Federal Communications Commission                           FCC 11-105
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C.  20554
In the Matter of
Creation of A Low Power Radio Service
Amendment of Service and Eligibility Rules for 
FM Broadcast Translator Stations 
)
)
)
)
)
)
MM Docket No. 99-25
MB Docket No. 07-172
RM-11338
THIRD FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING
Adopted:  July 12, 2011   Released:  July 12, 2011
Comment Date:  [30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register]
Reply Comment Date:  [45 days after date of publication in the Federal Register]
By the Commission:  Chairman Genachowski and Commissioners Copps, McDowell, and Clyburn 
issuing separate statements.
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Third Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (“Third Further Notice”), we seek 
comment on the impact of the enactment of the Local Community Radio Act of 2010 (“LCRA”)1 on the 
procedures previously adopted to process the approximately 6,500 applications which remain pending 
from the 2003 FM translator window.  The goals of this proceeding are to develop FM translator 
application processing policies that faithfully implement LCRA directives, to resume promptly the 
licensing of the remaining translator applications consistent with those directives, and to chart a path 
forward to the licensing of new LPFM stations in accordance with the framework established by the 
LCRA.  For the reasons set forth below, the Commission tentatively concludes that the previously 
adopted translator licensing procedures, which would limit each applicant to ten pending applications, 
would be inconsistent with the LCRA’s goals.  As detailed below, we propose to modify those procedures 
and dismiss pending translator applications only where necessary to preserve a certain number of low 
power FM (“LPFM”) licensing opportunities in identified spectrum limited markets.  In order to expedite 
the resumption of translator application processing, we defer consideration of other LCRA 
implementation issues.2 We also seek comment on whether, based on the enactment of the LCRA, the 
Commission should modify its rules permitting only those translator stations authorized on or prior to 
May 1, 2009, to rebroadcast the signals of AM stations.  Finally, we seek comment on whether to open an 
LPFM-only window no later than summer 2012.
  
1 Pub. L. No. 111-371, 124 Stat. 4072 (2011).
2 The LCRA directs the Commission to, inter alia, eliminate third-adjacent channel LPFM protection requirements, 
establish LPFM interference remediation procedures and establish LPFM protection requirements for translator 
input signals on third-adjacent channels.  The immediate resolution of those issues is unnecessary prior to resuming 
the processing of translator applications filed in the 2003 window.
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
2
II. BACKGROUND
2. Under the Commission’s rules, LPFM and FM translator applications may be filed only 
during “windows” announced by the Commission.3 Translator applications have priority over later-filed 
LPFM applications.4 The last LPFM filing window was in 2001.  The translator applications at issue here 
have been pending since 2003, when they were filed in response to an FM non-reserved band translator-
only window, Auction No. 83.  This window generated over 13,000 applications.5 In 2005, the 
Commission froze processing of the applications due to concerns that they would limit LPFM licensing 
opportunities.6 In doing so, the Commission noted the need to address a basic question set forth in a 2004 
Notice of Inquiry in the broadcast localism proceeding:  “Recognizing that both LPFM stations and 
translators provide valuable service, what licensing rule changes should the Commission adopt to resolve 
competing demands by stations in these two services for the same limited spectrum?”7
3. On December 11, 2007, the Commission released a Third Report and Order and Second 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Third Report and Order” or “Second Further Notice”) 8 in MM 
Docket No. 99-25.  The Commission considered whether Auction No. 83 filing activity had adversely 
impacted its goal to provide to both LPFM and translator applicants reasonable access to limited FM 
spectrum in a manner which promotes the “fair, efficient, and equitable distribution of radio service,”9
and concluded that processing all of the then-pending 7,000 translator applications would frustrate the 
development of the LPFM service.  To address this concern, the Third Report and Order established a 
going-forward limit of ten pending short-form FM translator applications per applicant from Auction No. 
83, and directed the Media Bureau (“Bureau”) to resume processing the applications of those applicants in 
compliance with this numerical cap.10 The Commission found that this limit would not have an adverse 
impact on more than 80 percent of those applicants and would appropriately balance the equitable 
interests of the remaining 20 percent against important LPFM licensing goals and policies.11  
4. The Commission cited several factors in support of the adoption of these measures 
including: (1) the sheer volume of Auction No. 83 filings, when compared to historic translator and 
LPFM licensing levels; (2) evidence of precluded or diminished LPFM filing opportunities in many 
communities; (3) licensing asymmetries between these two services that make it unlikely that LPFM 
  
3 See 47 CFR §§ 73.870, 74.1233.  Any application filed in such a window must not conflict with any existing 
authorization or any application that is pending when the window opens.
4 See id. at § 73.807(d).
5 Creation of a Low Power Radio Service, 20 FCC Rcd 6763, 6778 ¶ 33 (2005).
6 Id.
7 Id., citing Broadcast Localism, Notice of Inquiry, 19 FCC Rcd 12425, 12442 (2004).
8 See Creation of a Low Power Radio Service, Third Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 21912 (2007). 
9 47 U.S.C. § 307(b).  See Third Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 21932-35.
10 See Media Bureau Invites Applicants to Select FM Translator Applications for Voluntary Dismissal to Comply 
with Processing Cap, Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 3707 (MB 2008).  The Media Bureau subsequently suspended the 
dismissal process to provide the Commission an opportunity to consider petitions for reconsideration of the ten-
application cap.  See Media Bureau Suspends Dismissal of FM Translator Applications Related to Processing Cap, 
Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 5629 (MB 2008).
11 We have since revisited the data which formed the basis of these percentages and have determined that the 
number of applicants not affected/affected by the 10-application cap is actually closer to 88 percent and 12 percent, 
respectively.
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
3
filings will materially affect future translator licensing opportunities, whereas translator filings could 
materially impact the far more limited opportunities for LPFM licenses;12 and (4) the fact that the next 
LPFM window may provide the last meaningful opportunity to expand the LPFM service in spectrum-
congested areas.13 The Commission also noted that the two most active filers, commonly-owned Radio 
Assist Ministries and Edgewater Broadcasting, Inc. (collectively, “RAM”), filed 4,219 proposals, 
constituting almost one-third of all Auction No. 83 filings, and have since sought to assign more than 50 
percent of the 1,046 construction permits they were awarded through the window.  The Commission 
voiced concern that such heavily skewed filing activity compromised the integrity of our FM translator 
licensing procedures.14 In the companion Second Further Notice, the Commission also invited comment 
“on the ‘co-equal status’ between LPFM stations and FM translator stations” and whether altering the 
relative priorities of the two services would advance its localism, diversity and competition goals.15
5. On January 4, 2011, President Obama signed the LCRA into law.  Among other things, 
the LCRA expands LPFM licensing opportunities by repealing the requirement that LPFM stations 
operate a minimum distance from nearby stations operating on “third-adjacent” channels.16 Section 5 of 
the LCRA sets forth criteria that the Commission must take into account when licensing FM translator, 
FM booster and LPFM stations:  
SEC. 5.  ENSURING AVAILABILITY OF SPECTRUM FOR LOW-
POWER FM STATIONS
The Federal Communications Commission, when licensing new FM 
translator stations, FM booster stations, and low-power FM stations, shall 
ensure that –
  
12 Compare 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.1204(d) and 73.807.  See also Third Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 21934 
(translator applicants can often protect second and/or third adjacent channel authorizations and pending applications 
using a flexible contour-based protection methodology while LPFM applicants face substantially greater difficulty in 
meeting strict minimum distance separations to authorizations and pending applications). 
13 Third Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 21933-34.
14 See id. Several parties filed petitions for reconsideration opposing the cap. See Petition for Reconsideration of 
CSN International, filed Feb. 4, 2008; Petition of National Religious Broadcasters for Reconsideration Regarding 
Order Imposing Cap on Translator Applications, filed Feb. 15, 2008; Petition for Reconsideration of Positive 
Alternative Radio, Inc., filed Feb. 19, 2008; Petition for Reconsideration of Educational Media Foundation et al., 
filed Feb. 19, 2008.   In addition, on July 8, 2010, and September 22, 2010, respectively, Prometheus Radio Project 
and Educational Media Foundation submitted original and revised Memorandums of Agreement which proposed “a 
resolution of issues raised as a result of the 2003 translator window and addresses issues raised regarding LPFM/FM 
Translator priorities.”   On October 7, 2010, twenty-one commercial broadcasters with pending Auction No. 83 
translator applications submitted a different application processing proposal.  These submissions remain pending. 
15 Second Further Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 21946.
16 See LCRA, Sec. 3(a) (“The Federal Communications Commission shall modify its rules to eliminate third-
adjacent minimum distance separation requirements between—(1) low-power FM stations; and (2) full-service FM 
stations, FM translator stations, and FM booster stations.”).  Because broadcast station signals are subject to 
interference from other signals on the same or nearby frequencies within the same geographic area, the 
Commission’s commercial FM and LPFM rules impose spacing requirements to protect prior filed applications and 
authorized stations that operate on co-, first-, second-, or third-adjacent channels.  See 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.207(b) and 
83.807. 
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
4
(1) licenses are available to FM translator stations, FM booster 
stations,17 and low-power FM stations;
(2) such decisions are made based on the needs of the local 
community; and
(3) FM translator stations, FM booster stations, and low-power 
FM stations remain equal in status and secondary to existing 
and modified FM stations.
III. DISCUSSION
6. Section 5 of the LCRA establishes a framework for future FM translator and LPFM 
licensing activities but does not expressly set forth application processing policies and procedures.  We 
analyze below Section 5 as it applies to the spectrum availability and licensing goals for these services, 
and propose modified licensing procedures for the pending applications for new FM translators.  Our 
goals are to interpret the Section 5 licensing standards, to determine whether the existing ten-application 
cap is consistent with those standards, and to revise our translator licensing procedures as necessary to 
faithfully implement these standards.  After addressing these matters in Sections III.A and B, we turn to 
issues related to trafficking in FM translator authorizations and FM translator rebroadcasting of AM 
signals in Sections III.C and D.
A. Issues Relating to Section 5 of the LCRA
(1)  Section 5(1) – Ensuring that licenses are available
7. In its broadest terms, Section 5(1) is clear:  it mandates that the Commission adopt 
licensing procedures that ensure some minimum number of licensing opportunities for each service 
throughout the nation.  Read together with Section 5(2), we also interpret Section 5(1) to require the 
Commission to provide, to the extent possible, licensing opportunities for both services in as many local 
communities as possible.  Prior to the enactment of the LCRA, several commenters raised concerns 
directly related to this Section 5(1) mandate.  They argued that the nationwide cap, which does not 
operate based on spectrum availability in specific areas, would not ensure future LPFM opportunities in 
certain larger spectrum-limited markets.  These commenters contended that translator applicants would 
attempt to retain their most valuable applications which propose service to densely populated areas.  Due 
to the very large number of pending applications in these markets, they predict that a cap-based dismissal 
process would result in the dismissal of some – but not all – applications proposing facilities on channels 
and at locations otherwise available for LPFM licensing.  Thus, they claim, the anticipated dismissals 
would not, in fact, “free up” spectrum for new LPFM stations at or near the locations specified in the 
  
17 An FM booster station is limited to same-channel transmissions of its primary station.  A booster may be owned 
only by the primary station licensee and may only provide service within the protected contour of the primary 
station.  See 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.1201(f) and 74.1231(i).  In these circumstances, the required protection of the primary 
station provides significant and continuing protection to a licensed or future booster station.  That is, “competing” 
uses for the spectrum, e.g., by an LPFM station, are not possible.  Moreover, a licensee may file a new booster 
station application at any time, i.e., outside windows established for the filing of translator applications.  Thus, 
unlike the LPFM and translator services, whose competing demands for spectrum we must consider under the 
Section 5 directives, FM booster station licensing has no impact on the licensing of LPFM and FM translator 
stations.  Accordingly, we do not address FM booster station licensing in this proceeding.
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
5
dismissed translator applications because “blocking” translator applications would remain.18 The Media 
Bureau has carefully reviewed the Common Frequency study.  It has found that the methodology is 
reasonable.  Using similar assumptions, the Bureau has undertaken limited analyses of a number of other 
large markets.  It also found that “blocking” translator applications would likely remain following the 
completion of the cap dismissal process due to the very high number of pending applications and/or 
discrete applicants in these markets.  These findings raise significant concerns about whether the ten-
application cap would be a certain and effective processing policy for preserving LPFM licensing 
opportunities in many larger markets.  We seek comment on this issue.
8. Following the enactment of the LCRA, the Bureau undertook a nationwide LPFM 
spectrum availability analysis.19 The Bureau studied all top 150 radio markets, as defined by Arbitron, 
and smaller markets where more than four translator applications are pending.20 The results of that 
analysis are presented in Appendix A.  The total number of identified channels (“LPFM Channels”) 
currently available for LPFM use is listed in the “Channel” column.21
9. The Bureau analysis establishes that no or limited useful spectrum for future LPFM 
stations is likely to remain in numerous specific radio markets unless the translator dismissal procedures 
reliably result in the dismissal of all “blocking” translator applications.22 For example, no channels would 
be available for LPFM licensing in 13 of the top 30 markets and only one or two channels would be 
available in six others if “blocking” translator applications remain.  Based on the record developed in the 
proceeding, we tentatively conclude that the ten-application cap is inconsistent with Section 5(1) because 
  
18 E.g., Common Frequency Ex Parte Presentation (filed Nov. 12, 2010) (finding little or no spectrum for LPFM 
would remain in the New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Houston, Seattle or Portland markets 
following the implementation of the ten-application cap).
19 The volume and distribution of pending translator applications establish that abundant licensing opportunities 
remain for this service in virtually all communities.  Accordingly, we believe that a comparable translator spectrum 
availability analysis is unnecessary.  For example,  3274 translator applications remain pending in the top 150 radio 
markets, as defined by Arbitron.  These applications propose service to 143 of these 150 markets (and 99 of the top 
100 markets).  Although the technical acceptability of these applications has not been determined, those standards 
are both limited and flexible.  A key factor in this regard is the ability of translator applicants to meet second- and 
third-adjacent channel protection requirements with case-by-case showings.  See 74 C.F.R. § 74.1204(d); Living 
Way Ministries, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 17054, 17056 (2002), recon. denied, 23 FCC 
Rcd 15070 (2008).   
20 In order to assess LPFM spectrum availability, the Bureau centered a thirty-minute latitude by thirty-minute 
longitude grid over the center-city coordinates of each studied market.  Each grid consists of 931 points – 31 points 
running east/west by 31 points running north/south.  Grid points are located at one-minute intervals of latitude and 
longitude.  The Bureau analyzed each of the 100 FM channels (88.1 mHz – 107.9 mHz) at each grid point to 
determine whether any channels remain available for future LPFM stations at that location.  Only channels that fully 
satisfy co-, first- and second adjacent channel LPFM spacing requirements to all authorizations and applications, 
including pending translator applications, are treated as available.  The area encompassed by the grid is 
approximately 35 miles (north/south) by 26 miles (east/west).   The grid is not intended to approximate radio market 
boundaries.  Rather, the methodology is designed to identify “core” market locations that could serve significant 
populations.  Coordinates located over major bodies of water were excluded.  No attempt was made to otherwise 
ascertain site viability.  
 
21 The Bureau prepared a similar, although less ambitious, LPFM spectrum availability analysis in connection with 
the initial Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this docket.   The staff studied sixty markets, equally divided into three 
population tiers.  The analysis used 30-minute by 30-minute grids for the two larger population tiers, 20-minute by 
20-minute grids for the smallest community tier.  See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd at Appendix D. 
22 See Appendix A.
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
6
it would not “ensure” that licenses will be available in spectrum-congested markets for future LPFM 
licensing.  Moreover, the Bureau has determined, using the same spectrum availability methodology, that 
LPFM licensing opportunities would be increased in certain spectrum-limited markets if LPFM applicants 
were not required to protect pending translator applications.  For example, in Phoenix, the number of 
available channels available for LPFM licensing would increase from three to five.  In Houston the 
number of available channels would increase from one to two.23 The Bureau’s analysis also establishes 
that market size, alone, is a poor proxy for LPFM spectrum availability.  For example, there appears to be 
ample spectrum for new LPFM stations in Sacramento (Market #27) and none in Stamford-Norwalk 
(Market #147).  In particular, the proximity of smaller markets to larger ones in the nation’s most 
populous areas appears to impact spectrum availability significantly.  
10. We recognize certain limitations in the data used by the Bureau in its analysis and note, 
in particular, a number of unknowns.  These include site suitability and availability, population levels near 
studied locations, and demand for LPFM licenses at these locations.  Future full service station licensing 
and settlement activity among the remaining translator applicants also could impact spectrum availability.  
Given these limitations, the “Channel” and “Total Stations” availability determinations likely overstate, 
and in some cases may substantially overstate, the number of potential bona fide licenses that will be 
available to future LPFM applicants in each market.  Nevertheless, we believe the results shown in 
Appendix A provide a useful measure of LPFM spectrum availability.  We seek comment on the Bureau 
study, the validity of its methodology and its relevance in informing our translator dismissal policy.  We 
also seek comment on other measures of LPFM spectrum availability and welcome the submission of 
alternate spectrum availability assessments, both nationally and in particular markets. 
11. Given our tentative conclusion that the ten-application cap processing policy is 
inconsistent with the statutory mandate to ensure some minimum number of LPFM licensing 
opportunities in as many local communities as possible, we must now consider how best to process the 
remaining translator applications in a manner that is consistent with the LCRA.  The Commission could 
apply several different standards to establish compliance with an “available” licenses threshold for each 
service consistent with Section 5(1).  Specifically, we seek comment on whether we should take into 
account existing translator and LPFM licenses in making a “licenses are available” finding.  In this 
regard, we note that the word “new” appears in the first clause of Section 5 but not in subparagraph 1, 
suggesting that we should consider the availability of both new and existing stations.  Alternatively, 
Section 5(1) could be interpreted merely as a going-forward standard, limited to ensuring a future balance 
between new translator and new LPFM licenses.  Under this interpretation, the presence of a licensed 
translator or LPFM station would not enter into a licensing decision under Section 5(1).  We seek 
comment on these and other possible interpretations of Section 5(1) and their impact on our treatment of 
the pending translator applications.  
12. The issue whether to take existing licenses into account may be particularly significant in 
light of the present disparity between the two services.  Currently, 1921 translators are licensed at 
locations within the top 200 Arbitron-rated markets.  In contrast, 290 LPFM stations operate in the top 
200 markets. The Commission has licensed approximately 2,700 translator stations from the 2003 
window and approximately 860 LPFM stations from the 2000-01 windows.  Thus, taking into account 
existing translators and LPFM stations, or even just those licensed for the first time during the past 
decade, would militate in favor of the dismissal of translator applications, at least in markets where there 
is little or no remaining spectrum for future LPFM stations or where substantially fewer licensing 
opportunities remain.  Does an interpretation that could have that effect conflict with the Section 5(3) 
  
23 We note that this analysis could change significantly depending on the extent to which waivers are made 
available for LPFM proposals that do not meet second-adjacent channel spacing requirements.  We are not 
prejudging that issue here.  
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
7
requirement that translator and LPFM stations remain “equal in status”?24 We seek comment on these 
issues. 
13. Finally, it appears that it will be significantly easier to ensure that licenses will be 
available for future translator stations than for LPFM stations.  As previously noted,25 licensing 
asymmetries between the translator and LPFM services make it unlikely that LPFM licensing will 
preclude translator licensing opportunities, even in spectrum-limited markets.  The translator protection 
rule, Section 74.1204,26 which is substantially more flexible than the minimum spacing requirements 
governing the LPFM service, facilitates the filing of technically acceptable applications in a window.  It 
also facilitates the resolution of technical conflicts among competing applications, thereby permitting 
numerous grants from individual mutually exclusive groups under the translator auction settlement 
procedures.  We tentatively conclude that these considerations establish that the Commission’s primary 
focus in effectuating Section 5(1) must be to ensure translator licensing procedures do not foreclose or 
unduly limit future LPFM licensing.  We seek comment on this conclusion.  
(2)  Section 5(2) – Assessing the “needs of the local community”   
14. The Section 5(2) directive to base translator and LPFM licensing decisions on the “needs 
of the local community” could be interpreted to concern solely the needs of communities for additional 
LPFM service on the theory that translators cannot be expected to provide meaningful local service, at 
least in larger markets.27 We seek comment on whether, based on a consideration of Section 5 in its 
entirety, the obligation to make licensing decisions based on the “needs of the local community” reflects a 
Congressional finding that both translators and LPFM stations can be expected to serve community 
needs.28 We note that the Commission similarly concluded in 2007 that each of these services can 
provide important programming to their local communities.29  
15. We also seek comment on whether and how to compare the two services in assessing 
local community needs.  Significant differences exist in translator and LPFM eligibility, licensing and 
service rules, differences that can dramatically affect the ability of these stations to serve the needs of 
their communities.  Translators may not, except in certain narrow circumstances, originate programming.  
A translator is not required to place a certain strength signal over its community of license or comply with 
minimum operating schedule requirements.  A translator licensee is not required to broadcast programs 
that provide significant treatment of community issues or maintain issues/program lists.  Licensing rules 
for new translator stations neither limit eligibility to nor favor local applicants.
  
24 See Letter from The Honorable Greg Walden, Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, 
U.S. House of Representatives and The Honorable  Lee Terry, Vice Chairman, subcommittee on Communications 
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, to The Honorable Julius Genachowski, Chairman, Federal 
Communications Commission (Mar. 14, 2011) (“Walden/Terry Ex Parte”).
25 See supra, ¶ 4 and n.12.
26 47 C.F.R. § 74.1204.
27 See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Concerning FM Translator Stations, Report and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 
7212, 7213 (1990) (“the sole purpose of FM translators is to provide service to areas where direct reception of radio 
service is unsatisfactory due to distance or intervening terrain obstructions”).
28 See Section III.D., below, regarding the licensing of translator stations that may retransmit the signals of AM 
stations on a “fill in” basis.
29 Third Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 21932; see also ¶ 2 supra.
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
8
16. The Commission has traditionally assessed the comparative “needs of a community” for 
radio service as part of its obligation to “provide a fair, efficient, and equitable distribution of radio 
service . . . .”30 For example, the Commission established last year a Tribal Priority to advance Section 
307(b) goals “by enabling Indian Tribal governments to provide radio service tailored to the needs and 
interests of their local communities . . . .”31 Under long-standing and well established case law, 
translators are accorded no weight in assessing local service levels in FM allotment proceedings.32 The 
Commission, in the analogous context of low-power television and television translator licensing, has 
stated that the application of Section 307(b) principles would be “inappropriate” because such cases 
would not “present a meaningful Section 307(b) issue.”33
17. The main rationales for the exclusion of translators from Section 307(b) assessments are 
their status as secondary stations and, as a related matter, their potential preemption by full-service 
stations.34 LPFM stations also face potential displacement from full service stations.  In sharp contrast to 
the translator service, however, the LPFM service was specifically created to fill a perceived gap in the 
way that full-power stations meet community needs – “to foster a program service responsive to the needs 
and interests of small community groups, particularly specialized community needs that have not been 
well served by commercial broadcast stations.”35 Thus, under the Commission’s rules, LPFM stations 
may originate programming; those that pledge to do so receive a licensing preference.  LPFM stations 
must be locally owned.  No party may hold an attributable interest in an LPFM station and another 
broadcast station.  This restriction ensures that each licensed LPFM station necessarily expands 
ownership diversity in its community of license.  The LPFM licensing rules promote share-time 
settlements between or among competing local applicants, further encouraging ownership diversity where 
spectrum is limited.  For these reasons, the Commission has concluded that LPFM eligibility, selection 
and service rules “will ensure that LPFM licensees will meet the needs and interests of their 
communities.”36
18. We seek comment on whether the Commission should take cognizance of the differing 
eligibility, licensing, and service rules for the translator and LPFM services in assessing the “needs of a 
community” for additional radio service.  If so, how heavily should this directive weigh in favor of future 
LPFM licensing?  What specific translator application procedures should the Commission adopt to give 
effect to Section 5(2)?  We also seek comment on alternate interpretations of Section 5(2) and their 
impact on licensing procedures for the pending translator applications.
  
30 47 C.F.R. §  307(b); e.g., Romar Communications, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 23128 
(2004).
31 Policies to Promote Rural Radio Service and to Streamline Allotment and Assignment Procedures, First Report 
and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 25 FCC Rcd 1583, 1588 (2010) (emphasis added).  
32 E.g., Banks, Redmond, Sunriver and Corvallis, Oregon, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 6596 (MMB 1998) (FM 
translators not considered in determining services available to a community); Chillicothe, Dublin, Hillsboro, and 
Marion, OH, Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 6305 (MB 2005) (FM translators not considered local service). 
33 Inquiry Into the Future of Low Power Television Broadcasting and Television Translators in the National 
Telecommunications System, Report and Order, BC Docket No. 78-253, 47 Fed. Reg. 21468 (1982 (¶¶ 62-63).
34 E.g., id. at ¶ 62.
35 First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 2213. 
36 Id. at 2270 (emphasis added); see also H.R. Rep. 111-160, 111th Cong., 1st Sess. (2009) at 2 (“Through the 
creation of LPFM, the [FCC] sought to ‘create opportunities for new voices on the airwaves and to allow local 
groups, including schools, churches, and other community-based organizations to provide programming responsive 
to local community needs and interests . . .’”). 
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
9
(3) Section 5(3) – “Equal in status”
19. Section 5(3) requires that translator and LPFM stations “remain equal in status and 
secondary to existing and modified full-service FM stations.”  We invite comment on whether and how 
this requirement impacts our treatment of the pending FM translator applications.  In particular, we invite 
comment on whether Section 5(3) limits the Commission’s authority to waive its cut-off rules in order to 
give priority to a later-filed LPFM application over a pending FM translator application.  Section 5(3) 
refers specifically to “stations,” not to “applications.”  If Section 5(3) is interpreted to apply only to 
stations, the Commission would be able to defer action on any pending FM translator applications that it 
determines must make way for LPFM licensing opportunities and then process those applications later. 
20. On the other hand, a number of factors argue in favor of interpreting Section 5(3) to 
prohibit cut-off rule waivers in this context.  Under current Commission rules, stations in these two 
services are “co-equal” in this licensing context in one principal way.  Specifically, under the 
Commission’s so-called “cut-off” rules, a prior filed application in one service “cuts off” a subsequently-
filed application in the other service.37 This exact issue, characterized as “LPFM – FM Protection 
Priorities” in the Third Report and Order,38 has been a central point of dispute between LPFM and 
translator proponents since the imposition of the translator processing freeze in 2005.  Moreover, the 
Commission and parties to this proceeding have used substantially identical language to explain their 
conflicting policy positions. For example, the Commission noted in 2007 that “[t]he Third Report and 
Order does not reach a conclusion on the ‘co-equal’ status between LPFM stations and FM translator 
stations.  Under the Rules for these services, a first-filed LPFM or FM translator application must be 
protected by all subsequently filed LPFM and FM translator applications.”39 Given that the cut-off rules 
are a principal characteristic of the two services’ co-equal status and that “stations” and “applications” 
were used interchangeably in the Commission proceeding before the LCRA was adopted, it seems 
reasonable to assume that Congress intended the same meaning when it used the term “station” in the 
LCRA. If so interpreted, the Commission would lack authority to adopt a processing policy which 
includes the dismissal of prior-filed translator applications in conflict with subsequently filed LPFM 
applications.  Alternatively, does Section 5(3) merely require that the Commission not favor either service 
in developing translator and LPFM new station licensing rules?40 If this alternative interpretation is 
adopted, what criteria are relevant in assessing whether such rules maintain a “co-equal” status between 
the services, especially when the current technical licensing rules, which provide substantially greater 
opportunities for future translator licensing in many markets, are taken into account?  We seek comment 
on these alternative interpretations of Section 5(3) and their impact on the processing of the pending 
translator applications. 
  
37 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.807(d) (requiring LPFM application to meet minimum distance separation requirements with 
respect to FM translator authorizations and prior filed applications) and 74.1204(a) and Note to Paragraph (a)(4) 
(barring the acceptance of an FM translator application if the proposed operation would involve prohibited overlap 
to authorized LPFM stations or prior filed LPFM applications).
38 Third Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 21946.
39 Id. (emphasis added); see also id. at 21929 (“[S]tations in these two services operate on a substantially co-equal
basis, with a facility proposed in an application having “priority” over one specified in any subsequent application) 
(emphasis added); id. at 21931 (broadcasters contend that it is premature to reassess “the ‘co-equal’ status of LPFM 
and FM translator stations”) (emphasis added).  
40 See Walden/Terry Ex Parte at 1.  
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
10
B. Proposed FM Translator Application Processing Plan 
21. Given our tentative conclusion that the ten-application cap is not a viable means of 
balancing the competing goals of introducing new FM translator service and preserving LPFM spectrum 
availability, we must consider alternative options in light of Section 5’s requirements and the data in the 
record, including Appendix A data.
(1) Open a Joint FM Translator/LPFM Application Window
22. Although not raised by any party to this proceeding, one option is to dismiss all pending 
FM translator applications from the 2003 window and make plans for a joint window for both LPFM and 
FM translator applications.  In theory, such an option could advance the three Section 5 mandates.  
However, we foresee overwhelming practical and legal difficulties in attempting to implement such a 
novel licensing process.  If the translator and LPFM services were each limited to commercial operations, 
then Section 309(j) of the Act would appear to require the use of efficient competitive bidding 
procedures.41 However, both commercial and NCE translator applications can be filed in a non-reserved 
FM band filing window.  Accordingly, we would need to devise an alternate method for selecting among 
“mixed” groups of competing NCE and commercial applications.  
23. The Commission has developed, not without difficulty,42 only one methodology to 
resolve such conflicts.  This comparative scheme, which applies to the Auction 83 translator filings, 
requires the dismissal of NCE applications which remain in conflict with a commercial proposal.  This 
methodology, which would resolve all commercial translator/LPFM conflicts in favor of the translator 
application, is clearly inconsistent with the cross-service balancing principle inherent in the Section 5 
directives.  The fact that translator and LPFM stations can provide fundamentally different types of radio 
service adds additional complexities to the task of crafting a comparative standard.  Thus, not only would 
it be extremely difficult to develop such a selection method that fits within Section 5’s framework as to 
both services, but any method chosen would likely be subject to extensive, time-consuming challenges.  
Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that we should not pursue this option with respect to the next 
window or subsequent windows.  Instead, we propose to focus on processing the pending FM translator 
applications in an alternate manner that is consistent with the LCRA.  We seek comment on this tentative 
conclusion.
(2)  Establish a Priority for Future LPFM Applications
24. Some parties have urged the Commission not to dismiss any translator applications 
immediately, and to defer consideration of all translator applications until after the next LPFM window.  
Only those translator applications in conflict with LPFM filings would ultimately be dismissed under this 
approach.  However, for the reasons stated above, we may implement this approach only if we conclude 
that Section 5(3) does not bar the Commission from waiving Section 73.807(d).43 We seek comment on 
the lawfulness of this licensing procedure.  This approach also would necessarily delay further the 
processing of translator applications, filed in the 2003 window and now frozen for six years, until after 
the close of the next LPFM window.  It is also possible that this approach would increase the disparity 
  
41 47 U.S.C. § 309(j).  We note, however, that an auctions process would likely result in licensing outcomes that 
have little or no correlation to the Section 5(1) or 5(2) directives.
42 See National Public Radio v. FCC, 254 F.3d 226 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (vacating licensing rules for resolving conflicts 
between commercial and NCE applications) (subsequent history omitted).
43 See 47 C.F.R. § 73.907(d).
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
11
between the number of LPFM and translator licenses in larger markets where spectrum exists for both 
services and where the number of pending translator applications is likely to substantially outnumber 
LPFM licensing opportunities.44 We seek comment on whether such a licensing outcome is consistent 
with Sections 5(1) and (2).  We also request that commenters who favor this approach address its impact 
on the timing of future translator and LPFM licensing.  
(3)  Adopt a Market-Specific Translator Application Dismissal Processing 
Policy
25. Given the competing goals and constraints described above, we tentatively conclude that 
a market-specific, spectrum availability-based translator application dismissal policy would most 
faithfully implement Section 5.  This approach would ensure LPFM licensing opportunities in spectrum-
limited markets while also ensuring the immediate licensing of translator stations in communities in 
which ample spectrum remains for both services, including many major markets.  It is axiomatic that 
community groups and niche audiences are more plentiful in larger, more densely populated markets and, 
therefore, that there is a need for greater numbers of LPFM stations in such markets.  Moreover, we think 
that it is important that our translator processing policy, to the extent possible, ensure that there is 
sufficient spectrum to establish a robust, dynamic and permanent LPFM service in larger markets.  In this 
regard, we believe that the NCE FM service, the radio service most similar to the LPFM service, provides 
one measure of the relative needs of communities for LPFM service and a point of reference for setting 
LPFM licensing availability goals.  Both economics and Commission requirements support the notion 
that if a radio station exists, it is meeting the needs of its listeners.  Establishing an LPFM service floor 
which would limit the scale of potential LPFM licensing levels to a small fraction of the number of 
licensed NCE FM stations in a market would appear to be inconsistent with Section 5(2)’s requirement to 
consider local community needs for LPFM service in licensing new FM translators, especially when the 
limited ability of LPFM station signals to reach audiences is taken into account.  
26. We seek comment on the following “LPFM Channel Floors” which are intended to 
address these concerns and satisfy these licensing goals.  We also seek comment on whether a market-tier 
approach is a reasonable means for effectuating both Section 5(1) and 5(2) directives.  In proposing these 
channel floors, we are principally guided by the number of top150-market NCE FM full power stations, 
the service that is most comparable to the LPFM service.  In most cases, the number of NCE FM stations 
exceeds, frequently by a wide margin, the proposed market-specific LPFM channel floors.  We note that 
the number of licensed FM translator stations and pending translator applications are each significantly 
greater than these proposed floors in most markets.  In proposing these floors, we recognize that we have 
no assurance that these identified channels will result in LPFM station licensing.  The identified channels 
are, to some extent, theoretical markers.  The Commission will not know until the LPFM window whether 
interested applicants exist at the locations where LPFM channels are available.  Moreover, these channels 
are at risk every day from full power FM station modification filings.  Finally, we are mindful of the fact 
that the next LPFM window may provide the last best opportunity to create a vital and sustainable 
community radio service in major metropolitan areas.  Given the very limited licensing opportunities that 
the Bureau has identified in a number of major markets and the far more restrictive technical rules for 
LPFM station licensing, we tentatively conclude that these floors are essential to the development of the 
LPFM service in spectrum-limited markets, as intended by the LCRA.  We seek comment on this 
tentative conclusion.  
· Markets 1 – 20:  8 LPFM Channels
  
44  See supra, n.19.
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
12
· Markets 21 – 50: 7 LPFM Channels
· Markets 51 – 100:  6 LPFM Channels
· Markets 101 – 150 and, in addition, 
smaller markets where more 
than 4 translator applications 
are pending:  5 LPFM Channels  
27. To ensure that licenses are available in all markets, we propose to dismiss all pending 
applications for new FM translators in markets in which the number of available LPFM channels, as set 
forth in the Bureau study, are below these channel floors.  In calculating “available” LPFM channels, we 
have included both the identified vacant channels and those channels currently licensed to LPFM stations 
which are authorized to operate at locations within the thirty-minute latitude by thirty-minute longitude 
grid for each studied market.  We propose to process all pending applications for new translators in 
markets in which the number of available LPFM channels meets or exceeds the applicable LPFM channel 
floor.  
28. We also seek comment on whether we should impose restrictions on the translator 
settlement process in the “process all” markets to ensure that engineering solutions to resolve application 
conflicts do not reduce the number of channels available for LPFM stations in these markets.45  
Restricting applicants from amending their applications to specify adjacent channels and/or different 
transmitter locations may be necessary to safeguard the available LPFM channels identified in Appendix 
A.  As set forth therein, the Bureau’s channel availability analysis incorporates the proposed channels and 
locations of pending translator applications.  The translator settlement process, however, allows mutually 
exclusive applicants to settle by amending their applications to propose first-, second- and third-adjacent 
channels and different transmitter locations.  If unchecked, that process could significantly impact 
spectrum availability for future LPFM stations, precluding LPFM licensing opportunities on channels 
identified as available in the Bureau’s analysis.46 To ensure our ability to carry out the statutory mandate 
through the LPFM channel floor proposal or whatever approach we ultimately adopt, we propose to 
restrict applicants from amending applications to specify adjacent channels and/or different transmitter 
locations.  We seek comment on this processing policy and alternative approaches that would advance 
Section 5 goals.  
29. We tentatively conclude that a three-pronged licensing process would promote Section 5 
goals.  Under this approach, immediately following the resolution of the matters at issue in this Third 
Further Notice  the Commission would resume the processing of those translator applications where there 
remains sufficient spectrum for LPFM based on the channel floors proposed above, i.e., only at locations 
at which translator licensing will not undermine the Section 5(1) directive to ensure future LPFM 
  
45 See 47 C.F.R. 73.5002 (c) and (d).
46 For example, a mutually exclusive group of translator applications could consist of four applications, each 
specifying the same channel at the same location.  Absent amendments, one of these applications could be granted 
without impacting LPFM channel availability.  But under the flexible translator technical rules, these four applicants 
could enter into an agreement under which each application could be granted by proposing one of the four following 
channels:  -3rd adjacent channel to the original channel, -1st adjacent channel, +1st adjacent channel or +3rd adjacent 
channel.  Proposing different sites could increase the potential for LPFM channel preclusion.  Such a settlement 
could eliminate up to 11 channels in an area for possible LPFM use – all the channels from the -5th adjacent channel 
to the +5th adjacent channel.  An even greater range of channels could be precluded at a particular location if the 
settling applicants specified different channels in their original applications.
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
13
licensing opportunities.  Following the adoption of rules implementing the other provisions of the LCRA, 
the Commission would open an LPFM-only window.  Thereafter, following the substantial completion of 
LPFM application processing, the Commission would open a translator-only window.47 Under this 
approach, the Commission could immediately resume the processing of the thousands of translator 
applications which propose service in markets where ample spectrum remains for both services.  Thus, it 
appears that this approach, if adopted, would provide the most expeditious path to expanded translator 
and LPFM station licensing and would permit the opening of an LPFM window by the summer of 2012.  
In this regard, we request that any commenter who proposes an alternative licensing approach to explain 
how such approach would better implement Section 5 and to address the timing, resource and legal issues 
that any such approach would pose.
30. The foregoing Section 5 analysis, LPFM spectrum availability analysis, and proposed 
translator application processing plan rely heavily on Arbitron market definitions.  In this regard we note 
that the D.C. Circuit has upheld the Commission’s broad authority to define “community” differently in 
different contexts.48 We believe that Arbitron market-based assessments as used herein are reasonable for 
purposes of implementing Section 5 of the LCRA.  A more granular approach would appear to be 
extremely burdensome and unworkable.  Given the fact that the demand for LPFM licenses at particular 
locations and the availability of transmitter sites near such locations are unknowable prior to the opening 
of a window, a market-based analysis would appear to provide a reasonable “global” assessment of LPFM 
spectrum availability in particular areas.  We seek comment on this issue and alternative definitions to 
implement the Section 5 directives.   In particular, we seek comment on whether defining the Section 5(2) 
term “local community” in terms of markets is reasonable and whether it is appropriate to use the same 
definition for LPFM and translator purposes.
31. Finally, we find that certain temporary restrictions on the modification of translator 
stations authorized out of the Auction No. 83 filings are necessary to preserve LPFM licensing 
opportunities in identified spectrum-limited markets.  We are concerned that translator modifications 
during the pendency of the rulemaking could undermine the statutory mandate to ensure future LPFM
licensing opportunities in these markets.  Accordingly, we direct the Bureau to suspend the processing of 
any translator modification application that proposes a transmitter site for the first time within any market 
which has fewer LPFM channels available than the proposed channel floor.49 We propose to dismiss any 
such application should the Commission adopt the market by market licensing approach proposed in this 
Third Further Notice.  We seek comment on this proposal.  We also impose an immediate freeze on the 
filing of translator “move-in” modification applications and direct the Bureau to dismiss any such 
application filed after the adoption of this Third Further Notice.  This freeze shall continue until the close
  
47 A number of issues must be addressed before the next translator window is opened.  The 2003 window clearly 
revealed certain weaknesses in the translator licensing rules.  See Section III.C., infra. In addition, we must 
separately consider whether certain additional or modified procedures are necessary to promote Section 5 directives 
on a going-forward basis, e.g., establishing continuing limitations on translator licensing in spectrum-limited 
markets where there are substantially more translator stations than LPFM stations. 
48 Winter Park Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 873 F.2d 347, 352 (D.C. Cir. 1989) 
(“[N]othing in the Communications Act prevents the FCC from defining the term “community” differently in 
different contexts, or from adopting an interpretation that strays considerably from political boundaries.”) (citation 
omitted).  See also Policies to Promote Rural Radio Service and to Streamline Allotment and Assignment 
Procedures, Second Report and Order, First Order on Reconsideration, and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule 
Making, 26 FCC Rcd 2556, 2568 (2011) (FCC 11-28) (¶ 20) (establishing a presumption for Section 307(b) radio 
licensing purposes that an application specifying a community in or near to an Urbanized Area is intended to serve 
such area rather than the specified community of license).
49 An application proposing to relocate a transmitter closer to a larger market is commonly referred to as a “move 
in” modification application.
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
14
of the upcoming LPFM filing window. This processing freeze will not apply to any translator 
modification application which proposes to move its transmitter site from one location to another within 
the same spectrum-limited market.
C.  Prevention of Trafficking in Translator Station Construction Permits and Licenses
32. Having tentatively concluded that the Commission must process the remaining translator 
applications differently, we must consider whether a market-specific spectrum-based dismissal policy is 
sufficient to safeguard the integrity of the translator licensing process.  The Third Report and Order
raised concerns about the integrity of our translator licensing procedures.  We focused on the skewed 
applicant filing behavior in Auction No. 83.  Based on our analysis of the then-pending applications, we 
found that 80 percent of the 861 filers held ten or fewer proposals.  In contrast, the top 15 filers held one-
half of the 13,377 applications.  We also noted that several applicants had engaged in the active marketing 
and sale of hundreds of translator construction permits, including efforts by RAM to assign more than 
one-half of the 1,046 construction permits it had been awarded from the 2003 window filings.  The 
Commission concluded “that our assumption that our competitive bidding procedures would deter 
speculative filings has proven to be unfounded in the Auction No. 83 context.”50 The ten-application cap 
was intended, in part, to address these concerns.
33. We tentatively conclude that our proposed translator application processing policy would 
not be sufficient to deter speculative licensing conduct because we face essentially identical licensing 
concerns with the remaining translator filings.  RAM alone holds 1,563 of the remaining 6,475 
applications.  Each of the top 20 applicants continues to hold more than 20 applications and, 
cumulatively, more than one-half of all applications.  In contrast, the vast majority of applicants continue 
to hold only a few applications.  For example, 501 of the 646 (78%) remaining applicants hold five or 
fewer applications.  Similar filing imbalances occur in particular markets and regions.  One applicant 
holds 25 of the 27 translator applications proposing locations within 20 kilometers of Houston’s center 
city coordinates and 75 applications in Texas.  Two applicants hold 66 of the 74 applications proposing 
service to the New York City market. 
34. A number of factors may create an environment which promotes the acquisition of 
translator authorizations solely for the purpose of selling them.  It is likely that a substantial portion of the 
remaining grants will be made pursuant to our settlement, that is, non-auction, procedures.  Translator 
construction permits may be sold on a “for profit” basis.  Permittees are not required to construct or 
operate newly authorized facilities. Absent translator licensing rule changes, it appears that limiting the 
number of permits that any applicant receives from the processing of the remaining applications is the 
only effective tool to deter speculative activity.  We tentatively conclude that nothing in the LCRA limits 
the Commission’s ability to address the potential for licensing abuses by any applicant in Auction No. 83.  
We seek comment on this issue.  We also seek comment on processing policies to deter the potential for
speculative abuses among the remaining translator applicants.  For example, we seek comment on 
whether to establish an application cap for the applications that would remain pending in non-spectrum 
limited markets and unrated markets.  Would a cap of 50 or 75 applications in a window force high filers 
to concentrate on those proposals and markets where they have bona fide service aspirations?  In addition 
or alternatively, should applicants be limited to one or a few applications in any particular market? A 
limitation of this sort could limit substantially the opportunity to warehouse and traffic in translator 
authorizations while promoting diversity goals.  We also seek comment on alternative approaches to 
protect against abuses in the translator licensing process. 
  
50 Id. at 21934.
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
15
D.  Restrictions on the Use of FM Translators to Rebroadcast the Signals of AM 
Stations
35. In 2009, the Commission authorized the use of FM translators with licenses or permits in 
effect as of May 1, 2009, to rebroadcast the signal of a local AM station.51 The limitation of cross-service 
translator usage to already-authorized FM translators was adopted with the intention of preserving 
opportunities for future LPFM licensing.52 Two parties filed petitions for partial reconsideration of this 
aspect of the 2009 Translator Order.  Both petitions argue that the limitation of cross-service translators 
to already-authorized translators does not serve the public interest and is unfair to both AM stations and 
FM translator applicants.53 These petitions remain pending in MB Docket No. 07-172.
36. As a result of the likely significant impact of the LCRA on the processing of the 
translator applications, we believe it is also appropriate to consider whether to remove this limit on cross-
service translators with respect to the pending FM translator applications.  Notwithstanding our decision 
to defer other LCRA implementation issues, we conclude that it is appropriate to address this issue now.  
The authorization of AM rebroadcasting in 2009, long after the filing of the pending applications, created 
an enormous new demand for FM translators, leading to numerous application modification waiver 
requests and other filings. We believe that resolving this issue before processing of the pending translator 
applications will align FM translator licensing outcomes more closely with demand by enabling 
applicants to take the rebroadcasting option into account in the translator settlement and licensing 
processes, thereby advancing the goals of Section 5(2).  Elimination of the date limitation at least with 
respect to the pending translator applications would appear consistent with the other actions which the 
Commission must take to ensure LPFM licensing opportunities, the same goal that the going-forward 
AM/FM translator rebroadcasting exclusion was intended to achieve.  In addition, the new AM/FM 
translator service rule has proven to be a very successful deregulatory policy.  Approximately 500 AM 
stations currently use FM translators, providing hundreds of these stations with their first nighttime 
authority and the opportunity to operate viably at night.  Anecdotal reports from many AM licensees 
repeatedly emphasize their vastly increased ability to cover local community, governmental and school 
events, and, generally, to better serve the needs of their communities.
37. Accordingly, we request comments on the issue of whether cross-service translators 
should remain limited to those authorized as of May 1, 2009 or whether the limit should be extended to 
include those applications which were on file as of May 1, 2009.54 Specifically, would the proposed 
changes in the FM translator application processing rules provide sufficient future LPFM application 
opportunities to support such a revision in the limitation on cross-service translators?  Would the 
proposed changes in the FM translator application processing rules accomplish more effectively the goals 
  
51 See Amendment of Service and Eligibility Rules for FM Broadcast Translator Stations, Report and Order, 24 FCC 
Rcd 9642 (2009) (“2009 Translator Order”).  Specifically, no portion of the 60 dBu contour of the FM translator 
station may extend 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.  See 47 C.F.R. § 74.1201(g).
52 See 2009 Translator Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 9650:  “[W]e 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.”  This restriction is codified at 47 C.F.R. § 74.1232(d).
53 Petition for Reconsideration by Robert A. Lynch, filed July 28, 2009; Petition for Reconsideration by Edward A. 
Schober, filed July 28, 2009.
54 We seek comment on modifying the cross-service prohibition with regard to only those applications that remain 
pending from the 2003 translator window.  As noted above, the issue of whether to eliminate the date restriction on 
cross-service translators is before the Commission in petitions for reconsideration of the 2009 Translator Order.
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
16
that the Commission sought to accomplish with the original application cap and the limitation on cross-
service translators?  Should the Commission modify this exclusion to enable translator and AM station 
licensees to better meet the needs of their communities?  We seek comment on these issues.  
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
A.  Filing Requirements. 
38. Ex Parte Rules.  This proceeding will be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding 
subject to the “permit-but-disclose” requirements under Section 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s rules.55  
Ex parte presentations are permissible if disclosed in accordance with Commission rules, except during 
the Sunshine Agenda period when presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are generally prohibited.  Persons 
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that a memorandum summarizing a presentation must 
contain a summary of the substance of the presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed.  
More than a one- or two-sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally 
required.56 Additional rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in Section 1.1206(b).   
39. Comments and Reply Comments.  Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the 
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments 
on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document.  Comments may be filed using the 
Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).  See Electronic Filing of Documents in 
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
§ Electronic Filers:  Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the
ECFS:  http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.  
§ Paper Filers:  Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and  one copy of each 
filing.  If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, 
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail.  All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
§ All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission’s Secretary 
must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW, Room TW-A325, 
Washington, DC 20554.  The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.   All hand deliveries 
must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners.  Any envelopes and boxes must be 
disposed of before entering the building.  
§ Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority 
Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD  20743.
§ U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th
Street, SW, Washington DC  20554.
  
55 Id. § 1.1206(b), as revised.
56 See id. at § 1.1206(b)(2).
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
17
People with Disabilities:  To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, 
large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
B.  Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.  
40. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (“RFA”), requires that a regulatory 
flexibility analysis be prepared for notice and comment rule making proceedings, unless the agency 
certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.”  The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same 
meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In 
addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the 
Small Business Act.  A “small business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; 
(2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the 
Small Business Administration (SBA).
41. With respect to this Notice, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) under the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act57 is contained in Appendix B.  Written public comments are requested in the 
IFRA, and must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on the Notice, with a 
distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.  The Commission will send a copy of this 
Notice, including the IRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.  In 
addition, a copy of this Notice and the IRFA will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA, 
and will be published in the Federal Register.
C.  Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis.  
42. This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain 
any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
43. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 
303, 307, and 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C §§ 151, 152, 154(i), 303, 307, and 
309(j), that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS ADOPTED.
44. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no application to modify the facilities of an authorized 
FM translator to move its transmitter site for the first time into a market with fewer LPFM channels 
available than the service floor for that market proposed herein, as set forth in Appendix A, shall be 
accepted for filing until the close of the upcoming LPFM filing window proposed for summer 2012.
  
57 See 5 U.S.C. § 603.
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
18
45. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, 
Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including 
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration, and shall cause it to be published in the Federal Register.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch  
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
19
APPENDIX A
LPFM Spectrum Availability Studies
In order to assess LPFM spectrum availability, the Bureau centered a thirty-minute latitude by thirty-
minute longitude grid over the center-city coordinates of each listed market.  Each grid consists of 931 
points – 31 points running east/west by 31 points running north/south.  Grid points are located at one-
minute intervals of latitude and longitude.  The Bureau analyzed each of the 100 FM channels (88.1 MHz 
– 107.9 MHz) at each grid point to determine whether any channels remain available for future LPFM 
stations at that location.  Only channels that fully satisfy co-, first- and second adjacent channel LPFM 
spacing requirements to all authorizations and applications, including pending translator applications, are 
treated as available.  The area encompassed by the grid is approximately 35 miles (north/south) by 26 
miles (east/west).  The grid is not intended to approximate radio market boundaries.  Rather, this 
methodology is designed to identify “core” market locations that could serve significant populations.  
Coordinates located over major bodies of water were excluded.  No attempt was made to otherwise 
ascertain site viability.  
Detailed Column Information
Arb#/Rank -- Arbitron market ranking.  Data compiled from BIA/Kelsey – MEDIA Access Pro, 
Version 4.5, Fall 2010 database (“BIA Fall 2010”)
CF#/Rank -- Common Frequency Arbitron market ranking.  See September 27, 2010 Letter from Jeff 
Shaw, President, Common Frequency, Inc., Appendix A (“Common Frequency 2010 Study”).  Data 
compiled from Appendix A of Common Frequency 2010 Study.  This study uses an earlier Arbitron 
rating period.  Column lists market rankings as they appear in this study.  This market ranking data is 
relevant only for data listed in “Pending/FX apps” column.
Fall 2010 Arbitron Rankings -- Arbitron market name.  Data compiled from BIA Fall 2010.
Total Licensed Stations/FM trans. – Number of licensed FM translator stations in market.  Data 
compiled from BIA Fall 2010.
Total Licensed Stations/LPFM -- Number of licensed LPFM stations in market.  Data compiled from 
BIA Fall 2010.
Total Licensed Stations/NCE FMs -- Number of licensed NCE FM stations in market.  Data 
compiled from BIA Fall 2010.
LPFM Avail. in grid/Locations – Maximum number of LPFM licensing opportunities in a market 
on the identified available vacant channels.  In some cases, several LPFM stations in the same market 
could use the same channel while satisfying the minimum co-channel LPFM-LPFM distance separation 
requirements.  This “Locations” number assumes an advantageous geographic distribution of LPFM 
transmitter site locations within the market and includes all vacant channels identified as available in the 
market.  See above for methodology.
LPFM Avail. in grid/Channel – Total number of LPFM channels available for licensing 
opportunities in a market.  This “Channel” total counts the number of unique channels that can be used 
for LPFM licensing within the grid.  See above for methodology.
LPFM Avail. In grid/Licensed – Total number of LPFM stations licensed in a market at locations 
within the grid.  In-market LPFM stations with transmitter sites located outside the grid are excluded 
from this total.
Pending/FX apps – Total number of pending FM translator applications from the 2003 window.  
Data compiled from Common Frequency 2010 Study.  Common Frequency included pending translator 
application from seven embedded markets in the respective parent market totals.  An embedded market is 
a unique marketing area for the buying and selling of radio air time.  It is contained, either in whole or 
part, within the boundaries of the larger, “parent,” market.  These embedded (parent) markets are:  
Middlesex-Somerset-Union (New York); Monmouth-Ocean (New York); Morristown, NJ (New York), 
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
20
Nassau-Suffolk (New York), San Jose, CA (San Francisco); Santa Rosa, CA (San Francisco) and 
Stamford-Norwalk, CT (New York).  
Result – “Dismiss all FX” denotes a market where the number of available LPFM channels and 
licensed LPFM stations within the grid is less than the proposed LPFM Channel Floor in the 
particular market.  “Process all FX” denotes a market where the number of available LPFM 
channels and licensed LPFM stations within the grid is equal to or greater than the proposed 
LPFM Channel Floor in the particular market.  “N/A” denotes a market with zero pending 
translator applications. 
(See Appendix A excel chart attached to this document).
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
21
APPENDIX B
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (“RFA”)58 the 
Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) of the possible significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking.  Written public comments are requested on this IRFA.  Comments must be 
identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) provided in paragraph 39.  The Commission will send a copy of this 
entire NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration (“SBA”).59 In addition, the NPRM and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published 
in the Federal Register.60
2. Need For, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules.  This rulemaking proceeding is 
initiated to seek comment on how the enactment of Section 5 of the Local Community Radio Act of 2010 
(“LCRA”)61 impacts the procedures previously adopted to process the approximately 6,500 applications 
which remain from the 2003 FM translator window.  The Commission previously established a processing 
cap of ten pending short-form applications per applicant from FM translator Auction No. 83.  The NPRM
tentatively concludes that that this cap is inconsistent with the LCRA licensing criteria.  The NPRM
concludes that it is important that the translator processing policy to be adopted will ensure that there is 
sufficient spectrum to establish a robust, dynamic and permanent LPFM service in larger markets.  It 
tentatively concludes that a market-specific, spectrum availability-based translator application dismissal 
policy most faithfully implements Section 5 of the LCRA. Specifically, the NPRM proposes to dismiss all 
pending applications for new FM translators in markets in which the number of available LPFM channels, 
as set forth in a Bureau study, are below these channel floors.  The item notes that this approach would 
both ensure additional spectrum for LPFM stations in markets in which it is most limited while also 
ensuring the immediate licensing of translator stations in communities in which ample spectrum remains 
for both services, including many major markets.    
3. The NPRM also seeks comment on whether the Commission should modify certain 
recently adopted FM translator service rule changes as a result of the enactment of the LCRA.  
Specifically, the NPRM seeks comment on the issue of whether cross-service translators should remain 
limited to those authorized as of May 1, 2009.  
4. Legal Basis.  The authority for this proposed rulemaking is contained in Sections 1, 2, 
4(i), 303, 307, and 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C §§ 151, 152, 154(i), 303, 307, 
and 309(j).
5. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed 
Rules Will Apply. 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 proposed rules.62  The RFA generally 
  
58 See 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. §§ 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. 857 (1996).
59 See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).
60 See id. § 603(a).  
61 Pub. L. No. 111-371, 124 Stat. 4072.
62 Id. § 603(b)(3).
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
22
defines the term "small entity" as encompassing the terms "small business," "small organization," and 
"small governmental entity."63  In addition, the term “small Business” has the same meaning as the term 
“small business concern” under the Small Business Act.64 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 Small Business Administration ("SBA").65
6. Radio Broadcasting. The proposed policies could apply to radio broadcast licensees, and 
potential licensees of radio service.  The SBA defines a radio broadcast station as a small business if such 
station has no more than $7 million in annual receipts.66 Business concerns included in this industry are 
those primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public.67 According to 
Commission staff review of the BIA Publications, Inc. Master Access Radio Analyzer Database on as of 
January 31, 2011, about 10,820 (97 percent) of 11,100 commercial radio stations) 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) 
affiliations68 must be included.  Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that 
might be affected by our action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or 
aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.
7. 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.
8. FM translator stations and low power FM stations. The proposed policies could affect 
licensees of FM translator and booster stations and low power FM (LPFM) stations, as well as to potential 
licensees in these radio services.  The same SBA definition that applies to radio broadcast licensees would 
apply to these stations. The SBA defines a radio broadcast station as a small business if such station has 
no more than $7 million in annual receipts.69 Given the nature of these services, we will presume that all 
of these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.    Currently, there are approximately 
6131 licensed FM translator stations and 860 licensed LPFM stations.70 In addition, there are 
approximately 646 applicants with pending applications filed in the 2003 translator filing window.  Given 
  
63 Id. § 601(6).
64 Id. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small business concern” in the Small Business Act, 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 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.”
65 15 U.S.C. § 632.  
66 See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 515112. 
67 Id.  
68 “[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).
69 See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 515112. 
70 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). 
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
23
the nature of these services, we will presume that all of these licensees and applicants qualify as small 
entities under the SBA definition.  
9. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 
Requirements. The NPRM provides for no changes in the reporting, recordkeeping and other 
compliance requirements for FM translator or LPFM licensees or applicants.
10. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and Significant 
Alternatives Considered.  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.71  
11. The NPRM proposes to establish a market-specific, spectrum availability-based approach 
to the processing of remaining translator applications.  As discussed in more detail below, alternatives 
considered included dismissal of all pending translator applications and the opening of a joint 
LPFM/translator window, or the deferral of translator application processing until the close of the next 
LPFM application filing window.  
12. Joint Window.  One option considered was to dismiss all pending FM translator 
applications from the 2003 window and make plans for a joint window for both LPFM and FM translator 
applications.  In theory, such an option could advance the three Section 5 mandates.  However, the NPRM
concludes that there would be overwhelming practical and legal difficulties in attempting to implement 
such a novel licensing process.  Specifically, the NPRM notes that an alternate method for selecting 
among “mixed” groups of competing NCE and commercial applications would need to be devised, and 
concludes that it would be extremely difficult to develop such a selection method that fits within Section 
5’s framework as to both services, and that any method chosen would likely be subject to extensive, time-
consuming challenges.  
13. LPFM Priority.  Another option considered was to defer consideration of all translator 
applications until after the next LPFM window.  Only those translator applications in conflict with LPFM 
filings would ultimately be dismissed under this approach.  The NPRM questions the lawfulness of this 
licensing procedure, and also concludes that this approach would necessarily delay further the processing 
of translator applications, filed in the 2003 window and now frozen for six years, until after the close of 
the next LPFM window.  It further notes that this approach would increase the disparity between the 
number of LPFM and translator licenses in larger markets where spectrum exists for both services and 
where the number of pending translator applications is likely to substantially outnumber LPFM licensing 
opportunities. 
  
71 5 U.S.C. § 603(b).
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
24
14. We do not believe that either of these approaches would have offered any significant 
benefits to small entities than the proposed market-based processing policy.  Moreover, as discussed 
above, the market-based approach ensures additional spectrum for LPFM stations in markets in which it is 
most limited while also ensuring the immediate licensing of translator stations in communities in which 
ample spectrum remains for both services, including many major markets.    Both of these outcomes 
benefit small entities.  However, we are open to comments that might propose alternatives to any of the 
approaches considered above.
15. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the Commission’s 
Proposals.  None.
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
25
STATEMENT OF 
CHAIRMAN JULIUS GENACHOWSKI
Re: Creation of A Low Power Radio Service (MM Docket No. 99-25) and Amendment of Service
and Eligibility rules for FM Broadcast Translator Stations (MB Docket No. 07-172)
Today, we act to break a spectrum logjam, clearing the way for development of a more robust 
local community radio service and processing of thousands of pending FM translator applications.  This is 
a win for communities across the nation.  It is another step forward on our spectrum agenda. It promotes 
efficient use of spectrum, an increasingly vital public resource.  And it provides new benefits to 
consumers everywhere.
Proponents of the LPFM and translator services have long vied for space on the crowded radio 
dial.  Several months ago, Congress passed the Local Community Radio Act (LCRA), and I would like to 
acknowledge the members of Congress who worked hard on this important legislation, including the 
legislation’s sponsors Representatives Mike Doyle and Lee Terry, as well as Senators Cantwell and 
McCain. I was pleased that the Commission served as a resource to Congress during consideration of the 
law, and I’m pleased that today the Commission takes important steps toward implementing the law.  
In 2007, we imposed a 10-application limit on FM translator applicants in order to preserve 
licensing opportunities for LPFM.  Today’s Further Notice takes a fresh look at the ten-application limit 
in light of the LCRA and tentatively concludes that it is not consistent with the new law’s directives.  
Based on a detailed engineering analysis of the top 150 radio markets, we’ve crafted a locally tailored, 
market-based processing proposal that will yield benefits for both translator and LPFM service:  it will 
allow the licensing of many more translators than under the previous approach, while at the same time 
doing a better job of preserving opportunities for LPFM in spectrum-limited markets.  
The biggest winner will be the American public – in both urban and rural areas.  Radio continues 
to provide a very valuable service.  Indeed, notwithstanding the growth of the Internet and other 
platforms, broadcast over-the-air radio listening has been increasing, with 93% of Americans 12 and older 
tuning in to radio each week.  
The recently released Information Needs of Communities report stressed the importance of local 
voices and local news.  It noted that the LPFM service was specifically created to provide new voices on 
the airwaves and allow local groups, including schools, churches, and other community-based 
organizations, to provide programming responsive to local community needs and interests.  And LPFM 
has done just that.  LPFM stations have done a strong job reaching underserved communities such as non-
English speakers, seniors, and migrant workers, providing news and information regarding local issues 
and civic affairs, and serving as emergency responders.  
By expanding LPFM opportunities, voices of many more new entrants and independent 
programmers will be heard on the radio and they will reach more communities, all over the country, in 
both rural and urban areas. 
This will strengthen both our democracy and our economy.  It will advance traditional goals of 
localism and diversity in this important medium that reaches almost all Americans, and create new 
opportunities for business and job creation.  
We are also proposing to immediately restart the licensing of FM translator stations in most 
smaller markets and rural areas to meet the needs of communities that have been waiting too long for 
these stations.  And after we implement other provisions of the LCRA, I am hopeful that we will be able 
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
26
to open an LPFM-only window in the coming year.  We have our work cut out for us, but this is 
important and we are moving forward.
Finally, I am pleased that the Third Further Notice seeks comment on expanding opportunities to 
use FM translator stations to rebroadcast AM stations.  Our initial 2009 action, a deregulatory initiative 
which permitted cross-service rebroadcasts for the first time, has been an unqualified success.  Nearly 500 
AM stations now use translators to provide expanded nighttime service to their communities.  In many 
cases, the added translator service has transformed marginal AM stations into competitive full-time media 
outlets that now provide expanded coverage of local news and events.  Promoting these arrangements is 
consistent with our policy to make the most intensive use of valuable spectrum resources and to boost 
investment and job creation in local communities, and is yet another win for the American public.
I thank the Media Bureau, especially Peter Doyle, and my Senior Counsel and Legal Advisor 
Sherrese Smith for their excellent work on this item.
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
27
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS
Re: Creation of A Low Power Radio Service (MM Docket No. 99-25) and Amendment of Service
and Eligibility rules for FM Broadcast Translator Stations (MB Docket No. 07-172)
 “Low Power to the People.” That’s been the dream of a lot of us for a long, long time. Today the 
dream moves an important step closer to reality. A year ago the chances of this happening looked rather 
bleak, but thanks to the incredible efforts of Representatives Mike Doyle and Lee Terry and Senators 
Maria Cantwell and John McCain, the committee leadership of the House and Senate, and many others, 
Congress passed and the President signed into law the Local Community Radio Act. Behind all their 
effort was the great and even heroic work of Prometheus, the Future of Music Coalition and many other 
public interest groups whose inspiration and energy overcame numerous obstacles along the way. Theirs 
was a lesson in what vision and perseverance combined can achieve. Thanks to the Local Community 
Radio Act, more than 160 million people unserved and underserved by local Low-Power FM radio will be 
able to reap its benefits—truly local broadcasting operated by truly diverse station operators. Now the 
duty falls on us to ensure this wonderful new opportunity for people’s radio on the people’s airwaves.
Digressing but a few seconds, I think the Third Circuit Court’s decision last week on media 
ownership rules underscored that it’s not just everyday citizens and public interest advocates who expect 
real diversity in their media outlets—the statute and the courts expect it, too. Its decision addressed head-
on the limited attention and lackluster action previous FCCs demonstrated in confronting the dearth of 
minority-owned and female-owned broadcast stations in this country. In this day of so much media 
consolidation, of mind-numbing program homogenization and dumbing-us-down news, new voices are 
critically important if we are really serious about sustaining America’s civic dialogue and citizen 
engagement. Consider the stats: Between 1996 and 2007 the number of commercial radio station owners 
in our country declined by almost 40%, and the largest two commercial companies in our markets 
currently have, on average, 74% of the total radio advertising revenue. So much for localism, diversity 
and competition. Quite a few full-power broadcasters have struggled to resist the trend, but it’s tougher 
every day for them to sustain their values in markets—a media market and a financial market—where the 
bottom line so often trumps the common good. Something more is needed, and a significant part of that 
“something else” could just be Low Power FM radio.
I am pleased the item before us handles the implementation of the Local Community Radio Act in 
a measured and generally balanced manner. It gives long-delayed life to Low Power while recognizing 
the importance of translators. Translators serve an important function in reaching underserved 
communities and in providing greater reach to valuable programming—I think we would all agree on 
that. Currently in the top 50 markets there are 607 licensed FM translators fulfilling this function. In 
those same markets there are just 86 licensed LPFMs. I believe—and this item proposes—that the time is 
now to add more independent Low Power voices to the airwaves. And LPFMs should not be relegated to 
low-density markets where radio spectrum is in lower demand—they should serve their listeners 
wherever we can find room. The opportunity we have before us now for new stations to reach deep into 
their diverse communities of service with targeted news, information, music and other cultural offerings is 
precious and we need to seize the day. 
I am supportive of the market-by-market approach put forward in the Further Notice. This 
approach is crafted on the proposition that Low Power should be available in every possible market—
specifically including spectrum-limited markets—while permitting translator applicants to pursue more 
licenses once Low Power FM has a shot at gaining a toe-hold. There is nothing in today’s action that 
precludes translator applicants from pursuing licenses in the future even in those markets where pending 
applications may be dismissed. Today’s action simply clears the path forward to a new LPFM window, a 
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
28
window that may be the last substantive opportunity for LPFMs to obtain licenses. I would also note that 
the less stringent licensing standards applicable to translators will allow for pending applicants to have 
many licensing opportunities in the future. 
This tiered approach takes a realistic and I believe acceptable view of spectrum availability and 
community needs. While reaching the numerical channel floors proposed in this item may not be totally 
attainable in all major metropolitan areas, today’s action is a crucial step towards creating at least some 
LPFM opportunities in large, diverse and spectrum-crowded communities.
 But make no mistake: a lot of hard work remains to be done to create a vibrant LPFM 
marketplace. There are a number of accompanying steps the Commission must take to breathe real life 
into LPFM. The most pressing is promptly to open a new LPFM window so potential licensees can get 
about the job of putting together plans and financing. In this regard, I hope that when the auction window 
opens, we will have put in place some effective incentives so that women- and minority-owned businesses 
can take shape in the Low Power world. Additionally, the Commission will need to address the issues of 
second-adjacent waivers and of permitting LPFM stations to use a more flexible contour-based approach 
for locating available channels. 
Put in a larger context, the benefits of Low Power FMs—local coverage, viewpoint diversity, 
minority- and female-ownership, and strengthened civic engagement—are also the qualities we want to 
have across the entire broadcast landscape. We license the public airways in the public interest and, as 
the licensor of America’s limited spectrum, the FCC must remain constantly vigilant to ensure all 
broadcasters are serving the core public interest goals of localism, competition and diversity. 
I want to thank the Chairman for bringing this item to us and I hope we will continue to push full-
steam ahead with a fulsome record gathered by a wide diversity of stakeholders. Special thanks are due 
to Peter Doyle and Jim Bradshaw, and others in the Media Bureau, who have spent an inordinate amount 
of time poring over the data and identifying the best path forward. I also want to thank my Media 
Advisor Josh Cinelli for really wading into this issue and working for its enhancement every step of the 
way. 
Low power radio is truly radio of the people, by the people, and for the people. And given the 
dedication of the grassroots effort for the last ten years I have, as the majority of my Low Power friends 
have, the hula-hoop to prove it.  So I end where I began—“Low Power to the People.” Please note, 
however, that I remain an ardent enthusiast for “Full Power to the People,” too.
 Thank you. 
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
29
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL
Re: Creation of A Low Power Radio Service (MM Docket No. 99-25) and Amendment of Service
and Eligibility rules for FM Broadcast Translator Stations (MB Docket No. 07-172)
I am pleased to support today’s Third Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (“Notice”) in 
which we take the first step to implement the Local Community Radio Act of 2010.  Congress has 
required us to ensure that both LPFM stations and FM translators have ample licensing opportunities.  
Reconciling the apparent tensions between LPFM and FM translator license applicants has not always 
been easy or handled with alacrity.  With this in mind, we undertake a review of our LPFM and FM 
translator licensing procedures and seek comment on processes to resolve FM translator applications that 
have been pending before the Commission since 2003.  
I am delighted that we are reconsidering the policy of limiting each applicant to only ten pending 
FM translator applications.  I dissented against this cap in the Third Report and Order in 2007 stating that 
it could increase the risk of harmful interference to services provided by FM translators in many unserved 
areas.  With the benefit of experience and hindsight, we now tentatively conclude that this proposal was 
also unworkable in other respects.  In advancing a replacement licensing methodology, we improve upon 
our previous ten application restriction by seeking comment on a market-specific approach for processing 
the approximately 6,500 FM translator applications that remain pending.  
Likewise, I am pleased that we seek comment on expanding the use of FM translators to 
rebroadcast AM station signals.  As the Notice recognizes, this expansion would allow AM licensees to 
better serve their communities by allowing stations to reach consumers at night.  Ironically, often AM 
stations serve similar audiences as LPFM stations.
I look forward to reviewing the record that develops in this proceeding and engaging with 
interested parties and my colleagues to implement Congress’s directive.  I thank the Chairman for his 
willingness incorporate many edits and the hard working professionals of the Media Bureau for their 
thoughtful work on a matter with a long, complicated history.
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
30
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN
Re: Creation of A Low Power Radio Service (MM Docket No. 99-25) and Amendment of Service
and Eligibility rules for FM Broadcast Translator Stations (MB Docket No. 07-172)
Usually, when the FCC issues an Order or Notice, all we see is…paper.  And more paper…and 
more paper.  Occasionally, we’ll witness gradual changes to an industry or in a business practice, but too 
often, the impact just isn’t that obvious to the general public.
 
But through our actions today, we inch closer to the moment when new
and diverse voices will find their way to the ears of radio listeners yearning for local insights and fresh 
flavor that has been held at bay for far too long.  The East Coast’s I-95 corridor is peppered with some of 
our nation’s greatest and most ethnically diverse cities – Boston, New York, Baltimore, DC.  But if you 
turn on your radio as you drive through those areas, for the most part, you’ll hear standard, big city news 
and programming.  There’s nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but there is so much more out there 
yearning to be heard, and this notice provides a means for that to happen.
The advocates for Low Power FM radio have come a long way, have fought many battles, and 
today is the first step of their victory lap.
Perhaps we’ll see a station pop up that will cater to the proud residents of DC’s Anacostia.  Or 
maybe there will be new voices on the air entertaining and informing the workers in and around the 
vicinity of a large manufacturing plant.  Already we see amazing rural stations run by farm workers, 
schools, and churches in rural Florida, Oregon, and the Carolinas and we've heard of interest from the 
Chicago public school system, from workers in Baltimore, and from music groups in San Antonio. In 
New Orleans, local groups want to rebuild their city and connect with their neighbors, and in Miami, 
health educators in the Haitian community want another outlet to serve their city.  This medium could 
provide the means for those goals to be realized.  
Some may ask if this is really so important given all of the entertainment options and technology 
platforms we have today at our disposal. I say yes. The radio station that helped in my development and 
allowed for public engagement on the air is no longer broadcasting in Charleston, SC. The disappearance 
of smooth R&B sounds in Pittsburgh upset many listeners, including Congressman Mike Doyle, who 
can’t hear his favorite Earth, Wind and Fire songs from his car radio anymore. Radio is local. It’s an 
important source of news, information and entertainment in our communities, and its role and impact are 
partly the cause for why we’re discussing this item today.
The Local Community Radio Act of 2010, or “LCRA”, has sent a clear message that Congress 
wants more local radio, and we are excited and anxious to open the dial for new stations.  In relaxing the 
station frequency spacing requirements, Congress has declared that more licenses should be made 
available for stations that serve the local needs of their community, and current statistics support this.
Every week, radio reaches 93 percent of everyone in America over the age of 12.  Further, the 
more than 200 million radio listeners spend on average 15 hours per week listening to the radio.  In an era 
of media consolidation, too many local voices and musicians have gone silent in favor of national 
programming and top 50 hits.  Local afternoon drive radio shows that were broadcast from around the 
corner have been replaced with syndicated programming originating from another State.  Moreover, about 
a third of the 13,000 commercial stations are owned by half a dozen corporations.  
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
31
Today, we start the countdown on the return of local voices to the radio waves, as low power 
radio stations will finally be given space to broadcast in large urban markets.  As a former publisher of a 
local newspaper, I can testify that a robust diversity of voices and attention to local community issues is 
the basis for a strong democracy.
We plan on initiating the licensing of new stations as early as next summer, and while we would 
like to act as quickly as possible to get local voices on the air, we want to take the time to do it correctly.  
I want to encourage the radio community to stay vocal and submit comments on the best way to 
implement the directives of the LCRA and make sure Low Power FM stations are given the best 
opportunity to get up and running.  We won’t address all of the issues during this round, such as station 
frequency spacing waivers or the economic effect of LPFM stations on the Full Power Station market, but 
we will lay the foundation for a solid policy that meets the local needs of communities spread across the 
entire country.
The first issues we must face are the effectiveness of the previous policies implemented during 
the 2001 FM translator license registration window.  We have approximately 6,500 applications pending, 
and we must establish efficient policies that address the translator applications while saving space for the 
licensing of new LPFM stations.  Going forward, we must strike a balance between the licensing of these 
two valuable services and assure that the local communities are served.  As a wise man once said, “the 
translator and LPFM communities will be forever locked in an embrace”.  Determining the criteria for 
this balance has never been an easy task, but we encourage the communications community to speak out 
and let us know what policy will best serve your needs.
Based on a recent study by our media bureau, it appears that our previous processing policy that 
placed a 10-cap limit on applications, will not be an effective means for saving space for future LPFM 
stations.  In 13 of the top 30 radio markets, if we were to process all the pending translator applications, 
we would effectively push any LPFM radio station opportunities off the dial.  The LCRA directives are 
clear that we can no longer exclude LPFMs from the limited spectrum, and we have some tough decisions 
upcoming on the best way to handle previous translator applications in relation to future LPFM 
opportunities.  I encourage the communications community to submit comments on current availability of 
spectrum for LPFM opportunities and alternate policies that will ensure that future LPFM station licenses 
will be available in spectrum-congested markets.
LPFM stations serve a particularly important role in local media and democracy, and the FCC is 
interested in hearing local voices speak out on the options for an effective licensing strategy.  We need to 
ensure that LPFM stations have every opportunity to succeed.  
We are currently fine tuning a spectrum-availability, market-based policy for balancing the 
demand for LPFM station licenses and Translator Licenses.  We welcome the communications 
community to participate in this exercise to assure that the spectrum is properly divided in a manner that 
fosters a robust LPFM service.  
In smaller markets, where there is ample spectrum available for LPFM stations, we can proceed forward 
with translator licensing.  But in the larger markets, we will have to make some difficult decisions on the 
disposition of pending translator licenses in order to assure space for a balanced LPFM station market.  
With all this in mind, we must also deter the abusive acquisition of translator authorizations solely for the 
purpose of selling them.  Companies that speculatively apply for licenses, do not have the best interests of 
our communities in mind, and neighborhoods around the nation are hungry for voices on the air that 
reflect the diversity of America and address their local issues.  The needs of our communities must be 
firmly in our focus, as we work together to create a successful licensing system.
Federal Communications Commission                          FCC 11-105
32
The development of a robust LPFM radio service is of critical importance in making sure that our 
media serves the needs of local communities.  In order for the broadcasters to best serve the public 
interest, we must preserve an avenue through which diverse voices can be heard.  It can’t be stressed 
enough that media plays a powerful role in the democratic process, as well as in shaping perceptions 
about who we are as individuals and as a nation.  Low Power FM Stations address the interests and 
concerns of specific groups including: neighborhoods, people of color, trade unions, and religious and 
linguistic communities.  
These locally owned broadcast outlets provide a forum for news and debate about important local 
issues, and they open the radio waves for coverage of high school football games, health alerts, school 
board meetings, local political candidate debates, and independent music.  Through news and 
informational programming, these stations can help keep the focus on local law enforcement and 
emergency service issues.  
Despite what you may have heard, the Casey Anthony trial was not the only relevant court case in 
the nation.  Our communities deserve better coverage of issues relevant to their neighborhood.  Local 
artists and people who reside in the community deserve a forum where they can be heard.  I commend the 
12 year journey of Prometheus Radio Project, and the various organizers who worked tirelessly to get the 
LCRA passed.  We will continue to develop the best policy to implement the LCRA and I emphatically 
urge communities around the nation to pull together and start building strong applications for radio 
stations that broadcast what they want to hear.
I wish to commend Peter Doyle and his team for their great efforts in this long-awaited process.  I 
look forward to the next iteration.