James Foster at 3; Comments of Graig Jenkins at 1; Comments of Larry Langford at 1.
108 Comments of Bart Walker at 3.
109 See Comments of Prometheus at 1.  See also Comments of Cullen Zethmayr at 3; Comments of James Whitaker 
at 4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-59
16
which are prohibited in the LPFM service.110 It further notes that, unlike the selection of AM 
broadcasters, LPFM licenses are awarded based on the applicant’s “established community presence” and 
commitment to “local program origination.”111 Meridian Broadcasting, Inc. also opposes commercial 
LPFM operations as inconsistent with the NCE purpose of LPFM stations.112 Progressive Broadcasting 
Systems, Inc. asserts that this proposal would turn the next round of LPFM applications into targets for 
“AM nighttime translators” with limited daytime value to the community.113
35. We agree with Prometheus that the LPFM service and eligibility rules generally are at cross-
purposes with the idea of allowing LPFM stations to rebroadcast AM signals.  Having recently addressed 
the LPFM service and eligibility rules, we do not see any benefit in modifying those service rules in the 
context of this unrelated rulemaking.114 To the extent that an LPFM licensee and an AM licensee may 
find a mutually beneficial way to cooperate in rebroadcasting the AM signal on the LPFM station in a 
manner that complies with the LPFM rules, they may do so.  
F.  Technical Issues.
36. The NPRM tentatively concluded that the appropriate limit for the coverage of an FM 
translator is the lesser of (a) the 2 mV/m daytime contour of the AM station, or (b) the 25-mile radius of 
the AM transmitter site.115 Several commenters express support for these criteria,116 while others contend 
that they are too restrictive and should be adjusted to reach the greater of the daytime contour or a 25-mile 
circle.117 OneCom argues that this approach will not introduce new market area to an AM station, but 
will “merely account for those AM stations which are directional during daytime hours with patterns that 
may not even allow the translator to be co-located at the AM transmitter site.”118 Similarly, several 
commenters propose that the Commission should permit the carriage of AM signals on FM translators 
within the AM station’s 0.5 mV/m contour, asserting that this would more accurately reflect the protected 
service contour of AM stations.119 Some commenters suggest that the Commission should amend the 
Rules to allow AM broadcasters using FM translators to operate above the current 250 watt limit set forth 
in Section 74.1235 of the Rules, arguing that such a revision would allow AM broadcasters to effectively 
use one translator as a fill-in, lower the number of translator license applications, and make more efficient 
  
110 See Comments of Prometheus at 6. One commenter argues that the Rules should be amended to ensure that an 
LPFM will translate the AM signal without any alteration to eliminate the commercial content, arguing that the 
public would otherwise tune into the advertisement-free LPFM station, rather than the AM station.  See Comments 
of James Foster at 3.  See also Comments of Larry Langford at 5.    
111 See Reply Comments of Prometheus at 3.
112 Comments of Meridian at 2.  See also Comments of Pocahantas at 3; Comments of Landmark Baptist Church at 
3; Comments of Cullen K. Zethmayr at 3-4.   
113 See Comments of Progressive Broadcasting at 3.
114 See LPFM Third Report, 22 FCC Rcd at 21912.
115 22 FCC Rcd at 15898.
116 Comments of NAB at 9-10; Comments of Morgan Murphy Media at 2; Comments of Clear Channel at 13; 
Comments of Hernando Broadcasting Company, Inc. at 2; Comments of Larry Langford at 6.  
117 Comments of Progressive Comments at 4; Comments of Richardson Broadcasting Corp. at 6.; Comments of 
Pocahantas at 6; Comments of OneCom at 4-5; Comments of Sutton Broadcasting at 7-8.  Comments of United 
Ministries at 1.  
118 Comments of OneCom at 4.
119 Comments of Miller Communications Inc. at 2; Reply Comments of Urban Radio Licenses at 5-6; Comments of 
MG Media at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-59
17
use of the spectrum.120 Big River Radio and other commenters assert that the Commission should permit 
alternate delivery method of a signal, such as telephone lines, microwave, or via fiber optic cable.121  
37. Many commenters support allowing some de minimis portion of the translator’s signal to 
extend outside the 2 mV/m contour,122 contending that a de minimis extension policy would provide a 
measure of flexibility that would be helpful in designing fill-in translator service.123 Some commenters 
support the use of Figure M-3 values for measuring conductivity,124 while others state that parties should 
be allowed to prove that the benchmark does not accurately portray the measured conductivity.125  
Richardson Broadcasting Corp. suggests that terrain shielding and Longley Rice are more accurate for 
predicting contour.126 Several parties voice support for Eastern Sierra’s proposal that the radius be 
extended to 35 miles for FM translators in Zone II due to the size of radio markets in Zone II.127 Clear 
Channel supports a uniform rule change without distinct rules for FM translators in Zone II, stating that 
stations with “large 2 mV/m contours should not be permitted to serve an area with a larger radius than 
their counterparts in other zones.”128
38. Based on the comments received and our experience to date with our interim STA policy, we 
conclude that the proposed limit on the 60 dBu contour of the FM translator (i.e., the entire 60 dBu 
contour must be encompassed by the lesser of the 2 mV/m daytime contour of the AM station or the 25-
mile radius of the AM transmitter site) is appropriate.  While we recognize that AM stations typically 
have a protected daytime contour of 0.5 mV/m, we believe the 2 mV/m daytime contour more accurately 
depicts the core market area for the majority of AM stations, operating at an effective radiated power 
level of 2.5 kW or less.129 We also recognize that AM stations operating at a higher power level often 
have extremely large 2 mV/m daytime contours, and in this situation the 25-mile limit will apply to 
  
120 See Comments of Samuelson-Glushko at 36.  See also Comments of Cullen K. Zethmayr at 1; Comments of 
Larry Langford at 1; Comments of D.J. Everett at 1; Comments of James Whitaker at 3; Comments of James Foster 
at 2; Comments of Eastern Sierra at 2-3.  But see Reply Comments of Holston at 3 and Reply Comments of NAB at 
12 (each stating that the limit should remain at 250 watts).  CBS argues that the Commission’s proposal would 
create “translators of a vastly different scale” with powers in excess of 50 kilowatts.  Comments of CBS at 3.
121 Comments of Big River Radio, Inc. at 6.  See also Comments of Holston at 6-7; Comments of Morris 
Broadcasting at 6-7; Comments of Timothy Cutforth at 2; Comments of Samuelson-Glushko at 33-34.  Other 
commenters state that similar protections that were proposed in the recent LPFM Third Report should also be 
offered to FM translator stations, and that the filing of displacement applications should be allowed.  See Comments 
of Richardson Broadcasting at 8-9; Comments of Broadcast Communications, Inc. at 5; Comments of Sutton 
Broadcasting at 10-11.
122 See Comments of Christian Broadcasting at 4; Comments of Pocahantas at 3 (supports de minimis but no more 
than 50 percent); Comments of MG Media at 6 (no more than 30 percent); Comments of OneCom at 5 (no more 
than 25 percent); Comments of Mark D. Humphrey at 2(no more than 15 percent); Comments of Talley at 5 (no 
more than 10 percent); Comments of Broadcast Communications, Inc. at 5 (no more than 20 percent); Reply 
Comments of NAB at 15 (supports de minimis by waiver); Comments of Colquitt at 1 (de minimis amount should 
not exceed 1,000 persons).  But see Comments of Clear Channel at 13 (opposes de minimis).
123 See Comments of Meridian Broadcasting, Inc. at 4; Comments of Landmark Baptist Church at 3.
124 Comments of OneCom at 6; Comments of Mark D. Humphrey at 1; Comments of Eastern Sierra at 5; Comments 
of George Simmons at 5; Comments of Bart Walker at 4; Comments of Larry Langford at 6.
125 Comments of Meridian at 3; Comments of Progressive Broadcasting at 4, Comments of Talley Broadcasting at 5; 
Comments of MG Media at 2; Comments of Colquitt at 1.
126 Comments of Richardson Broadcasting at 6-7.
127 Comments of Astro Enterprises, Inc. at 3; Comments of Landmark Baptist Church at 3; Comments of Morgan 
Murphy Media at 2.
128 See Comments of Clear Channel at 13.
129 See Comments of Larry Langford at 6.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-59
18
ensure that fill-in cross-service translators are used in the AM station’s core market area, rather than in a 
fringe area that may be part of or near another radio market.  We do not believe that allowing a de 
minimis exception to this standard, departing from our standard signal coverage methodology or applying 
a different standard to proposed translators in Zone II, would provide meaningful benefits, and we find 
that a single, clear-cut standard provides the benefits of administrative efficiency, predictability and 
minimization of disputes over compliance issues.  Our decision here is intended to serve the limited 
purpose of allowing AM stations to fill in service voids, and not to expand service, even on a de minimis
basis.  Other suggestions made by commenters involve issues that apply to FM translators in general, 
rather than the specific issue of FM translators being used for AM fill-in service.  Such issues are outside 
the scope of this proceeding.  We note, however, that the Commission intends for its general FM 
translator rules130 to apply to cross-service translators and we urge AM licensees to familiarize themselves 
thoroughly with the restrictions imposed in those rules prior to applying for approval to acquire such a 
translator.
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis.
39. The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is attached to this NPRM as Appendix B.
Final Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis.
40. This Report and Order contains modified information collection requirements subject to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”).131 It will be submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget (“OMB”) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA.  OMB, the general public, and other 
Federal agencies are invited to comment on the modified information collection requirements contained 
in this proceeding.  In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 
2002,132 we have considered how the Commission might “further reduce the information collection 
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”  We find that the modified 
information collection requirements must apply fully to small entities (as well as to others) to ensure 
compliance with our FM translator rules, as described in the Report and Order.
Congressional Review Act.
41. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress 
and the Government Accountability Office, pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.
Additional Information.
42. For additional information on this proceeding, contact Tom Hutton, tom.hutton@fcc.gov, or 
James Bradshaw, james.bradshaw@fcc.gov, of the Media Bureau, (202) 418-2700.
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
43. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1, 4(i) 
and (j), 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 319, and 324 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C §§ 151, 154(i) and (j), 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 319, and 324, this Report and Order and the 
rule modifications attached hereto as Appendix A ARE ADOPTED, effective upon the later of:  (a) thirty 
(30) days after publication of the text or a summary thereof in the Federal Register; or (b) announcement 
in the Federal Register of OMB approval of those rules and requirements involving PRA burdens.  It is 
our intention in adopting these rule changes that, if any of the rules that we retain, modify or adopt today, 
  
130 See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 74.1231.
131 The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”), Pub. L. No. 104-13, 109 Stat 163 (1995) (codified in Chapter 35 
of title 44 U.S.C.).
132 Pub. L. No. 107-198, 116 Stat 729 (2002) (codified in Chapter 35 of title 44 U.S.C.); see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-59
19
or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, are held to be unlawful, the remaining portions 
of the rules not be deemed unlawful, and the application of such rules to other persons or circumstances, 
shall remain in effect to the fullest extent permitted by law.
44. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the “Petition for Rulemaking of the National Association 
of Broadcasters,” RM-11338 (filed July 14, 2006) IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT INDICATED 
HEREIN and IS OTHERWISE DENIED.
45. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the “Petition for Rulemaking of the American Community 
AM Broadcasters Association,” RM-9419 (filed August 13, 1997) IS DISMISSED.
46. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Media Bureau will cancel all AM rebroadcast STAs 
and dismiss all pending AM rebroadcast STA requests as of the effective date of this Report and Order.
47. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Reference Information Center, Consumer Information 
Bureau, shall send a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-59
20
APPENDIX A
Final Rule Changes
Part 74 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 74 – EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST AND OTHER 
PROGRAM DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES
1. Section 74.1201 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (g), and 
adding paragraph (j), as follows:
§ 74.1201  Definitions.
(a) FM translator. A station in the broadcasting service operated for the purpose of retransmitting the 
signals of an AM or FM radio broadcast station or another FM broadcast translator station without 
significantly altering any characteristics of the incoming signal other than its frequency and amplitude, in 
order to provide radio broadcast service to the general public. 
(b) Commercial FM translator. An FM broadcast translator station which rebroadcasts the signals of a 
commercial AM or FM radio broadcast station.
(c) Noncommercial FM translator. An FM broadcast translator station which rebroadcasts the signals of a 
noncommercial educational AM or FM radio broadcast station.
(d) Primary station. The AM or FM radio broadcast station radiating the signals which are retransmitted 
by an FM broadcast translator station or an FM broadcast booster station.
(e) AM or FM radio broadcast station. When used in this Subpart L, the term AM broadcast station or 
AM radio broadcast station or FM broadcast station or FM radio broadcast station refers to commercial 
and noncommercial educational AM or FM radio broadcast stations as defined in §2.1 of this chapter, 
unless the context indicates otherwise.
* * * * *
(g) Translator coverage contour. For a fill-in FM translator rebroadcasting an FM radio broadcast station 
as its primary station, the FM translator's coverage contour must be contained within the primary station's 
coverage contour.  For purposes of this rule section, the coverage contour of the FM translator has the 
same field strength value as the protected contour of the primary FM station (i.e., for a commercial Class 
B FM station it is the predicted 0.5 mV/m field strength contour, for a commercial Class B1 FM station it 
is the predicted 0.7 mV/m field strength contour, and for all other classes of FM stations it is the predicted 
1 mV/m field strength contour).  The coverage contour of an FM translator rebroadcasting an AM radio 
broadcast station as its primary station must be contained within the lesser of the 2 mV/m daytime 
contour of the AM station and a 25-mile (40 km) radius centered at the AM transmitter site.  The 
protected contour for an FM translator station is its predicted 1 mV/m contour.  
* * * * *
(j) AM Fill-in area.  The area within the lesser of the 2 mV/m daytime contour of the AM radio broadcast 
station being rebroadcast and a 25-mile (40 km) radius centered at the AM transmitter site.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-59
21
2. Section 74.1231 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b), adding new paragraph 
(h), as follows, and changing existing paragraph (h) to (i):
§ 74.1231  Purpose and permissible service.
(a) FM translators provide a means whereby the signals of AM or FM broadcast stations may be 
retransmitted to areas in which direct reception of such AM or FM broadcast stations is unsatisfactory due 
to distance or intervening terrain barriers, and a means for AM Class D stations to continue operating at 
night.
(b) An FM translator may be used for the purpose of retransmitting the signals of a primary AM or FM 
radio broadcast station or another translator station the signal of which is received directly through space, 
converted, and suitably amplified, and originating programming to the extent authorized in paragraphs (f), 
(g), and (h) of this section.  However, an FM translator providing fill-in service may use any terrestrial 
facilities to receive the signal that is being rebroadcast. An FM booster station or a noncommercial 
educational FM translator station that is operating on a reserved channel (Channels 201-220) and is 
owned and operated by the licensee of the primary noncommercial educational station it rebroadcasts may 
use alternative signal delivery means, including, but not limited to, satellite and terrestrial microwave 
facilities. Provided, however, that an applicant for a noncommercial educational translator operating on a 
reserved channel (Channel 201-220) and owned and operated by the licensee of the primary 
noncommercial educational AM or FM station it rebroadcasts complies with either paragraph (b)(1) or 
(b)(2) of this section:
(1) The applicant demonstrates that:
(i) The transmitter site of the proposed FM translator station is within 80 kilometers of the predicted 1 
mV/m contour of the primary station to be rebroadcast; or,
(ii) The transmitter site of the proposed FM translator station is more than 160 kilometers from the 
transmitter site of any authorized full service noncommercial educational FM station; or,
(iii) The application is mutually exclusive with an application containing the showing as required by § 
74.1231(b)(2) (i) or (ii) of this section; or,
(iv) The application is filed after October 1, 1992.
(2) If the transmitter site of the proposed FM translator station is more than 80 kilometers from the 
predicted 1 mV/m contour of the primary station to be rebroadcast or is within 160 kilometers of the 
transmitter site of any authorized full service noncommercial educational FM station, the applicant must 
show that:
(i) An alternative frequency can be used at the same site as the proposed FM translator's transmitter 
location and can provide signal coverage to the same area encompassed by the applicant's proposed 1 
mV/m contour; or,
(ii) An alternative frequency can be used at a different site and can provide signal coverage to the same 
area encompassed by the applicant's proposed 1 mV/m contour.
Note: For paragraphs 74.1231(b) and 74.1231(i) of this section, auxiliary intercity relay station 
frequencies may be used to deliver signals to FM translator and booster stations on a secondary basis 
only. Such use shall not interfere with or otherwise preclude use of these frequencies for transmitting 
aural programming between the studio and transmitter location of a broadcast station, or between 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-59
22
broadcast stations, as provided in paragraphs 74.531 (a) and (b) of this part. Prior to filing an application 
for an auxiliary intercity relay microwave frequency, the applicant shall notify the local frequency 
coordination committee, or, in the absence of a local frequency coordination committee, any licensees 
assigned the use of the proposed operating frequency in the intended location or area of operation.
* * * * *
(h) An FM translator station that rebroadcasts a Class D AM radio broadcast station as its primary station 
may originate programming during the hours the primary station is not operating, subject to the 
provisions of Section 74.1263(b).
3. Section 74.1232 is amended by adding the following sentences to the end of  paragraph 
(d):
An FM translator providing service to an AM fill-in area will be authorized only to the permittee or 
licensee of the AM radio broadcast station being rebroadcast, or, in the case of an FM translator 
authorized to operate on an unreserved channel, to a party with a valid rebroadcast consent agreement 
with such a permittee or licensee to rebroadcast that station as the translator’s primary station. In addition, 
any FM translator providing service to an AM fill-in area must have been authorized by a license or 
construction permit in effect as of May 1, 2009.  A subsequent modification of any such FM translator 
will not affect its eligibility to rebroadcast an AM signal.
4. Section 74.1263 is amended by revising paragraph (b), as follows:
§ 74.1263  Time of operation.
(b) An FM booster or FM translator station rebroadcasting the signal of an AM or FM primary station 
shall not be permitted to radiate during extended periods when signals of the primary station are not being 
retransmitted.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, FM translators rebroadcasting Class D AM stations may 
continue to operate during nighttime hours only if the AM station has operated within the last 24 hours.
5. Section 74.1284 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c), as follows:
§ 74.1284  Rebroadcasts
(b) The licensee of an FM translator shall not rebroadcast the programs of any AM or FM broadcast 
station or other FM translator without obtaining prior consent of the primary station whose programs are 
proposed to be retransmitted. The Commission shall be notified of the call letters of each station 
rebroadcast and the licensee of the FM translator shall certify that written consent has been received from 
the licensee of the station whose programs are retransmitted.
(c) An FM translator is not authorized to rebroadcast the transmissions of any class of station other than 
an AM or FM broadcast station or another FM translator.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-59
23
APPENDIX B
Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act ("RFA")1 an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis ("IRFA") was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Cross Service FM 
Translator Notice") to this proceeding.2 The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals 
in the Cross Service FM Translator Notice, including comment on the IRFA.3 The Commission received 
no comments on the IRFA.  This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("FRFA") conforms to the 
RFA.4  
Need for and Objectives of the Rules
2. The Commission’s current rules preclude an FM translator from rebroadcasting the signal of 
any station other than that of any FM radio broadcast station or FM translator.  The Cross Service FM 
Translator Notice proposed to amend the Commission’s Rules to allow AM broadcast stations to license 
and operate FM translator stations.  Based on the support for this proposal in the record and the 
experience gained by dozens of AM stations operating FM translators pursuant to special temporary 
authority as contemplated by the Cross Service FM Translator Notice, the Commission concluded that 
allowing AM stations to use currently authorized FM translators to provide fill-in service will benefit the 
listening public.
3. Specifically, allowing AM stations to use currently authorized FM translator stations to 
rebroadcast programming within their intended service areas will benefit the public by improving the 
signal quality and availability of AM programming, overcoming limitations imposed by interference, 
weak signal strength, channel congestion and receiver quality.  This positive effect will further the goals 
of localism, competition and diversity in broadcasting.  The use of an FM translator is at the option of the 
broadcast licensee, so this is a permissive rule change rather than a new requirement imposed on 
licensees.
4. The Order adopts rule changes based on the technical proposal submitted by the National 
Association of Broadcasters, which would allow AM stations to operate FM translators to retransmit their 
AM service as a fill-in service, as long as no portion of the 60 dBu contour of the FM translator extends 
beyond the lesser of (a) the 2 mV/m daytime contour of the AM station, or (b) the 25-mile radius of the 
AM transmitter site.  In order to protect opportunities for future LPFM stations in the already crowded 
FM spectrum, the Order limits the scope of FM translators that can be used to retransmit AM 
programming to those FM translators authorized by the Commission through licenses or construction 
permits in effect as of May 1, 2009. 
5. Prior to this Order, the Commission’s FM translator rules excluded AM stations from
eligibility for this service.  Accordingly, the Order adopts certain rule changes necessary to expand the 
purpose and permissible service of FM translator stations to allow their use as a fill-in service for AM 
radio stations, including: (a) eligibility and ownership rules for FM translators, allowing AM licensees to 
acquire fill-in FM translator stations or enter into rebroadcast consent agreements with FM translator 
stations for fill-in service; and (b) the rule on FM translator program origination to allow Class D AM 
  
1 See 5 USC §603. The RFA, see 5 USC §601 - 612., has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 ("SBREFA"), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 847 (1996).
2 Amendment of Service and Eligibility Rules for FM Broadcast Translator Stations, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 15890, 15899 ¶ 21, and Appendix B.
3 Id.
4 See 5 USC §604.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-59
24
stations to originate programming on fill-in FM translators during the hours that the Class D stations are 
not authorized to operate.  The Order notes that AM licensees will not be allowed to use reserved band 
FM translators or low power FM stations for fill-in service.  The Order also makes clear that the 
Commission will not allow licensees to use combinations of FM translator stations to create de facto FM 
stations.
Legal Basis
6. The authority for the action taken in the Report and Order is contained in Sections 1, 4(i) and 
(j), 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 319, and 324 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C §§ 151, 154(i) and (j), 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 319, and 324.
Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA
7. The Commission received no comments in direct response to the IRFA.  However, the 
Commission received comments that discuss issues of interest to small entities.  These comments are 
discussed in the section of this FRFA discussing the steps taken to minimize significant negative impact 
on small entities, and the significant alternatives considered.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will Apply
8. The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate 
of the number of small entities that will be affected by the rules adopted herein.5 The RFA generally 
defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” small 
organization,” and “small government jurisdiction.”6 In addition, the term “small business” has the same 
meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.7 A small business concern 
is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.8
9. Radio Stations. The SBA defines a radio broadcast station as a small business if such station 
has no more than $7 million in annual receipts.9 Business concerns included in this industry are those 
primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public.10 According to Commission 
staff review of the BIA Publications, Inc. Master Access Radio Analyzer Database on September 23, 
2008, about 10,520 of 11,012 commercial radio stations (or about 95 percent) have revenues of $7 million 
or less and thus qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.  We note, however, that, in assessing 
whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations11
must be included.  Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be 
  
5 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).
6 Id. § 601(6).
7 Id. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small business concern” in 15 U.S.C. § 632).  Pursuant 
to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with 
the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) and after opportunity for public comment, 
establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes 
such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”.
8 15 U.S.C. § 632.  Application of the statutory criteria of dominance in its field of operation and independence are 
sometimes difficult to apply in the context of broadcast radio.  Accordingly, the Commission’s statistical account of 
radio stations may be over-inclusive.
9 See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 515112. 
10 Id.  
11 “[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one concern controls or has the power to control the other 
or a third party or parties controls or has to power to control both.”  13 C.F.R. § 121.103(a)(1).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-59
25
affected by our action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate 
revenues from affiliated companies.
10. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant 
in its field of operation.  We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish 
whether a specific radio station is dominant in its field of operation.  Accordingly, the estimate of small 
businesses to which rules may apply do not exclude any radio station from the definition of a small 
business on this basis and therefore may be over-inclusive to that extent.  Also as noted, an additional 
element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated.  
We note that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and our 
estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.
11. FM translator stations and low power FM stations.  The same SBA definition that applies to 
radio broadcast licensees would apply to FM translator stations and low power FM (“LPFM”) stations. 
The SBA defines a radio broadcast station as a small business if such station has no more than $7 million 
in annual receipts.12
12. Currently, there are approximately 4131 licensed FM translator and booster stations and 771
licensed LPFM stations.13 Given the nature of these services, we will presume that all of these licensees 
qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. 
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and other Compliance Requirements
13. The Report and Order provides for no changes in the current application filing and 
processing procedures for FM translator stations, except that FCC Forms 303-S, 345, 349 and 350 
(including related instructions) will be modified to reflect the revised purpose and eligibility changes in 
the rules applicable to FM translator stations.  Unless otherwise indicated, the Report and Order provides 
for no changes in the reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements for FM translator 
stations.  
Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Negative Impact on Small Entities, and Significant 
Alternatives Considered
14. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the 
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the 
resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or 
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, 
standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.14
15. The Report and Order adopts rule changes that will benefit some AM radio stations by giving 
them the opportunity to address daytime and nighttime service problems by using an FM translator to 
provide better signal coverage.  An example of a daytime service problem is interference from a man-
made source such as fluorescent lights and computers.  An example of a nighttime service problem is 
skywave interference from other AM stations.  However, the use of FM translator stations by AM radio 
stations is not mandatory, and therefore some stations may not seek to use an FM translator for fill-in 
service.  Other AM stations may not be able to locate and purchase an FM translator for their service 
areas.  For these reasons, the potential benefits of the rule changes may not be realized by all AM radio 
stations.
  
12 See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 515112. 
13 See News Release, “Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2006” (rel. Jan. 26, 2007) 
(http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-269784A1.doc). 
14 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1)-(c)(4)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-59
26
16. With respect to the issue of the possible disparate impact of the proposed rules on smaller 
entities, we believe that many small business broadcasters will benefit from the opportunity to improve 
their local signal coverage as a result of the rule changes.  The record in the proceeding also indicates that 
for AM radio stations using FM translators to provide fill-in service, there are benefits in signal coverage 
for smaller as well as larger entities.  Furthermore, even if some smaller AM stations do not opt to use 
fill-in FM translators, the alternative benefits to the radio industry in general will offset this possible 
impact of the rules we adopt today.  As a result of using fill-in FM translators, many AM stations will 
become more competitive by offering improved and more varied programming, much of which may 
advance service to local communities, the FM translator service will be improved, and the future of 
LPFM service will remain under existing protections.
17. Specifically, the record in the proceeding also indicates that licensees of FM translator 
stations will likely benefit from the expansion in the scope of permitted service by those stations, because 
this will increase the demand for, and the value of, their FM translators.  The record in the proceeding 
includes arguments that the rule changes will harm the future development of LPFM service by limiting 
the availability of spectrum available for that service in future application windows.  The Order 
acknowledges this potential for harm and addresses it by limiting the scope of the rule changes to FM 
translators already authorized by the Commission.  The Commission has noted that the next opportunity 
for filing applications for new stations will be for LPFM stations, and the limitation adopted in the Order 
maximizes the opportunities that will be available to potential LPFM applicants in that window.  The 
Order also specifically notes that the Commission does not intend to allow parties to circumvent this 
limitation through special temporary authority for new FM translator service to retransmit AM station 
programming.
18. One issue in the proceeding regarding small entities is whether the rule changes should be 
implemented immediately for all AM stations or phased in based on an AM station’s class, ownership or 
competitive posture.  The Commission determined that phased-in implementation is not necessary in light 
of the limitation of the rule change to already authorized FM translator stations.  The Commission also 
found that the public interest benefits and the benefits to AM station operators will be realized more 
quickly with immediate implementation than with phased-in implementation because those benefits will 
be available at once to all AM licensees instead of being made available over time to different types of 
licensees.
Report to Congress
19. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report 
to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.15 In 
addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.  A copy of the Report and Order and FRFA 
(or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.16
  
15 See 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
16 See id. § 604(b).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 09-59
27
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. MCDOWELL
Re:  Amendment of Service and Eligibility Rules for FM Broadcast Translator Stations, MB Docket 
No. 07-172, RM-11338; Report and Order
Today the Commission gives a much-needed and overdue shot in the arm to AM radio stations.  
With this Order, we provide AM stations an opportunity to strengthen the contributions that they make in 
furthering our long-standing public policy goals of localism, competition and diversity in broadcasting.  
By permitting the nation’s oldest broadcast service to use existing FM translators to fill coverage gaps 
within their authorized contours, we hope to bolster AM stations’ ability to clearly reach and attract local 
listeners throughout daytime and evening hours.  The record in this proceeding shows that the 
Commission’s previous efforts to assist AM broadcasters to overcome their technical constraints have not 
been successful – in part because other wireless uses have proliferated over time, fragmenting the audio 
marketplace while also exacerbating the interference problems that makes some AM stations hard to hear.  
Competitive markets cannot deliver a full measure of benefits to consumers if consumers cannot 
take advantage of all of their options.  AM stations’ inability to reach all potential listeners within their 
existing authorized contours throughout the 24-hour day undermines our goals of fostering competition, 
localism and diversity because it deprives listeners of the news and talk programming that has become the 
hallmark of the AM band.  The record before us confirms that many AM broadcasters do an excellent job 
of serving targeted demographics and interests within their communities.  Furthermore, the evidence 
shows that AM broadcasters provide hyper-local information to many areas of the country, especially 
small towns and rural areas that might otherwise be deprived of such content.  The rule changes we adopt 
here reflect a reasonable compromise to give AM broadcasters more options and, at the same time, allow 
for the future growth of new competitors in the low power FM service.
I am pleased that we adopt this relief measure during this extraordinarily difficult time for 
broadcasters.  Traditional media in general face unprecedented challenges to their survival.  Facing fierce 
competition from a plethora of “new media” market entrants, traditional media’s decades-old business 
models are being shaken to their core.  At the same time, the most severe economic downturn in 
generations is forcing both broadcast stations and daily newspapers out of business.  As a result of these 
two “perfect storms” colliding, we have lost some of those diverse media “voices” that we counted upon 
in the past to inform and educate our citizenry.  I hope today’s deregulatory action will help give AM
broadcasters the relief they need to compete more effectively in this tumultuous marketplace.