In a public forum on LPFM, FCC Audio Division staff member James Bradshaw clarified the requirements that FM Translators will be required to follow to protect LPFM protected channel/points.
In the Fourth Report and Order, it was not clear at what point LPFM channel/points would be protected by FM translators. REC assumed that the normal ยง73.807 LP-100 distance spacing between LPFM and translators would apply thus meaning that translators would be placed into three different "sub-classes" and would be afforded protections based on channel adjacency (co-channel, first or second adjacent channel) and the size of their 60 dBu service contour.
In today's public forum, Bradshaw clarified the requirements that the FCC will be looking at.
The FCC will establish a 39km buffer zone around the entire grid (measured from each edge point). Any translator located within that buffer zone will have to make a showing that they are not precluding any translator opportunity. Translators must only show that they are protecting LPFM opportunities on co-channel and first adjacent channels. Second adjacent protection is not required.
In the preclusion study, the co-channel and first-adjacent channel protection requirements in 73.807 will be used. For example, a translator with a service contour of 7.9km that is located 25km from the edge of the grid but is located 34km from the co-channel closest LPFM channel/point would still be acceptable for filing because while it is in the buffer zone, it still is at least 32 km away as 73.807 requires.
The FCC does not appear to be protect LPFM channel/points on second adjacent channels despite existing rules that require LPFM stations to protect FM tranalstors on second adjacent channels and no proposed rulemaking that removes this second adjacent channel protection requirement for LPFM stations.
The FCC also clarified how protected LPFM Channel/Points are determined as this varies for spectrum limited and spectrum available markets. In spectrum available markets, channel/points do not necessarily come into play unless the translator amends their application. As long as the translator stays at their location, they are acceptable.
These clarifications may impact LPFM Channel Search Tool and backend report (ENAC, SUPER, etc.) results. REC is in the process of redefinition in our tools and will deliver revised results to our tools and our ORG2ORG users as soon as possible.
We will be adding a new "preclusion" datapoint into our data outputs. This will be triggered whenever a FM translator is less than 39km from the grid edge. This will eventually be delivered in the Channel report function of the LPFM Channel Search Tool and will also be made available through Broadcast Query and RECPRO.
Without any preclusion statement requirement for second adjancent, this will slightly reduce the opportunities in spectrum limited markets. With these changes, we are also correcting an REC related issue with the handling in spectrum available markets. Acccording
REC will notify users on Twitter and Facebook as these changes are placed in these tools. During the transition, there may be some times when the Tool returns conservative results.
In the same meeting, the Commission clarified that the LPFM filing window will not likely take place until "spring or summer 2013". REC has been aware that a Spring 2013 translator filing window is likely. REC and other LPFM advocates are supporting a request that the FCC give a period of time from when the final LPFM technical rules are released to the time the filing windows begin. REC is advocating at least two windows featuring adjacent states as to avoid any preference to one state over another in the case of multi-state metropolitan areas.
The FCC also stated that they may "entertain" another FM translator window but not until after the existing Auction 83 applications are handled as well as the LPFM filing window. Likely in 2014.
This article was substantually corrected to clarify that the 39km buffer is only to show a precusion study and that 73.807 distances are still what is considered overall preclusion.
