Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the 
Commission’s Rules to Establish Rules for Digital 
Low Power Television and Television Translator  
Stations
Update of Parts 74 of the Commission’s Rules 
Related to Low Power Television and Television 
Translator Stations)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)MB Docket No. 03-185
MB Docket No. 22-261
REPORT AND ORDER 
Adopted:   April 17, 2023 Released:   April 17, 2023
By the Commission:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................1
II. BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................................2
III. DISCUSSION..........................................................................................................................................6
A. Rules Applicable to LPTV/Translator Digital Operations................................................................7
B. LPTV/Translator Protection of Land Mobile Radio Service..........................................................11
C. LPTV Pilot Project Digital Data Services Act................................................................................15
D. Station Identification.......................................................................................................................17
E. Technical Modifications .................................................................................................................32
F. Additional Questions and Proposals Raised by Commenters.........................................................45
G. Cost Benefit and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Analysis ...........................................................48
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS.................................................................................................................50
V. ORDERING CLAUSES........................................................................................................................55
APPENDIX A – Final Rules
APPENDIX B – Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
APPENDIX C – List of Commenters
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Report and Order (Report and Order), we update the Commission’s Part 74 rules 
for low power television (LPTV) and TV translator services (collectively “LPTV/translator”)1 to reflect 
the current operating environment, including the termination of analog operations in the LPTV/translator 
service as of July 13, 2021.2  Consistent with the proposals set forth in the Notice of Proposed 
1 47 CFR, Part 74, Subpart G (Low Power TV and TV Translator Stations).
2 See 47 CFR § 74.790(m); see also Media Bureau Reminds Low Power Television and Television Translator 
Stations that the July 13, 2021, Digital Transition Date and Other Important Deadlines are One Week Away, Public 
Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 10364 (MB 2021). Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
2Rulemaking (NPRM) in this proceeding3 and the resulting record, we adopt rules to reflect the all-digital 
nature of these services, and make other updates.  These updates reflect the Commission’s continued 
effort to ensure our rules clearly reflect the Commission’s requirements, and are understandable to all 
stakeholders.
II. BACKGROUND
2. The NPRM described the Commission’s ongoing effort to ensure that our rules are 
current and to update rules pertaining to television.4  Full power television stations largely completed their 
transition from analog to digital operations by June 12, 2009,5 and Class A television stations did the 
same by September 1, 2015.6  In 2011, the Commission first adopted a digital transition deadline for 
LPTV/translator stations of September 1, 2015,7 which was ultimately extended to July 13, 2021 – the 
final date by which all LPTV/translator stations were required to terminate all analog television 
operations, regardless of whether their digital facilities were operational.8  The LPTV/translator transition 
was successfully completed, and LPTV/translator stations are now operating in digital.9  Thus, analog 
television is now a legacy service.  Further, on October 25, 2021, in connection with the completion of the 
incentive auction and broadcast television spectrum repacking authorized by the Middle Class Tax Relief 
3 See Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission’s Rules to Establish Rules for Digital Low Power Television 
and Television Translator Stations, Update of Parts 74 of the Commission’s Rules Related to Low Power Television 
and Television Translator Stations, Order and Sixth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 22-58 (rel. July 13, 2022) 
(NPRM); Erratum, FCC 22-58 (rel. Sept. 9, 2022).
4 NPRM at paras. 2-4.  We have similarly started a proceeding to update rules in Part 73, including Subparts E 
(Television Broadcast Stations); H (Rules Applicable to All Broadcast Stations); I (Procedures for Competitive 
Bidding and for Applications for Noncommercial Educational Broadcast Stations on Non-Reserved Channels); J 
(Class A Television Broadcast Stations); and L (Incorporated Standards).  See Amendment of Part 73 of the 
Commission’s Rules to Update Television and Class A Television Broadcast Station Rules, and Rules Applicable to 
All Broadcast Stations, MB Docket No. 22-227, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 22-73, para. 5 (rel. Sept. 29, 
2022) (Part 73 NPRM) (88 FR 8636 (rel. Feb. 9, 2023)).
5 See DTV Delay Act, Pub. L. No. 111-4, 123 Stat. 112 (2009); Digital Television Transition and Public Safety Act 
of 2005, which is Title III of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4 (2006) (codified at 
47 U.S.C. §§ 309(j)(14) and 337(e)).  
6 See Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission’s Rules to Establish Rules for Digital Low Power 
Television, Television Translator, and Television Booster Stations and to Amend Rules for Digital Class A 
Television Stations, MB Docket No. 03-185, Second Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 10732, 10735, para. 7 (2011).
7 Id. at 10738, para. 12 (also noting that “[the Communications Act] forbids permitting low power television stations 
to forever avoid converting to digital”).  
8 See 47 CFR § 74.790(m).  In accordance with our rules, all licenses for analog operations automatically cancelled 
after 11:59 p.m. on July 13, 2021, without any affirmative action by the Commission.  See also Amendment of Parts 
73 and 74 of the Commission’s Rules to Establish Rules for Digital Low Power Television and Television Translator 
Stations, MB Docket No. 03-185, Third Report and Order and Fourth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 
14927, 14932-33, paras. 8-9 (2015).  See also Incentive Auction Closing and Channel Reassignment Public Notice: 
The Broadcast Television Incentive Auction Closes; Reverse Auction and Forward Auction Results Announced; 
Final Television Band Channel Assignments Announced; Post-Auction Deadlines Announced, GN Docket No. 12-
268, Public Notice, 32 FCC Rcd 2786 (WTB/MB 2017) (Closing and Channel Reassignment Public Notice) (Given 
the April 13, 2017 release date of the Closing and Channel Reassignment Public Notice, the LPTV/translator digital 
transition date was July 13, 2021.).  
9 We note that some analog LPTV and translator stations have not yet completed construction of their digital 
facilities and have been granted additional time to do so.  Since analog television operations are no longer permitted, 
these LPTV and translator stations must remain silent until such time as they complete construction.  Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
3and Job Creation Act,10 the Commission adopted a new Table of TV Allotments for full power television 
stations11 and also amended Parts 1, 73, and 74 to remove references to channels and frequency bands that 
are no longer in-core television spectrum and/or references to analog TV operations which were no longer 
permitted.12  
3. In July 2022, the Commission adopted the Order and NPRM in this proceeding.13  The 
Order deleted or revised Commission rules that no longer have any practical effect given the completion 
of the LPTV/translator digital transition, or that were otherwise obsolete or irrelevant, and made certain 
ministerial changes.  The other ministerial changes included deleting analog rules that were found in Part 
74, and adding definitions and other information previously adopted in rulemaking proceedings but 
inadvertently omitted through oversight.  
4. The NPRM in this proceeding proposed to adopt additional adjustments to Part 74 rules, 
including rules for digital LPTV/translator operations that were previously applicable to analog 
operations, and proposed to remove or amend certain analog elements of those rules, update coordinates 
used to determine predicted interference, clarify how stations may identify their broadcasts over the air, 
require LPTV stations to transmit with a virtual channel that avoids conflicts with other stations, and 
make clarifications concerning certain procedures, including the use of the Commission’s Licensing and 
Management System (LMS).14  
5. In response to the NPRM, the Commission received comments and replies from thirteen 
parties, including comments from broadcast industry stakeholders, including associations, licensees, and   
engineering firms.  As discussed more fully below, the parties supported the Commission’s efforts to 
update its rules, but some parties offered clarifications, including regarding the geographic coordinates for 
land mobile protection, station identification, and other technical proposals.  In addition, a few parties 
advanced comments on additional topics that were not included in the Commission’s NPRM.
III. DISCUSSION 
6. In this Report and Order, we largely adopt the rules proposed in the NPRM, with certain 
limited exceptions or modifications.  First, we adopt rules proposed in the NPRM to reflect 
LPTV/translator digital operations.  Second, we adopt proposals from the NPRM to update rules to protect 
land mobile radio service.  Third, in light of the record, we decline to adopt the proposal in the NPRM to 
eliminate a rule related to the Digital Data Services Act.  Fourth, we adopt the rules proposed in the 
NPRM related to station identification for LPTV stations with some modifications, but we decline to 
adopt the proposed identification requirements for TV translator stations.  Fifth, we adopt technical 
modifications to our rules as proposed in the NPRM with some modifications and clarifications.  Sixth, 
we consider requests and comments received from commenters on subjects not included in the NPRM 
proposals.  And finally, we analyze costs and benefits of the rules adopted here, as well as their potential 
to promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.
A. Rules Applicable to LPTV/Translator Digital Operations
7. As we stated in the NPRM, when the Commission initially adopted rules for digital 
LPTV/translators in 2004, it did not apply all of the Part 74 rules to digital LPTV/translators.  Instead, it 
10 Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96, §§ 6402 (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 
309(j)(8)(G)), 6403 (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 1452), 126 Stat. 156 (2012).
11 47 CFR § 73.622(j) (Table of TV Allotments).
12 See Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auction, GN Docket No. 
12-268, Order, 36 FCC Rcd 15891, 15891, 15896-7, paras 2, 10, 14, n.35 and n.48 (2021). 
13 See supra n.3.
14 NPRM at para. 9.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
4adopted eleven rules specifically for digital LPTV/translator stations, and also identified in Section 
74.789 which of the Part 74 rules applicable to analog LPTV/translator operations would also apply to 
digital LPTV/translator operations.15  Now that the LPTV/translator digital transition is completed, we 
tentatively concluded in the NPRM that it is necessary and appropriate to eliminate the analog version of 
our rules, and update all of the Part 74 rules as necessary for digital operations.16  We tentatively 
concluded that the transition to digital operation did not provide any basis to relieve LPTV/translator 
stations of these obligations and that their continued applicability is in the public interest.17  No 
commenters opposed our proposal and ATBA offered support.18  We therefore now adopt the proposals.  
These changes are reflected in Appendix A and described below.
8. Specifically, we adopt the following unopposed proposals, for the reasons discussed in 
the NPRM.  First, we conclude that a revised Section 74.702(b) (Channel assignments), which describes 
LPTV/translator stations’ secondary status with respect to a primary station’s proposal to change the 
Table of TV Allotments, should apply to digital LPTV/translator stations, consistent with existing 
practice.  In addition, Section 74.702(a) and Section 74.786 (Digital channel assignments) reflect the 
same information pertaining to channel assignments.  We therefore retain the requirements in Section 
74.702(a) and delete Section 74.786.  Similarly, we also delete Sections 74.789 (Broadcast regulations 
applicable to low power television and television translator stations) and 74.787(a)(5)(viii) (Licensing).  
For the reasons discussed in the NPRM, we conclude that there is no need to have rules specifying which 
Part 74 rules apply to digital LPTV/translators, as, with the elimination of the analog rules, all rules in 
Part 74 will apply to digital.  We also adopt and apply to digital LPTV/translator stations a new Section 
74.737 regarding antenna location, which tracks and replaces a corresponding rule that has previously 
applied to analog LPTV/translator stations, and a new Section 74.762 regarding frequency 
measurements.19   
9. We also adopt two proposals, with some modification, that did receive comment.  In the 
NPRM, we proposed that Section 74.750 (Transmission system facilities), regarding the certification of 
equipment, should continue to apply to digital LPTV/translator stations.  Section 74.750(c)(5), which we 
proposed to move to new Section 74.795(b)(6),20 requires that an LPTV/translator station’s transmission 
equipment be capable of automatically placing the station in a “non-radiating condition” if the station’s 
input channel is lost, either due to the absence of a transmitting signal or failure of the receiving portion 
of the facilities used for rebroadcasting the signal of another station.  Canyon TV/Cannaliato suggests this 
rule is no longer relevant after the digital transition, because the transmitter would not be transmitting 
white noise if it were to lose its input channel.21  Canyon TV/Cannaliato asserts that the requirement 
exists “to prevent the transmission of out of band and spurious energy” and offers that a better rule might 
be to require licensees to ensure a translator which loses its input channel “does not radiate any spurious 
15 NPRM at para. 10, citing 47 CFR §§ 74.786 through 74.796; Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission’s 
Rules to Establish Rules for Digital Low Power Television, Television Translator, and Television Booster Stations 
and to Amend Rules for Digital Class A Television Stations, MB Docket No. 03-185, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 
19331 (2004) (2004 Order) (subsequent history omitted).
16 NPRM at para. 10.
17 Id.
18 Comments of the Advanced Television Broadcasting Alliance, MB Docket Nos. 03-185 and 22-261 (filed Oct. 24, 
2022) (ATBA Comments) at 2.
19 We adopt new station identification requirements in 47 CFR § 74.783 that apply to digital operations, as discussed 
infra.
20 NPRM at para. 10.
21 Comments of Canyon TV, MB Docket No. 03-185 (filed Aug. 17, 2022) (Canyon TV/Cannaliato Comments) at 1.  
Canyon TV/Cannaliato states that it is the licensee of one translator in the State of Montana.  Canyon TV/Cannaliato 
Comments at 1.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
5or out of band energy that is less than 60db [sic] below the amplitude of the pilot carrier.”22  We disagree.  
We do not believe it is in the public interest for a station to transmit null packets in the event it loses its 
input channel and can no longer provide over-the-air programming to viewers.  This practice would 
occupy spectrum that may be used by other entities to provide service to the public23 and may cause 
interference to other stations, even if the station that has lost its input channel is otherwise operating in 
accordance with the rules.24  We also note that transmitting null packets would not constitute 
“broadcasting” as that term is defined in the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,25 and that 
LPTV/translator stations that fail to broadcast a signal meant to be received by the general public must 
notify the Commission that they are silent,26 and are subject to automatic cancellation under Section 
312(g) of the Communications Act if they are silent for more than a consecutive 12-month period.27  We 
therefore adopt our proposed changes to Section 74.750 (Transmission system facilities), including 
retaining certain aspects of technical requirements contained in Section 74.750(c) (subsections (c)(5) and 
(c)(8)) and move them to digital rule Section 74.795(b)(6)-(b)(7).
10. We also adopt new Section 74.762 regarding frequency measurements, as proposed in the 
NPRM, with some modification.  Canyon TV/Cannaliato objects to this proposal, which would require 
LPTV/translator stations to measure the frequency of their output channel as often as necessary to ensure 
operation consistent with the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) standard in Section 
73.682 of the rules.  Consistent with the prior analog rule, these measurements would be required to be 
made during specified intervals not exceeding 14 months.  In the event a station was found to be 
operating in a manner inconsistent with the standard, it would be required to promptly suspend operation 
and not resume operation until the transmitter is restored to its assigned frequency.  Canyon 
TV/Cannaliato claims that this process would require removing modulation, which cannot be done with 
most transmission equipment currently in use, and that replacing such equipment would be costly and 
untimely with ATSC 3.0 on the horizon.28  Canyon TV/Cannaliato instead suggests that we employ a 
similar requirement to what is imposed on full power television stations in Section 73.1540 (Carrier 
frequency measurements).29  By contrast, ATBA supports our proposed frequency measurement 
requirement.30  No other comments were received regarding this proposal.  We disagree with the premise 
of Canyon TV/Cannaliato’s argument.  We believe that LPTV/translator stations can meet the proposed 
22 Id.
23 See 47 CFR § 74.763(c) (Time of operation) (“Failure of a low power TV or TV translator station to operate for a 
period of 30 days or more, except for causes beyond the control of the licensee, shall be deemed evidence of 
discontinuation of operation and the license of the station may be cancelled at the discretion of the FCC.”). 
24 See also ATBA Comments at 2 (supporting a number of the Commission’s proposed changes, including 
“[m]odifying Section 74.750 regarding the certification of equipment to reflect the completion of the 
LPTV/translator analog to digital transition”).
25 See 47 U.S.C. § 153(7) (BROADCASTING. – “The term ‘broadcasting’ means the dissemination of radio 
communications intended to be received by the public, directly or by the intermediary of relay stations.”).  See also 
47 CFR § 74.701(a) and (j) (Definitions). 
26 See 47 CFR §§ 73.1740(a)(4) (Minimum operating schedule) and 74.763(b) (Time of operation).
27 47 U.S.C § 312(g); see also ETC Communications, Inc., Letter, 25 FCC Rcd 10686, 10688 (MB 2010) 
(transmitting an equipment test pattern was insufficient to establish a break in a station’s silence for the purpose of 
Section 312(g)), citing A-O Broadcasting Corporation, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 603 (2008).    
28 See Canyon TV/Cannaliato Comments at 1, which state that “replacing these processors/exciters would be a 
financial burden at $3,000+ for each translator station, but also an untimely one with ATSC 3.0 on the horizon.”
29 Id. at 1-2.  We would note that in September 2022, after Canyon TV/Cannaliato filed its comments, the 
Commission proposed to strike such language from 47 CFR § 73.1540 because this technical engineering term 
related to analog television operation and is now obsolete.  See Part 73 NPRM at n.12. 
30 ATBA Comments at 2.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
6frequency measurement requirement without replacing existing equipment.  Stations can comply with the 
rule by reviewing the station’s signal on a spectrum analyzer and determining that the pilot carrier (for 
ATSC 1.0) and the overall signal (for ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0) appear correctly and are properly 
contained within their assigned spectrum, consistent with the standard in use and our rules.  This approach 
would not be burdensome, even on an annual basis, and would ensure the station is operating in a manner 
consistent with the standard.  We believe the rule as proposed is able to preemptively correct potential 
equipment issues and does not impose the cost of additional equipment on stations.  However, for the 
sake of clarity, we identify the specific portions of Section 73.682 that contain the information needed to 
conduct frequency measurements, rather than citing to the entire broadcast standard (Section 73.682 as a 
whole), which includes audio and video transmission standards irrelevant to frequency measurements, as 
well as the PSIP standard, which does not apply to LPTV/translators.  Therefore, the rule we adopt today 
in Section 74.762 replaces a reference to Section 73.682 with references to Section 73.682(d), A/53 Part 2 
(for ATSC 1.0), and Section 73.682(f)(2) (for ATSC 3.0).
B. LPTV/Translator Protection of Land Mobile Radio Service
11. We adopt the proposals set forth in the NPRM relating to LPTV/translator protection of 
the Land Mobile Radio Service (LMRS).  Sections 74.709(a) and (b) (Land mobile station protection) of 
the Commission’s rules31 require LPTV/translator stations to protect certain channels for use by the 
LMRS in thirteen U.S. cities listed in the rule, which specifies a 130 kilometer radius from the 
coordinates for these cities as a threshold for determining interference.  The 130 kilometer radius around 
each set of coordinates was calculated based on the 1927 North American Datum (NAD 27).  As a result 
of improvements in technology and measuring capabilities, NAD 27 has been superseded by the 1983 
North American Datum (NAD 83).  The Commission’s Office of Engineering and Technology and Office 
of the Managing Director have previously explained that “[g]eodetic datum is a set of constants 
specifying the coordinate system used for calculating the coordinates of points on the Earth.  NAD 83 was 
developed based on satellite and remote-sensing measurement techniques, and provides greater accuracy 
than the older NAD 27.”32  Because it provides greater accuracy and the older NAD 27 is outdated, we 
proposed in the NPRM to amend the rule to use NAD 83 for purposes of specifying these coordinates.33  
We further tentatively concluded that updating the coordinates in the rule to NAD 83 would serve the 
public interest by conforming the values with the coordinate system used in the Commission’s LMS 
database and with those found in Section 90.303(b) (Availability of frequencies) of the rules, which 
define the service that Section 74.709 protects.34  As such, conforming the values in Section 74.709(a) to 
those of Section 90.303(b) would help to ensure that land mobile operations are appropriately considered 
and protected from LPTV/translator operations.  There is no equivalent to Section 74.709(b) in the Part 90 
rules, so we therefore proposed to convert these values to NAD 83 by conforming them to the as-filed 
coordinates for the associated television station if the associated station still exists at the same location, or 
if it does not, converting them directly to NAD 83.  
12. Commenters generally agree with our proposal to replace the NAD 27 coordinates with 
31 47 CFR § 74.709 (Land mobile station protection).
32 Amendment of Parts 1, 2, 25, 73, 74, 90, and 97 of the Commission’s Rules to Make Non-Substantive Editorial 
Revisions to the Table of Frequency Allocations and to Various Service Rules, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 23 
FCC Rcd 3775, 3796, para. 61, n.101 (OET/OMD 2008) (2008 OET/OMD Order).   
33 NPRM at para. 12; 2008 OET/OMD Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 3796, para. 61, n.101. 
34 Id.  Section 90.303(b) defines the specific center points used to permit land mobile operations, which represent the 
specific locations that Section 74.709(a) is designed to protect.  See 47 CFR § 90.303(a) (stating that “coordinates 
are referenced to the North American Datum 1983 (NAD83)”) and (b) (listing coordinates of geographic centers and 
TV channels of thirteen urbanized areas).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
7the more current NAD 83,35 but some commenters express specific concerns.  The National Association 
of Broadcasters (NAB) points out, and the Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE) agrees, that a few of the 
coordinates we proposed are different from those derived if the existing coordinates are converted to 
NAD 83 via the North American Datum Conversion program (NADCON).36  We note that the 
coordinates we proposed are the ones found in Part 90 of the Commission’s rules, and differ by 25 meters 
at most (approximately 82 feet).  Given that the values in this table are designed to protect the Part 90 
service, we believe the most consistent approach is to make the values in Section 74.709 match those 
found in Part 90.37  
13. NAB also encourages us to add a note to Section 74.709(a) for Cleveland, Ohio and 
Detroit, Michigan that is consistent with the notes found in Part 90 indicating that these channels are not 
available for land mobile use and thus do not require protection.38  In addition, NAB urges the 
Commission to consider using this docket to “remove land mobile assignments that have remained 
unused for more than 50 years,” citing Cleveland, Ohio and Detroit, Michigan.39  We note that a pending 
petition for rulemaking submitted by the Land Mobile Communications Council (LMCC) also addresses 
this issue.  In that petition, LMCC proposed removing the Cleveland, Ohio and Detroit, Michigan rows 
entirely from the relevant rule section in Part 90.40  Due to the pendency of that petition, we decline at this 
time to add a note to Section 74.709(a).  We do not believe that this will create confusion for licensees, as 
the note in Part 90 already indicates that the Cleveland, Ohio and Detroit, Michigan channels are not 
available and thus those areas do not require protection. 
14. NAB also requests that this update to the coordinates not result in stations having to 
relocate.41  We note that the coordinates in the rule are used only to determine whether an 
LPTV/translator application’s interfering contour is outside of the relevant LMRS protected zone for the 
potentially affected channel and community for purposes of granting an application.  We are not aware of 
any actual instance in which a station would have to relocate and we believe it is unlikely that these minor 
corrections will result in any stations suddenly finding themselves no longer compliant with Section 
35 See, e.g., ATBA Comments at 2 (“First, the FCC proposes to replace the use of the near century old NAD 27 
geodetic datum with the more current NAD 83 to determine land mobile protections. ATBA agrees that the use of 
NAD 83 will improve accuracy and consistency with the Commission’s other databases.”) (internal references 
omitted). 
36 See Comments of the National Association of Broadcasters, MB Docket Nos. 03-185 and 22-261 (filed Oct. 24, 
2022) (NAB Comments) at 2-3; Reply Comments of the Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc., MB Docket Nos. 03-
185 and 22-261 (filed Nov. 7, 2022) (SBE Reply) at 3-4.  As NAB notes, NADCON was superseded by the NGS 
Coordinate Conversion and Transformation Tool (NCAT).  NAB Comments at 2.
37 Staff discovered after the NPRM was issued that the proposed Miami longitude seconds value contained a 
typographical error, which is being corrected in this Report and Order. 
38 NAB Comments at 4.  See 47 CFR § 90.303(b), nn. 2 and 3.  See also SBE Reply at 6.  We also note that there are 
full power and Class A television stations assigned to some of these channels already, making them unusable for 
land mobile operations at the present time.
39 NAB Comments at 4.
40 See Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau Reference Information Center Petition for Rulemakings Filed, 
Land Mobile Communications Counsel (LMCC), Petition for Rulemaking in the Matter of Subpart L of Part 90 of 
FCC Rules: Updated Method to Determine Potential Interference Between Land Mobile Stations and Digital 
Television Stations Operating in the 470-512 MHz Band (“T-Band”), Public Notice, Report No. 3186 (rel. Jan. 12, 
2022); Petition for Rulemaking of Land Mobile Communications Council, RM-11915 (filed June 24, 2021).
41 NAB Comments at 4.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
874.709.  But in response to NAB’s concern, we clarify that absent any actual interference,42 we do not 
anticipate requiring an LPTV/translator station to make changes solely due to these coordinate updates.    
C. LPTV Pilot Project Digital Data Services Act
15. We decline to adopt the NPRM proposal to delete the rule implementing the LPTV Pilot 
Project Digital Data Services Act (DDSA).43  The DDSA mandated that the Commission issue regulations 
establishing a pilot project pursuant to which twelve specified LPTV stations could provide digital data 
services to demonstrate the feasibility of using LPTV stations to provide high-speed wireless digital data 
service, including Internet access, to unserved areas.  When the Commission implemented the DDSA in 
2001,44 the Commission had not yet authorized Class A or LPTV/translator stations to operate digital 
facilities.  In 2004, the Commission authorized all LPTV/translator stations to operate in digital.45  
Currently, all LPTV stations must operate in digital and may offer ancillary and supplementary services, 
including the services contained in the pilot project of the DDSA.46  We stated in the NPRM that none of 
the stations identified in the statute are currently providing service pursuant to an experimental 
authorization issued under the DDSA, and that some of the stations have been cancelled.47  As a result, in 
the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that this rule served no useful purpose.48  
16. Three comments were submitted in response to this proposal in the NPRM, all urging the 
retention of the DDSA rule.  These commenters question the Commission’s authority to modify the 
Congressional directive, and seek to preserve the program.49  Based on the interests set forth by these 
42 See 47 CFR § 74.703(e) (Interference) provides that “[LPTV/translator] stations are being authorized on a 
secondary basis to existing land mobile uses and must correct whatever interference they cause to land mobile 
stations or cease operation.”  LPTV/translator stations are required to protect land mobile operations even if they 
otherwise comply with the rules.
43 NPRM at para. 14.  See LPTV Digital Data Services Act (P.L. 106-554, 114 Stat. 4577, Dec. 21, 2000 (DDSA), 
codified at 47 U.S.C. § 336(h)); 47 CFR § 74.785 (Low power TV digital data service pilot project). 
44 The DDSA was implemented by the Commission in Implementation of LPTV Digital Data Services Pilot Project,  
Order, 16 FCC Rcd 9734 (2001); Order on Reconsideration, 17 FCC Rcd 2988 (2002); 47 CFR § 74.785.  
45 See 2004 Order.  
46 See 47 CFR §§ 74.790(i) and (m) (Permissible service of TV translator and LPTV stations); 73.624(c) and (e) 
(Digital television broadcast stations).  The Commission’s ancillary and supplementary rules provide that 
broadcasters may offer services that “include, but are not limited to computer software distribution, data 
transmissions, teletext, interactive materials, aural messages, paging services, audio signals, subscription video, and 
any other services that do not derogate DTV broadcast stations’ obligations under paragraph (b) of this section.”  47 
CFR § 73.624(c).  One difference between the Commission’s ancillary and supplementary rules and the DDSA is 
that the rules require that ancillary and supplementary services may not derogate the station’s required signal to 
viewers, while the DDSA does not.
47 NPRM at para. 14.  At the time the statute was enacted, the LPTV stations to which it applied were KHLM-LP, 
Houston, Texas; WTAM-LP, Tampa, Florida; WWRJ-LP, Jacksonville, Florida; WVBG-LP, Albany, New York; 
KHHI-LP, Honolulu, Hawaii; KPHE-LP (K19DD), Phoenix, Arizona; K34FI and K65GZ, Bozeman, Montana; 
WXOB-LP, Richmond, Virginia; WIIW-LP, Nashville, Tennessee; WSPY-LP (now WLPD-CD), Plano, Illinois; 
W24AJ (now WPVN-CD), Aurora, Illinois; and “[a] station and repeaters . . . [to provide] service to communities in 
the Kenai Peninsula Borough and Matanuska Susitna Borough.”  According to LMS, three of these stations (K34FI, 
K44GE (formerly K65GZ), and WXOB-LP) have been cancelled.  In addition, two of the stations (WLPD-CD and 
WPVN-CD) are now Class A television stations, and the DDSA only applies to LPTV stations.
48 NPRM at para. 14.
49 Comments of U.S. Television LLC, MB Docket Nos. 03-185 and 22-261 (filed Oct. 24, 2022) (U.S. Television 
LLC Comments) at 1-2; Comments of Wireless Access, LLC, MB Docket Nos. 03-185 and 22-261 (filed Oct. 24, 
2022) (Wireless Access Comments) at 1, 4; Reply Comments of the LPTV Broadcasters Association, MB Docket 
Nos. 03-185 and 22-261 (filed Nov. 3, 2022) (LPTV Broadcasters Association Reply) at 3.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
9commenters, we conclude that retaining the DDSA digital pilot program rule may serve a useful purpose, 
and therefore, we decline to adopt the proposal in the NPRM and will retain the DDSA digital pilot 
program rule.
D. Station Identification
17. After evaluation of the record, we are persuaded to adopt our LPTV station identification 
proposals, but we decline to adopt our proposed changes to identification requirements for TV translator 
stations at this time.  In the NPRM, we examined Section 74.783(a) (Station identification), which 
requires analog LPTV/translator stations to provide station identification.50  When the Commission 
adopted its rules for digital LPTV/translator operations in 2004, it declined to adopt a separate rule for 
digital stations, choosing instead to allow such LPTV/translator stations the flexibility to identify 
themselves in different manners, including following the analog station identification provisions in 
Section 74.783(a).51  These provisions allow identification via (1) transmitting the call sign in 
International Morse Code at least once every hour, or (2) arranging for the primary station whose signal is 
being rebroadcast to identify the translator station by transmitting an easily readable visual presentation or 
a clearly understandable aural presentation of the translator station’s call letters and location.52  We 
tentatively concluded in the NPRM that given the completion of the LPTV/translator digital transition, we 
should require digital LPTV/translator stations to comply with the station identification provisions set 
forth in Section 74.783, as revised to reflect digital operations.53  We also proposed in the NPRM to 
include the option for LPTV/translator stations to use the Program and System Information Protocol 
(PSIP)54 to transmit the station’s call sign as the “short channel name” on at least one stream of 
programming that the LPTV/translator station transmits.55  
18. As discussed in detail below, in light of the record on these proposals, we decline to 
adopt identification requirements for TV translator stations at this time in light of concerns of 
commenters, but we may consider extending station identification requirements to TV translator stations 
50 NPRM at para. 15.  See 47 CFR § 74.783(a)-(c) (Station identification).  
51 See 2004 Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 19337-38, paras. 15-18 (noting that Commission was unable to award second 
channels to LPTV/translator or Class A stations to facilitate their digital transitions due to the lack of sufficient 
spectrum.  To prevent the disruption of service to viewers, the Commission determined that the low power television 
digital transition should be completed at some fixed time after the deadline for full power television stations, which 
would allow viewers to transition to digital service without loss of their existing service).  See id. at 19394, para. 192 
(declining to establish identification requirements for digital LPTV and TV translator stations).  While the 
Commission declined to adopt such a requirement, it explained that it believed that digital TV translator and LPTV 
stations could be practically identified by other means.  The Commission encouraged “operators of digital LPTV 
and TV translator stations to experiment with possible means for identifying their stations” and “plan[ned] to revisit 
this issue in a future periodic review proceeding.”  See id. at 19395, para. 194.  Thus, we disagree with the National 
Television Association’s (NTA) assertion that “18 years ago the Commission decided that digital translators would 
not be subject to a station identification requirement.”  Comments of the National Television Association, MB 
Docket Nos. 03-185 and 22-261 (filed Oct. 24, 2022) (NTA Comments) at 1.  
52 47 CFR § 74.783(a)(1) and (2) (Station identification).
53 NPRM at para. 15; 47 CFR § 74.783(a)(1) and (2).
54 PSIP transmits a television station’s virtual channel (see infra), and can also transmit electronic program guides 
with titles and descriptions to be decoded and displayed by a viewer’s digital receiver.  ATSC A/65C defines the 
standard protocol – referred to as PSIP – for the transmission of data tables compatible with digital multiplex bit 
streams via terrestrial broadcasts.  
55 NPRM at para. 16.  The “short channel name” is a seven character field in the Terrestrial Virtual Channel Table 
that stations use to comply with the digital transmission standard set forth in ATSC A/65C as incorporated in 
Section 73.682(d) of our rules.  See 47 CFR § 73.682(d).  For example, a station would enter in the short channel 
name field the station’s call sign, e.g., “K20DA-D.”Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
10in a future proceeding.  We do find sufficient support to require digital LPTV stations to comply with the 
station identification provisions set forth in Section 74.783 applicable to analog operations, updated to 
reflect digital operations.  We also adopt our proposal to include an option for LPTV stations to use the 
PSIP to transmit the station’s call sign as the “short channel name” on at least one stream of programming 
that the LPTV station transmits.  
19.Identification Requirements for TV Translator Stations.  A number of commenters 
objected to our proposed station identification requirements for TV translator stations.  These commenters 
express concerns about cost56 and consumer confusion.57  NAB recommends instead that the use of PSIP 
for station identification purposes be limited to LPTV stations that originate programming and do not 
operate as translators.58  
20. In light of the commenter concerns about the technical challenges inherent in our 
proposal for TV translators and the unintended costs that could be imposed by the proposed modification 
of the rule, we decline to adopt the proposed identification requirements for TV translator stations at this 
time.  Consistent with the Commission’s decision in 2004 to allow TV translator stations the flexibility to 
identify themselves in different manners,59 we encourage TV translator stations that are not currently 
providing station identification to explore options for providing identification.  In this regard, instead of 
the proposed mandatory requirement, we adopt a rule that includes one voluntary option for TV translator 
stations to identify their signal, specifically, arranging with the originating station to provide 
identification in a visual manner.60  
21.Identification Requirements for LPTV Stations.  After evaluation of the record, we are 
persuaded to require LPTV stations to comply with our analog LPTV station identification rules now that 
the LPTV/translator digital transition is complete and analog operations have terminated.  Accordingly, 
we adopt the proposal in the NPRM that digital LPTV stations continue to comply with the station 
identification provisions set forth in Section 74.783, updated to reflect digital operations.61  We received 
support for this proposal,62 and received no opposition to the proposal with respect to LPTV stations that 
56 NTA Comments at 1 and 3.  In support, NTA cites translator use in Alaska and asserts that “Alaska Public 
Television operates about 125 heterodyne translators in very small and remote communities.  Under the 
Commission’s PSIP identification alternative, unless identified by DTV primary stations, these translators would 
have to be replaced at great cost.”  Id. at 4.  NTA also indicates that not all TV translator stations are identifying at 
this time, and if we were to adopt a rule, many of those translators would not have the means to do so.  One 
translator owner and operator of a Montana translator station estimates that if not identified by their DTV primary 
station, the cost of updating equipment to enable translators to insert data into the PSIP of the received data would 
cost between $4,000 and $10,000 for each translator.  Id. at 5 and Exhibit 1, Statement of Charles J. Cannaliato.  
57 NAB Comments at 5.  See also SBE Reply at 2 (“SBE supports NAB’s recommendation that [the ability of 
translating stations to make changes in their PSIP] be limited to those LPTV stations that actually do originate 
programming to avoid causing confusion among viewers.”).  
58 Id. 
59 See 2004 Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 19395, para. 194.
60 See revised Section 74.783(b).  We note that FM translator stations, despite not being able to use visual 
identification, are still required to identify.  One option for identifying is to arrange for the primary station to 
identify the translator three times per day.  See 47 CFR § 74.1283(c)(1) (Station identification).
61 NPRM at para. 15.
62 ATBA Comments at 2 (ATBA “supports the Commission’s proposals to update its station identification rules to 
reflect digital operations.”) (internal references omitted); Comments of One Ministries, Inc., MB Docket Nos. 03-
185 and 22-261 (filed Sept. 26, 2022) (OMI Comments) (“OMI agrees that it is helpful to have the using [sic] the 
option for LPTV/translator stations to use the Program and System Information Protocol (PSIP) to transmit the 
station’s call sign as the ‘short channel name’ on at least one stream of programming that the LPTV/translator 
station transmits.”).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
11originate programming.  We do not believe the transition to digital operation provides any basis to relieve 
LPTV stations that originate programming of their obligation to provide station identification, and we 
therefore adopt our proposal to require such stations to follow the station identification provisions set 
forth in Section 74.783.63
22. We also adopt our proposal in the NPRM to revise Section 74.783(a)(1) to provide an 
alternative identification method for LPTV stations to replace the outdated option to insert the call sign 
via Morse Code.64  Specifically, we proposed to allow the option to use PSIP to transmit the station’s call 
sign as the “short channel name” on at least one stream of programming that the LPTV station transmits.65  
Commenters supported this update.66  We agree, and we amend the rules accordingly to include the option 
for LPTV stations to use PSIP to transmit the station’s call sign as the “short channel name” on at least 
one stream of programming that the LPTV station transmits.  In addition, because we have decided herein 
to apply these requirements to LPTV stations but not to TV translator stations, we reorganize Section 
74.783 to make it more clearly understandable by delineating the subsections that separately apply to 
LPTV stations (Section 74.783(a)), TV translators (Section 74.783(b)), and to both (Section 74.783(c)).67   
23. While not opposing this change, one commenter expressed concern that, because some 
Commission-assigned LPTV/translator call signs are in the format of two numbers followed by three 
letters,68 this proposal would require eight characters, but the “short channel name” field in PSIP only 
allows seven characters.69  This commenter proposed dropping the “-D” from the end of call signs which 
have such a designation, as this is a remnant of when it was necessary to distinguish between analog and 
digital operations.70  While the “-D” may be superfluous with the transition of all LPTV/translator stations 
to digital, we do not believe it is necessary to prescribe a mandatory change of the call signs of a 
significant number of stations.  Instead, we clarify here that any station with an eight character call sign 
that seeks to identify by this method may opt to drop the “-D” when placing it in the “short channel 
name” field.  We have revised Section 74.783 to include this clarification.71
24.TSID Requirements.  We adopt the proposal in the NPRM regarding LPTV/translator 
stations’ use of transport stream ID (TSID) with some modifications.  To identify a station using the PSIP 
“short channel name,” a station must request and be assigned a TSID.72  In the NPRM, we proposed to 
require that an LPTV/translator station that has requested and been assigned a TSID must broadcast with 
63 Consistent with our decision above, LPTV stations that do not originate programming will be considered to be 
under the same rules for station identification as translators.  See supra paras. 19-20.
64 NPRM at para. 16.  47 CFR § 74.783(a)(1) (Station identification).
65 NPRM at para. 16 and n.48.  
66 OMI agrees that it is helpful for LPTV stations to use the PSIP to transmit the station’s call sign as the “short 
channel name” on at least one stream of programming that the LPTV station transmits.  OMI Comments.  ATBA 
also supports the proposal, saying it “believes the proposed alternate methods for stations to identify their broadcasts 
will streamline the station identification process . . .”  ATBA Comments at 2.  
67 See infra paras. 24-25.  In its comments, it appears that ATBA is suggesting that the alternative method apply to 
full power and Class A television stations.  See ATBA Comments at 2-3 (stating the alternate method should apply 
to "all stations and streams”).  To the extent that ATBA’s proposal relates to stations in categories beyond LPTV 
stations, the proposal is outside the scope of this Part 74 LPTV/translator rules proceeding, and thus we decline to 
adopt it for other categories of stations.  
68 See revised Section 74.791(d) (Call signs), as discussed in para. 31.
69 See Canyon TV/Cannaliato Comments at 1.
70 Id.
71 See revised Section 74.783(a)(2).
72 See NPRM at para. 17.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
12the station’s assigned TSID during its hours of operation.73  We also proposed to require translator 
stations that had not been assigned a TSID to pass through the TSID of their respective originating 
station.74  The proposed requirement to broadcast with the assigned TSID would be in addition to, and not 
in place of, one of the other identification requirements.75  We also proposed to apply the same 
requirement to a station’s bit stream ID (BSID), which is the equivalent value used in ATSC 3.0.76  
25. While the proposal did receive support,77 several commenters object to this proposal, 
concerned that it would require translators to insert a TSID or BSID.78  For example, NAB asserts that the 
use of a BSID is contrary to the applicable ATSC standard, and urges the Commission not to allow 
translator stations to use a BSID for identification, arguing that it would create industry and viewer 
confusion.79  The NPRM’s proposal was directed only at scenarios where stations have assigned TSIDs 
because they are either originating programming or otherwise modifying the streams of originating 
stations.80  Our intent is to prevent a station that is modifying one or more originating station(s) stream(s) 
from failing to transmit a TSID, and preventing a station that is originating programming while providing 
PSIP data from failing to transmit its assigned TSID even though the PSIP equipment would allow it to 
do so.  Our aim is to eliminate cases where stations that are originating programming and are assigned 
TSIDs do not properly transmit that TSID, or where stations are otherwise passing through signals from 
one or more originating stations but either fail to provide a TSID or provide an incorrect one.  Contrary to 
commenter concerns, we do not expect a translator that is not otherwise altering the signal of a single 
originating station to insert a unique TSID or BSID different from that of the originating station.  We 
therefore adopt our proposal, with clarifying changes to require stations assigned a TSID to transmit that 
TSID.81  We conclude that the TSID requirement is in addition to, and not in place of, one of the other 
identification requirements.  We also adopt the same requirement with respect to a station’s BSID, which 
has the same function as the TSID, but in the ATSC 3.0 context.
26.LPTV Virtual Channels.  We adopt the proposal in the NPRM to codify the Media 
Bureau’s practice of requiring LPTV stations to transmit with a virtual channel that avoids conflicts with 
any full power or Class A station’s virtual channel in cases where a contour overlap would arise, or with 
73 Id.
74 See NPRM at para. 17 and Appendix B (proposed Section 74.783(d)(1)).  See revised Section 74.783(c).
75 See NPRM at para. 17.
76 See NPRM at para. 17 and proposed Section 74.783(d)(2).
77 OMI Comments.
78 See, e.g., Canyon TV/Cannaliato Comments at 1.  Canyon TV/Cannaliato asserts that the proposal to use TSIDs 
would “impose a significant financial burden to community translators because the majority (perhaps more than 
80%) of translator stations do not have the capability of inserting a TSID into the data stream.”  Id.
79 NAB Comments at 5-6.  SBE also joins NAB in “advocating against the use of BSID for translator stations 
operating in ATSC 3.0.”  SBE Reply at 3.
80 For example, a single TV translator station may rebroadcast the respective primary streams of several different 
originating television stations, each of which have their own TSIDs.  A TV translator, however, can only pass 
through one TSID, and currently our rules do not address which TSID a TV translator station would use.  Under our 
adopted rule, under these circumstances, a TV translator station providing PSIP would be required to ask to be 
assigned its own unique TSID and broadcast it.
81 See revised Section 74.783(c)(1) (stating that all low power TV stations originating programming shall transmit 
their assigned odd-numbered TSID, if one has been assigned.  All TV translator stations, and low power TV stations 
not originating programming, shall pass through the assigned TSID of the originating station, unless the station is 
modifying the signal of one or more originating stations in such a way that it is not clear which originating station’s 
TSID should be used.  In that case, the station shall transmit its assigned odd-numbered TSID if one has been 
assigned).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
13virtual channels chosen by other LPTV stations.82  We stated in the NPRM that LPTV licensees are not 
required to comply with the virtual channel assignment methodology found in ATSC A/65C Annex B, as 
full power and Class A stations are, and we were not proposing to require them to do so.83  
27. ATBA agrees with our proposal, but asks us to provide “greater flexibility” to select a 
virtual channel.84  In the absence of any further information of what this request entails, we decline to 
make further modifications.  But we note that LPTV stations are already permitted to select any valid 
virtual channel within channels 2-69 that does not create a conflict.  
28. SBE proposes that we require LPTV stations to enter their virtual channels in LMS.85  
We note that we already allow stations to informally request that the staff enter their virtual channels into 
LMS on a voluntary basis, and encourage LPTV stations to do so.86  Because virtual channel assignments 
do not require Commission approval, we do not believe it is necessary to make this voluntary procedure 
mandatory, and we decline to explicitly require it.  
29. SBE also requests that the Commission affirm that full power and Class A virtual 
channels have primary rights over those of LPTV/translator stations.87  We believe that our proposed 
language makes this clear, in that LPTV/translator stations are required to utilize a virtual channel which 
does not create an overlap with a station that is required to follow ATSC A/65C, Annex B, which 
includes full power and Class A stations.88  As a result, we do not believe it is necessary to amend the 
proposed language to affirm SBE’s assertion.
82 NPRM at para. 18.  During the DTV transition, most full power television stations transmitted two over-the-air 
signals using two different radio frequency (RF) channels—an analog (NTSC) channel and a paired digital channel 
capable of transmitting multiple streams of programming.  ATSC, an international, non-profit member organization, 
developed the PSIP standard setting forth rules and priorities for determining a digital television station's “virtual” 
channel number, the channel number viewers see on their television receiver when they view a digital television 
station over-the-air.  See Request for Declaratory Ruling by Meredith Corporation and “Alternative PSIP Proposal” 
by PMCM TV, LLC for WJLP (formerly KVNV(TV)), Middletown Township, New Jersey, 32 FCC Rcd 7229, 7230, 
para. 3 and passim (2017), petitions for review denied, PMCM TV, LLC v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 731 Fed. App’x 
1 (D.C. Cir. 2018).  Under Annex B.1.1 to ATSC 65/C, which sets forth the mandatory requirements for assigning 
the virtual channel number components of full power and Class A stations' virtual channels, most of those stations’ 
virtual channel numbers begin with their analog channel numbers.  A TV translator is required to pass through the 
virtual channel number of its primary station unless it conflicts with a broadcaster operating in the service area of the 
translator, in which the translator must change its virtual channel number to a non-conflicting number.  Annex 
B.1.10.  As discussed below, Annex B does not apply to LPTV stations.
83 NPRM at para. 18. 
84 ATBA Comments at 3.
85 SBE Reply at 2-3.  NAB, in its reply, also notes that virtual channel assignments and changes in virtual channel 
assignments should be included in the Commission’s database to “avoid potential conflicts and viewer confusion.”  
See Reply Comments of the National Association of Broadcasters, MB Docket Nos. 03-185 and 22-261 (filed Nov. 
7, 2022) (NAB Reply) at 3.
86 LPTV stations may ask the staff to indicate their virtual channel in LMS by sending a request to the Video 
Division in the Media Bureau.  Such requests should include the station’s facility ID, virtual channel, and a map 
showing the station’s contour and the contours of surrounding stations using the indicated virtual channel to 
demonstrate the lack of overlap with other full power, Class A, and LPTV/translator stations.  In the event that 
overlap with other full power, Class A, or LPTV/translator stations is observed, the staff will notify the station 
making the request that it must choose an alternative virtual channel.
87 SBE Reply at 2-3.
88 See revised Section 74.790(n).  See also ATSC A/65C, Annex B.1.8, which indicates that the virtual channel 
number used by a broadcaster should “be different from those used by any other broadcaster with an overlapping 
DTV service area.”  Should the contour of a full-power and Class A station come into conflict with that of an LPTV, 
since the LPTV station has secondary status, it is required to change its virtual channel.  For example, the 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
1430. In light of the comments, we find that it is in the public interest to codify the Bureau’s 
practice of requiring LPTV stations to transmit with a virtual channel that avoids conflicts with any full 
power or Class A station’s virtual channel in cases where a contour overlap would arise, or with virtual 
channels previously chosen by other LPTV stations.89  Absent this rule change, LPTV stations could 
potentially create contour overlap with full power and Class A stations, leading to virtual channel 
conflicts.  We reiterate that LPTV licensees are not required to comply with the virtual channel 
assignment methodology found in ATSC A/65C, Annex B,90 as full power and Class A stations are 
required to do. 
31.LPTV/Translator Call Sign Assignment Protocol.  In this Report and Order, we adopt our 
tentative conclusion from the NPRM that we should add a new Section 74.791(d) (Call signs) to reflect 
the staff’s current call sign assignment protocol for LPTV/translator stations.91  Section 74.783(d) (Station 
identification) provides that an LPTV/translator station call sign will be made up of the letters K or W, the 
station’s channel number, and “two additional letters.”92  For certain channel numbers, however, all two 
letter combinations have been exhausted for several years, and consistent with the Commission’s policy 
that all stations have a unique call sign, stations have been assigned a three letter call sign beginning with 
“AAA,” continuing sequentially through the alphabet for the third letter.  This three letter protocol is built 
into the Commission’s LMS system.  ATBA supports this proposal, and no entity opposed it.93  
Considering the necessity of modifying the two letter protocol due to the exhaustion of such 
combinations, and the fact that any change would affect the staff’s ability to continue timely processing 
applications, we adopt the proposal and amend Section 74.791 to add paragraph (d).  
E. Technical Modifications  
32.Processing Priority.  We adopt the processing priority proposal put forth in the NPRM.  
Section 74.708(b) (Class A TV and digital Class A TV station protection) requires LPTV/translator 
stations to protect previously filed Class A applications, and Section 74.710(a) (Digital low power TV 
and TV translator station protection) requires LPTV/translator stations to protect previously filed 
LPTV/translator applications.94  These subsections reference the Bureau’s practice that if two applications 
are filed on different days and otherwise have equal processing priority, the filing earlier in time will 
receive priority.  In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that these requirements should be maintained in 
the rules, but moved into the Commission’s digital rules in Section 74.787(c) (Licensing).95  No 
(Continued from previous page)  
Commission recently announced winning bidders in the Commission’s auction of construction permits for full 
power television stations (Auction 112), and awarded a total of eighteen construction permits.  Auction of 
Construction Permits for Full Power Television Stations Closes, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 112, AU 
Docket No. 21-449, Public Notice, DA 22-659 (OEA/MB 2022).  These new full power stations will determine their 
virtual channels using ATSC A/65C, Annex B, as required by Section 74.682(d) of the Commission’s rules.  If that 
virtual channel number overlaps with that of an LPTV station, the LPTV station will be required to change its virtual 
channel.  
89 2004 Order, 19 FCC at 19413, para. 243, n.505.  See revised Section 74.790(n).
90 2004 Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 19413, para. 243 (noting that the Commission will not at the time require digital 
LPTV stations to comply with the ATSC A/65B standard).  See also ATSC A/65C, Annex B (2006) (ATSC A/65C, 
Annex B); 47 CFR § 73.682(d) (TV transmission standards) (The Commission later incorporated the 2006 version 
of Annex B into the Commission’s rules by reference for full power and Class A stations).
91 NPRM at para. 19 and Appendix B.
92 See 47 CFR § 74.783(d) (Station identification).
93 ATBA Comments at 3.
94 47 CFR §§ 74.708(b) (Class A TV and digital Class A TV station protection) and 74.710(a) (Digital low power 
TV and TV translator station protection).
95 NPRM at para. 20.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
15commenters opposed this proposal.  We therefore adopt the proposal, maintain the rules, and move them 
into the Commission’s digital rules in Section 74.787(c).96  
33.Vertical Polarization Considerations.  We adopt our proposal in the NPRM to remove 
references to antennas with solely vertical polarization in certain Part 74 rules.  Sections 74.735(c) (Power 
limitations) and 74.750(f) (Transmission system facilities) of the rules reference vertically polarized 
transmitting antennas.97  We noted in the NPRM that despite the reference, the Commission’s LMS filing 
system does not and has not allowed stations to specify a vertically polarized antenna.  Further, we noted 
that television viewers’ home receive antennas are generally horizontally, not vertically, polarized.  In the 
NPRM, we therefore proposed to modify the language in Sections 74.735(c) and in revised Section 
74.750(f) to remove the reference to antennas with solely vertical polarization.98  We also proposed to 
clarify, consistent with the similar rule applicable to full power stations,99 that the horizontally polarized 
power is to be higher than or equal to the vertically polarized power in all directions, and require 
documentation that antennas meet this requirement.100  
34. OMI and NTA believe we should retain the reference to antennas with solely vertical 
polarization and OMI requests that we modify LMS to allow them.  OMI’s comments do not argue in 
favor of antennas with solely vertical polarization so much as they make a case for the use of a vertical 
polarization component.101  We note that a vertical polarization component is already permitted via 
elliptically- and circularly-polarized antennas,102 and that these types of antennas would not be implicated 
by the rule change proposed.  While there may be future applications where a vertically polarized 
component is helpful, use of antennas with solely vertical polarization would require television viewers to 
change their home receive antennas from horizontal to vertical polarization, which we do not believe 
viewers should be required to do.  Thus, we do not believe that permitting the use of antennas with solely 
vertical polarization makes sense.  We therefore decline to retain this reference for unknown future 
applications, but will address such applications when and if they materialize.
35. As NAB notes, station assignments and analysis parameters assume the use of horizontal 
polarization, U.S. bilateral agreements with Canada and Mexico do not permit solely vertical polarization, 
and NAB suggests that “[a] loss of standardization in this regard will adversely affect the entire broadcast 
television industry.”103  We agree with NAB’s concerns, and we therefore adopt the proposal in the 
NPRM and modify the language in Sections 74.735(c) and in revised Section 74.750(f) to remove the 
reference to antennas with solely vertical polarization.104  
96 47 CFR § 74.787(c).
97 47 CFR §§ 74.735(c) (Power limitations) and 74.750(f) (Transmission system facilities).
98 NPRM at para. 21.
99 See 47 CFR § 73.682(a)(14) (TV transmission standards) (“It shall be standard to employ horizontal 
polarization.”).  See also 47 CFR § 73.316(a) (FM antenna systems).
100 NPRM at para. 21 and n.57.
101 OMI Comments.
102 47 CFR § 74.735(c).  
103 NAB Reply at 4.
104 NTA cites a single case of a TV translator station in Mink Creek, Idaho (Mink Creek) which takes advantage of a 
polarity shift caused by reflecting the signal of a vertically-polarized station off a mountain in order to achieve 
horizontal polarity at the receive antennas in the community targeted by the station.  NTA Comments at 11-12.  
While we acknowledge this example, we do not believe it is evidence of a commonly-used method or cause for the 
Commission to contemplate use of vertical-only operations in its licensing or record keeping.  We are not aware of 
any other examples of scenarios like Mink Creek.  Given the burdens associated with changing equipment, we direct 
the Media Bureau to consider requests for waiver of the rule.  Mink Creek and any other existing similar situations 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
1636. With respect to our proposal to require that vertical power not exceed horizontal power, 
commenters agree that the our proposal might be overly prescriptive in that an antenna could be designed 
to comply with the rule, but after installation be found to have a slightly higher vertical than horizontal 
power.  In that scenario the rule as proposed could require the antenna to be removed and replaced.105  We 
agree with commenters and note that this outcome was not the intent of the proposal.  Thus, we clarify 
that the amended rule requires that an antenna should be designed such that the horizontal power is 
intended to be higher than or equal to the vertical power in all directions.106  NAB and SBE also suggest 
that our wording in the proposed revised Section 74.735(c)(2) – to require submission of documentation 
that the antenna is designed such that the horizontal power is intended to be higher than or equal to the 
vertical power in all directions – may have been unclear.107  NAB put forth a suggested revision to 
provide additional clarity.108  We agree that NAB’s formulation contains a clearer statement of the intent 
of our original proposal.  We therefore adopt the proposal in the NPRM using the modified, clearer 
language proposed by NAB.
37.Antenna Pattern Plots.  We adopt our proposal in the NPRM to update our requirements 
for submitting antenna pattern plots in applications, with minor adjustments.  Section 74.735(c)(4) (Power 
limitations) currently requires that horizontal plane patterns be plotted “to the largest scale possible on 
unglazed letter-size polar coordinate paper.”109  The NPRM suggested that this requirement is outdated 
and not consistent with current licensee and Commission staff practices.  We proposed in the NPRM to 
require licensees to submit patterns in the form of a .pdf attachment to an application filed in LMS, and 
clarify that similar plots are required for elevation (Section 74.735(c)(6)) or matrix patterns (Section 
74.735(c)(7)) submitted in the LMS form.110  No commenter disagreed with our assessment, but NAB 
points out, and SBE agrees, that the terminology we used in the proposed text for the revised rule could 
be modified to more accurately reflect our intent.111  NAB urges that the proposed Section 74.735(c)(4) 
should read: “All azimuth plane patterns be plotted in a PDF attachment to the application in a size 
sufficient to be easily viewed.”112  We agree that NAB’s formulation contains a clearer statement of the 
intent of our original proposal and therefore adopt it.113  NAB also proposes that matrix patterns should be 
(Continued from previous page)  
where stations are currently operating with vertical-only polarization should promptly, upon the effective date of 
these rules, submit a waiver request to the Video Division, Media Bureau.  
105 See, e.g., NAB Comments at 6; Letter from Robert Weller, Vice-President, National Association of Broadcasters, 
to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (Nov. 18, 2022) (NAB Ex Parte) (requesting that some clarification may be 
needed to ensure that proposed rule changes do not adversely affect the operation of existing stations or impose new 
requirements); Reply Comments of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, MB Docket Nos. 03-185 and 
22-261 (filed Nov. 7, 2022) (H&E Reply) at 1.
106 This new requirement is consistent with stations being primarily horizontal, with a possible vertical component 
intended to be less than or equal to the horizontal component.  See revised Section 74.735(c).
107 NAB Comments at 9; SBE Reply at 6.
108 NAB Comments at 9 (suggesting that the modified text should read instead: “Relative field azimuth plane pattern 
(patterns for both horizontal and vertical polarization should be included if elliptical or circular polarization is used) 
of the proposed antenna.  A value of 1.0 should be used for the maximum radiation in the horizontal polarization.”).
109 47 CFR § 74.735(c)(4).
110 NPRM at para. 22.  See revised Sections 74.735(c)(6) and 74.735(c)(7).
111 NAB Comments at 9; SBE Reply at 6.
112 Id.
113 We note that one goal of this proposal is to ensure that undistorted and complete antenna patterns are available 
for review.  For example, when a station with mechanical beam tilt files a distorted horizontal plane pattern in LMS 
to reflect what the antenna looks like in terms of interference to other stations, it can be difficult or impossible to 
determine the undistorted azimuth pattern absent additional documentation.  A station with mechanical beam tilt 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
17submitted as spreadsheets rather than PDFs.  We agree that this approach would provide flexibility to 
applicants and conform to modern practices and include that option in the revised rule.  Having received 
no comments on the NPRM’s proposal to clarify that similar plots are required for elevation or matrix 
patterns submitted in the LMS form, we adopt that proposal, as well.
38.Modification of Transmission Systems.  We adopt our proposal in the NPRM to amend 
Section 74.751 (Modification of transmission systems) with a modification proposed by commenters.  
Section 74.751(b)(4)(i) states: “(b) [f]ormal application (FCC Form 2100, Schedule C) is required for any 
of the following changes: (4) [a]ny horizontal change of the location of the antenna structure which would 
(i) be in excess of 152.4 meters (500 feet).”114  Therefore, the section on its face appears to permit a 
licensee to relocate its antenna structure less than 500 feet (152.4 meters) without requesting 
authorization.115  We note that, scenarios where an antenna structure moves less than 500 feet are highly 
unlikely to occur in the real world.  Additionally, we note a change of location at distances under 500 feet 
without submission of an application, is not consistent with standard licensing practices.
39. In the NPRM, we noted that the Commission staff’s standard processing practice is to 
require a licensee to file a minor modification application whenever a station seeks to relocate its 
antenna.116  We explained in the NPRM that because the most precise antenna location provides the most 
accurate results when using OET Bulletin No. 69 (OET-69 Bulletin), the staff has consistently required a 
minor modification application for all antenna relocations, and the industry has routinely submitted such 
minor modification applications.117  We therefore proposed in the NPRM to revise the language of the rule 
to codify current staff practice and the application filing requirements of LMS, related to the movement of 
the station antenna specifically, and modify Section 74.751(b)(4) to require LPTV/translator licensees and 
permittees to file an application in LMS on FCC Form 2100, Schedule C, requesting authorization for all 
antenna relocations.118
40. In filed comments, ATBA requests that we “preserve [the Commission’s] existing rule 
that permits a licensee to relocate facilities less than 500 feet (152.4 meters) without requesting prior 
authorization and to incorporate this rule into its processing practices.”119  NTA asserts that changes in 
location of less than 500 feet should not make a material difference to the result of the OET-69 Bulletin 
analyses,120 and additionally cites to the fact that a 1.0 kilometer cell size is the default in such analyses 
for LPTV/translator stations, noting that means each cell is “approximately 3,900 feet” on a side.121  We 
(Continued from previous page)  
should instead submit in LMS an undistorted azimuth and elevation pattern and provide the amount and azimuth of 
the mechanical tilt, or may submit a matrix pattern, but such stations are not required to do so.
114 47 CFR § 74.751(b)(4)(i) (Modification of transmission systems).  
115 See id.  We note that this rule, as written, only addresses relocations of the entire “antenna structure,” which is a 
tower or building.  
116 NPRM at para. 23.  
117 Id.
118 Id.
119 ATBA Comments at 3.  The rule, however, appears to apply only to relocation of the entire antenna structure and 
not generally to other relocations of antennas.  See supra para. 38.  
120 NTA Comments at 19.  The OET-69 Bulletin is referenced in Section 74.793 of the Commission’s rules and 
provides guidance on the use of Longley-Rice methodology for evaluating TV service coverage and interference in 
accordance with the Commission’s rules. 
121 NTA Comments at 19.  We calculate that 1.0 kilometer is approximately 3,280 feet, not 3,900 feet.  NTA further 
states that “[r]ather [than] having to file a minor change to move your antenna 20 feet, or adjust a small error in 
coordinates, LPTV and translator owners should be able to continue to use an informal procedure, such as letter 
notifications, just like their full service counterparts.”  NTA Comments at 20.  Neither LPTV/TV translator nor full 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
18disagree.  We find that there is good cause to amend the rule to require the filing of a minor modification 
application for moves of less than 500 feet and that such moves can make a material difference to the 
result of the OET-69 Bulletin.  Specifically, we note that stations have the option of selecting both a 
smaller cell size than the 1.0 kilometer default in the OET-69 Bulletin (0.5 kilometers) and an option to 
select a smaller path profile spacing increment, as small as 0.05 kilometers or 164 feet, when the path loss 
calculations are conducted.  A station which has used a smaller path profile spacing increment than the 
default 1.0 kilometer value can thus change the terrain paths used in the calculation of interference with a 
relatively small change of coordinates.  Additionally, in particularly rough terrain, 500 feet can be, for 
instance, the difference between the peak of a mountain and a point significantly down the slope of that 
mountain.  Because LPTV/translator stations are more likely than full power stations to operate from very 
short antenna heights and also because they do so in mountainous areas where significant changes in 
terrain height can occur over short distances, these differences can be meaningful.  While the fact that the 
Commission uses the radiation center above mean sea level to determine antenna height for interference 
calculations should limit the impact of some cases, we remain concerned that such moves could cause 
changes to interference calculations, particularly when smaller path profile spacing increments are used as 
described above, since it could cause changes in the impact of terrain shielding near the transmitter site.  
We therefore disagree with ATBA and NTA, and conclude that it serves the public interest for such 
changes to be evaluated via an application for a construction permit.  
41. NAB argues that “LPTV and TV Translator stations should not be held to a higher 
standard than full power stations, which are generally allowed to change geographic coordinates by three 
seconds of latitude and/or longitude as a matter of right”122 and compares our proposal to the requirements 
applicable to full power stations contained in Section 73.1690 (Modification of transmission systems).  
We agree with NAB that it is reasonable to conform the LPTV/translator rule to more closely match this 
full power rule.  Section 73.1690(b)(2) and the associated Section 73.1690(c)(11) apply only to 
coordinate corrections and not to relocations.  Section 73.1690(c)(11) explicitly requires that a station 
may correct its coordinates in a streamlined manner “provided there is no physical change in location and 
no other licensed parameters are changed.”123  We therefore amend Section 74.751 to permit 
LPTV/translator stations as well to correct station coordinates in the absence of any such physical change 
in location or other licensed parameters, where the change is not more than three seconds latitude and/or 
three seconds longitude.124  Limiting streamlined processing only to coordinate corrections improves the 
accuracy of the coordinates of the facility already in operation, and thus such a correction cannot cause a 
change in real world interference, even if the predictions change slightly, and therefore we believe this 
change serves the public interest.125
42. We also adopt the proposal in the NPRM to delete two subsections of Section 74.751 as 
irrelevant and unnecessary.126  Section 74.751(b)(6)127 permits relocation of a station’s transmitter without 
(Continued from previous page)  
power stations are permitted to follow such a procedure; for example, full power stations are required to formally 
file such changes in LMS on Form 2100, Schedule B.  
122 NAB Comments at 7 (internal references omitted).
123 47 CFR § 73.1690(c)(11) (Modification of transmission systems).
124 See revised Section 74.751(b)(4) and (c).  See infra para. 42.
125 As minor modifications do not require a filing fee, and because the staff practice is to process such modifications 
as rapidly as possible, we do not believe the two-step process is a significant burden.  However, to mitigate the 
concern expressed by NAB related to cost, we direct the Media Bureau to waive any LMS-imposed filing fee 
associated with the LPTV/translator station’s FCC Form 2100 filing, consistent with the current practice for full 
power stations.  See NAB Comments at 8. 
126 NPRM at para. 24.
127 47 CFR § 74.751(b)(6).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
19authorization in only certain instances.  As we stated in the NPRM, because the antenna location, rather 
than the transmitter location, is the relevant consideration in determining interference, service, and loss, 
we proposed to delete Section 74.751(b)(6) entirely regarding the transmitter’s location, as it is not 
relevant in this analysis.  The NPRM also proposed to delete Section 74.751(c), which requires 
LPTV/translator licensees to notify the Commission in writing of any other equipment changes they make 
that are not specifically referenced in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the section.128  We noted that we do not 
believe this information is relevant to the Commission’s application decision-making processes, and that 
staff does not routinely receive such notifications.  We received no comments opposing these proposed 
changes, and so we adopt the proposal in the NPRM, and delete the subsections.  
43.Minimum Service Standards.  We adopt our proposal in the NPRM  to update the video 
quality standard.  Section 74.790(g)(3) (Permissible service of TV translator and LPTV stations) provides 
that “LPTV station[s] must transmit at least one over-the-air video program signal at no direct charge to 
viewers at least comparable in resolution to that of its associated analog (NTSC) LPTV station or, in the 
case of an on-channel digital conversion, that of its former analog LPTV station.”129  We proposed in the 
NPRM to update the quality standard set forth in the rule to reflect that 480i video resolution is 
“comparable in resolution to analog television programming,” consistent with the update the Commission 
made to its full power station rules in Section 73.624(b).130  We received no comments opposing this 
proposal.  We conclude that this quality standard is an appropriate standard for LPTV stations and 
therefore adopt it.  Furthermore, we adopt the proposal in the NPRM that the desired-to-undesired (D/U) 
ratios for ATSC 3.0 into TV and vice versa for predicting interference to stations are assumed to be 
similar and need not be differentiated in the rules beyond TV service.131  
44.LMS Filing Procedures.  We adopt our proposal in the NPRM to update certain rules to 
require electronic filing.  Certain rules specify the filing of a letter or similar submission for relief with 
the Commission.  We proposed in the NPRM to update such rules to instead require submission in LMS, 
the Commission’s broadcast licensing and management database.132  Doing so is consistent with current 
licensee and Commission staff practices not just for LPTV/translators, but also full power and Class A 
licensees and permittees.  We received no comments opposing these proposed updates.  Therefore, we 
amend our rules to require LPTV/translator licensees and permittees to file written reports, submissions, 
letters, notifications, or other required filings in LMS.133  We believe that this amendment is in the public 
interest because it will streamline application submission, processing, and record keeping, and provide a 
centralized location for public inspection of all licensing-related matters.  
F. Additional Questions and Proposals Raised by Commenters
45. We decline to adopt several proposals raised by commenters.  In doing so, we note that 
the NPRM’s scope was limited to amendments to the Part 74 rules to reflect the current operating 
environment, including the termination of analog operations in the LPTV/translator service.134  We 
128 47 CFR § 74.751(c).
129 47 CFR § 74.790(g)(3); see also 2004 Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 19348-9, para. 51.
130 See NPRM at para. 25; see also Promoting Broadcast Internet Innovation through ATSC 3.0, MB Docket No. 20-
145, Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 14492, 14507, para. 30 (2020). 
131 See NPRM at para. 25.
132 NPRM at para. 26.  We also proposed to require e-mail submission of certain specified information in the event 
LPTV/TV translator stations rebroadcast the programs of other TV broadcast stations.  See NPRM, Appendix B at 
proposed Section 74.784(b).
133 47 CFR §§ 74.703(h) (Interference); 74.734(a)(4) (Attended and unattended operation); and 74.763(b) (Time of 
operation).  We also note that we amend Section 74.784(b) (Rebroadcasts) as proposed to require e-mail submission.  
134 Specifically, the NPRM proposed to adopt rules previously applicable to analog operations for digital operations, 
update geographic coordinates to the current NAD standard, modify station identification requirements, require 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
20received several proposals that seek to make material changes to our rules, or changes outside of Part 
74.135  We therefore decline to adopt these proposals as outside the scope of this proceeding.  
46. Aside from the proposals that were outside the scope of this proceeding, CDE asked 
whether the wording in Section 74.701(c) (Definitions) adopted in the Part 74 Order (“analog to digital 
replacement translator (DRT)”) is correct given that the analog sunset date was July 13, 2021 at 11:59 
p.m.136  We take this opportunity to clarify that the wording is correct.  In this instance, we do require 
reference to the word “analog” despite completion of the digital transition.  In 2009, the Commission 
adopted a new, replacement digital translator service to permit full power television stations to continue to 
provide service to viewers within their existing analog coverage areas where the viewers would otherwise 
lose service after the station transitioned to digital.137  While the definition of the DRT service includes 
the word “analog” because it is replacing service to the analog coverage area, the replacement translator 
service is digital.
47. Finally, the LPTV Broadcasters Association proposes replacing the term “low power 
television” in the Commission’s rules with “local power television.”138  While we recognize the local 
service that LPTV can provide, we decline to adopt this change.  As discussed above, the purpose of this 
proceeding is to eliminate confusion within our rules.  Because several of our rules stem from statutory 
requirements, and because Congress has used the term “low power television,”139 we believe that 
changing this term would result in inconsistencies between the statute and the rules and would create, not 
eliminate, confusion within our rules.
G. Cost Benefit and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Analysis 
48. After evaluating the record received in response to the NPRM’s request for comment on 
the benefits and costs associated with adopting the proposals set forth in the NPRM, we conclude that to 
the extent that the revised rules impose any costs on Commission licensees and regulatees, such costs will 
be minimal and are outweighed by the benefits to the public of the revised rules.140  A few commenters 
(Continued from previous page)  
LPTV stations to transmit with a virtual channel that avoids conflicts with other stations, update the process for 
filing applications with the Commission, and make other technical modifications.  See NPRM at para. 9.
135 Comments of Scripps Broadcasting Holdings LLC, MB Docket Nos. 03-185 and 22-261 (filed Oct. 24, 2022) 
(Scripps Comments) at 1, 4 (proposing to adopt a “90-day shot clock” for resolving channel substitution petitions for 
rulemaking in Part 73); ATBA Comments at 4-6 (proposing that the freeze on major modifications of LPTV stations 
be lifted and requesting that the Commission “provide greater certainty for LPTV operators planning to invest in 
new and innovative digital technologies.”); Comments of Mountain Broadcasting Corporation, MB Docket Nos. 03-
185 and 22-261 (filed Oct. 24, 2022) (Mountain Broadcasting Comments) at 2; see also Reply Comments of 
Mountain Broadcasting Corporation, MB Docket Nos. 03-185 and 22-261 (filed Nov. 7, 2022) (Mountain 
Broadcasting Reply) at 5-6 (proposing that the Commission apply Annex B of the ATSC A/65C to both full power 
and LPTV stations and allow any virtual channel designation that does not result in a contour overlap; and require 
LPTV stations to file items similar to those maintained by full power stations in a public file).
136 Comments of Cohen, Dippell and Everist, P.C., MB Docket No 22-261 (filed Oct. 24, 2022) (CDE Comments) at 
2; see also 47 CFR § 74.701(c) (Definitions).
137 Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission’s Rules to Establish Rules for Replacement Digital Low Power 
Television Translator Stations, MB Docket No. 08-253, Report and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 5931 (2009).
138 Comments of the LPTV Broadcasters Association, MB Docket Nos. 03-185 and 22-261 (filed Oct. 24, 2022) 
(LPTV Broadcasters Association Comments) at 1-3.
139 See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 336(h) (Provision of Digital Data Service by Low-Power Television Stations); Low Power 
Protection Act (P.L. No. 117-344, S. 3405 (Jan. 5, 2023) (defining “low power TV station” with respect to section 
74.701 of the Commission’s rules); Community Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999, P. L. No. 106-113, 113 Stat. 
Appendix 1 at pp. 1501A-594-1501A-598 (1999), codified at 47 U.S.C. § 336(f).
140 NPRM at para. 27 (seeking comment on the benefits and costs associated with adopting the proposed changes).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
21explicitly addressed the costs and benefits of the proposed rules or provided specific data and analysis 
supporting claimed costs and benefits in response to the NPRM.  For example, Canyon TV/Cannaliato 
asserts that our proposal to use TSIDs would impose a significant financial burden to community 
translators.141  NTA in its comments cites an estimate by one translator owner and operator of Montana 
translator stations of the cost to update equipment to enable translators to insert data into the PSIP of the 
received data for each translator.142  Canyon TV/Cannaliato also noted with respect to our frequency 
measure requirement proposal that replacing certain equipment in order to comply would be a financial 
burden for translator stations.143  As described supra, the revisions to the rules codify the staff’s current 
practices or better reflect technological advancements in the industry and take into consideration potential 
financial burdens on LPTV/translators.  We did not adopt the TSID- and PSIP-related rules that could 
have led to increased costs, and we clarified in the Report and Order that we do not believe the frequency 
measurement requirement will lead to increased cost.  The revised rules reflect an effort to simplify, 
streamline, and modernize existing rules and procedures that will enable LPTV/translator stations to more 
easily comply with licensing requirements through familiar and low cost measures.  Thus, we expect any 
costs imposed by the updated rules will be minimal and outweighed by the public benefits of clarity and 
modernization.
49. The NPRM also sought comment on how the proposals set forth in the NPRM can 
advance equity in the provision of broadcast services for all people of the United States, without 
discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or disability.  The NPRM also 
sought comment on how our proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, 
and accessibility.144  We received no comments on these topics and no objection to adoption of the 
proposed rules based on these concerns.  We acknowledge the importance of these aims, and we believe 
that the revised rules reflect an effort to simplify, streamline, and modernize existing rules and procedures 
that will enable LPTV/translator stations to more easily comply with licensing requirements through 
familiar and low cost measures and we do not believe they will have negative implications related to 
diversity, equity, inclusion, or accessibility.
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
50.Paperwork Reduction Analysis.  The Report and Order contains either new or modified 
information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).145  It will be 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA.  
OMB, the general public, and other federal agencies are invited to comment on the new or modified 
information collection requirements contained in this proceeding.  The Commission will publish a 
separate document in the Federal Register at a later date seeking these comments.  In addition, we note 
that, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. § 
3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought specific comment on how it might further reduce the 
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.  We have 
described impacts that might affect small businesses in the FRFA in Appendix B.  
51.Congressional Review Act.  The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs, that this 
rule is non-major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. § 804(2).  The Commission will send a 
copy of this Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability office, pursuant to 5 
U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
141 See Canyon TV/Cannaliato Comments at 1.
142 See NTA Comments at 5.
143 See Canyon TV/Cannaliato Comments at 1.
144 NPRM at para. 28.
145 Pub. L. No. 104-13.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
2252.Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.  The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA),146 requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment 
rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.”147  Accordingly, we have prepared a Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the possible impact of rule and/or policy changes 
contained in this Report and Order on small entities.  The FRFA is set forth in Appendix B.  
53.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 and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530.
54.Additional Information.  For additional information on this proceeding, please contact 
Joyce Bernstein, Video Division, Media Bureau at Joyce.Bernstein@fcc.gov, Emily Harrison, Video 
Division, Media Bureau at Emily.Harrison@fcc.gov, or Mark Colombo, Video Division, Media Bureau at 
Mark.Colombo@fcc.gov. 
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
55. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4, 301, 
303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 336, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. §§ 151, 154, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 336, 403, this Report and Order IS 
ADOPTED.
56.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s rules ARE HEREBY 
AMENDED as set forth in Appendix A and such amendments shall be effective 30 days after publication 
in the Federal Register, except for sections 74.703, 74.734, 74.735, 74.751, 74.763, and 74.784, which 
contain new or modified information collection requirements and will be submitted for approval by the 
Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act and shall become effective after 
the Commission publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing such approval and the relevant 
effective date.
57.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of the Report and Order, including 
the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration. 
58.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that pursuant to section 801(a)(1)(A) of the 
Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A), the Commission SHALL SEND a copy of this 
Report and Order to Congress and to the Government Accountability Office.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
146 See 5 U.S.C. § 603.
147 See id. § 605(b).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
APPENDIX A
Final Regulations
The Federal Communications Commission amends part 74 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) as follows:
PART 74 - EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST AND OTHER 
PROGRAM DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES
1.   The authority citation for part 74 continues to read as follows:  
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 310, 325, 336 and 554.
2.   Section 74.702 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 
§ 74.702 Channel assignments.
* * * * *
(b) Changes in the Table of TV Allotments (§ 73.622(j) of this chapter), authorizations to construct new 
full power television stations or to authorizations to change facilities of existing such stations, may be 
made without regard to existing or proposed low power TV or TV translator stations. Where such a 
change results in a low power TV or TV translator station causing actual interference to reception of the 
full power television station, the licensee or permittee of the low power TV or TV translator station 
shall eliminate the interference or file an application for a change in channel assignment pursuant to § 
73.3572 of this chapter.
* * * * *
3.   Section 74.703 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as follows: 
§ 74.703 Interference.
* * * * *
(h) In each instance where suspension of operation is required, the licensee shall submit a full report to 
the FCC after operation is resumed containing details of the nature of the interference, the source of the 
interfering signals, and the remedial steps taken to eliminate the interference.  This report shall be filed Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
24via a Resumption of Operations notice in the FCC’s Licensing and Management System (LMS).
* * * * *
4. Remove and reserve § 74.708.
§ 74.708 [Removed and Reserved]
5.   Section 74.709 is amended by revising the tables in paragraphs (a) and (b)(2) to read as 
follows: 
§ 74.709 Land mobile station protection.
(a) * * * 
Table 1 to Paragraph (a)
Coordinates 
City Channels 
Latitude Longitude 
Boston, MA 14, 16 42°21′24.4″ 071°03′23.2″ 
Chicago, IL 14, 15 41°52′28.1″ 087°38′22.2″ 
Cleveland, OH 14, 15 41°29′51.2″ 081°49′49.5″ 
Dallas, TX 16 32°47′09.5″ 096°47′38.0″ 
Detroit, MI 15, 16 42°19′48.1″ 083°02′56.7″ 
Houston, TX 17 29°45′26.8″ 095°21′37.8″ 
Los Angeles, CA 14, 16, 20 34°03′15.0″ 118°14′31.3″ 
Miami, FL 14 25°46′38.4″ 080°11′31.2″ 
New York, NY 14, 15, 16 40°45′06.4″ 073°59′37.5″ 
Philadelphia, PA 19, 20 39°56′58.4″ 075°09′19.6″ 
Pittsburgh, PA 14, 18 40°26′19.2″ 079°59′59.2″ 
San Francisco, CA 16, 17 37°46′38.7″ 122°24′43.9″ 
Washington, DC 17, 18 38°53′51.4″ 077°00′31.9″
(b) * * * 
(2) * * * Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
25Table 2 to Paragraph (b)(2)
Coordinates 
City Channel 
Latitude Longitude 
San Diego, CA 15 32°41′52.7″ 116°56′06.3″ 
Waterbury, CT 20 41°31′02.3″ 073°00′58.4″ 
Washington, DC 14 38°57′17.4″ 077°00′15.9″ 
Washington, DC 20 38°57′49.9″ 077°06′17.2″ 
Champaign, IL 15 40°04′10.0″ 087°54′46.0″ 
Jacksonville, IL 14 39°45′52.1″ 090°30′29.5″ 
Ft. Wayne, IN 15 41°05′35.2″ 085°10′41.9″ 
South Bend, IN 16 41°36′20.0″ 086°12′46.0″ 
Salisbury, MD 16 38°24′15.4″ 075°34′43.7″ 
Mt. Pleasant, MI 14 43°34′24.1″ 084°46′21.0″ 
Hanover, NH 15 43°42′30.2″ 072°09′14.3″ 
Canton, OH 17 40°51′04.2″ 081°16′36.4″ 
Cleveland, OH 19 41°21′19.2″ 081°44′23.5″ 
Oxford, OH 14 39°30′26.2″ 084°44′08.8″ 
Zanesville, OH 18 39°55′42.0″ 081°59′07.0″ 
Elmira-Corning, 
NY18 42°06′22.0″ 076°52′16.0″ 
Harrisburg, PA 21 40°20′43.1″ 076°52′08.3″ 
Johnstown, PA 19 40°19′47.3″ 078°53′44.1″ 
Lancaster, PA 15 40°15′45.0″ 076°27′50.0″ 
Philadelphia, PA 17 40°02′30.9″ 075°14′21.9″ 
Pittsburgh, PA 16 40°26′46.2″ 079°57′50.2″ 
Scranton, PA 16 41°10′58.3″ 075°52′19.7″ 
Parkersburg, WV 15 39°20′59.8″ 081°33′55.4″ 
Madison, WI 15 43°03′03.0″ 089°29′13.0″
* * * * *Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
266.  Remove and reserve § 74.710.
§ 74.710 [Removed and Reserved]
7.   Section 74.734 is amended by revising the first sentence of paragraph (a)(4) to read as 
follows: 
§ 74.734 Attended and unattended operation.
(a) * * * 
(4) A notification must be filed with the FCC via a Change of Control Point Notice in LMS providing 
the name, address, and telephone number of a person or persons who may be called to secure 
suspension of operation of the transmitter promptly should such action be deemed necessary by the 
FCC. * * *
* * * * *
8.   Section 74.735 is amended by revising the first and second sentences of paragraphs (c) 
introductory text and (c)(2) and paragraph (c)(4) and adding paragraphs (c)(6) and (7) to read as follows: 
§ 74.735 Power limitations.
* * * * *
(c) The limits in paragraph (b) of this section apply to the effective radiated power in the horizontally 
polarized plane. For either omnidirectional or directional antennas, where the ERP values of the 
vertically and horizontally polarized components are not of equal strength, the ERP limits shall apply to 
the horizontal polarization, and the vertical ERP shall not intentionally exceed the horizontal ERP in 
any direction. * * *
(2) Relative field azimuth plane pattern (patterns for both horizontal and vertical polarization should 
be included if elliptical or circular polarization is used) of the proposed directional antenna. A value 
of 1.0 should be used for the maximum radiation in the horizontal polarization. * * *Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
27* * * * * 
(4) All azimuth plane patterns must be plotted in a PDF attachment to the application in a size 
sufficient to be easily viewed.
* * * * * 
(6) If an elevation pattern is submitted in the application form, similar tabulations and PDF 
attachments shall be provided for the elevation pattern.  
(7) If a matrix pattern is submitted in the application form, similar tabulations shall be provided as 
necessary in the form of a spreadsheet to accurately represent the pattern.
9.   Revise § 74.737 to read as follows:  
§ 74.737 Antenna location.
(a) An applicant for a new low power TV or TV translator station or for a change in the facilities of an 
authorized station shall endeavor to select a site that will provide a line-of-sight transmission path to the 
entire area intended to be served and at which there is available a suitable signal from the primary 
station, if any, that will be retransmitted. 
(b) The transmitting antenna should be placed above growing vegetation and trees lying in the direction 
of the area intended to be served, to minimize the possibility of signal absorption by foliage. 
(c) A site within 8 kilometers of the area intended to be served is to be preferred if the conditions in 
paragraph (a) of this section can be met. 
(d) Consideration should be given to the accessibility of the site at all seasons of the year and to the 
availability of facilities for the maintenance and operation of the transmitting equipment. Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
28(e) The transmitting antenna should be located as near as is practical to the transmitter to avoid the use 
of long transmission lines and the associated power losses. 
(f) Consideration should be given to the existence of strong radio frequency fields from other 
transmitters at the site of the transmitting equipment and the possibility that such fields may result in 
the retransmissions of signals originating on frequencies other than that of the primary station being 
rebroadcast.
10.   Revise § 74.750 to read as follows:
§ 74.750 Transmission system facilities.
(a) A low power TV or TV translator station shall operate with a transmitter that is either certificated 
for licensing under the provisions of this subpart or type notified for use under part 73 of this chapter.
(b) External preamplifiers also may be used provided that they do not cause improper operation of the 
transmitting equipment, and use of such preamplifiers is not necessary to meet the provisions of § 
74.795(b).
(c) - (d) [Reserved] 
(e) The following procedures shall apply:
(1) Any manufacturer of apparatus intended for use at low power TV or TV translator stations may 
request certification by following the procedures set forth in part 2, subpart J, of this chapter.
(2) Low power TV and TV translator transmitting apparatus that has been certificated by the FCC 
will normally be authorized without additional measurements from the applicant or licensee.
(3) Applications for certification of modulators to be used with existing certificated TV translator 
apparatus must include the specifications electrical and mechanical interconnecting requirements for Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
29the apparatus with which it is designed to be used.
(4) Other rules concerning certification, including information regarding withdrawal of type 
acceptance, modification of certificated equipment, and limitations on the findings upon which 
certification is based, are set forth in part 2, subpart J, of this chapter.
(f) The transmitting antenna system may be designed to produce horizontal, elliptical, or circular 
polarization.
(g) Low power TV or TV translator stations installing new certificated transmitting apparatus 
incorporating modulating equipment need not make equipment performance measurements and shall so 
indicate on the station license application. Stations adding new or replacing modulating equipment in 
existing low power TV or TV translator station transmitting apparatus must have a qualified person 
examine the transmitting system after installation. A report of the methods, measurements, and results 
must be kept in the station records. However, stations installing modulating equipment solely for the 
limited local origination of signals permitted by § 74.790 need not comply with the requirements of this 
paragraph (g).
11.    Section 74.751 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (b)(4); and
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (b)(6); and
c. Revising paragraph (c).
The revision reads as follows:
§ 74.751 Modification of transmission systems.
* * * * *
(b) * * * Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
30(4) Any horizontal change of the location of the antenna. 
* * * * *
(c) Notwithstanding the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, a station may file in LMS a 
correction of geographic coordinates where the change is 3 seconds or fewer in latitude and/or 3 
seconds or fewer in longitude, provided there is no physical change in location and no other licensed 
parameters are changed.  An exhibit should be attached to the application(s) specifying that it is a 
coordinate correction. 
12.   Revise § 74.762 to read as follows:
§ 74.762 Frequency measurements.
(a) The licensee of a low power TV station or a TV translator station must measure the frequency of its 
output channel as often as necessary to ensure operation consistent with the Advanced Television Systems 
Committee (ATSC) standard (see § 73.682 of this chapter; for ATSC 1.0, § 73.682(d), ATSC A/53 Part 2, 
and for ATSC 3.0, § 73.682(f)(2)), and at least once each calendar year at intervals not exceeding 14 
months. 
(b) In the event that a low power TV or TV translator station is found to be operating inconsistent with the 
standard in paragraph (a) of this section, the licensee promptly shall suspend operation of the transmitter 
and shall not resume operation until the transmitter has been restored to its assigned frequency.
13.   Section 74.763 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 74.763 Time of operation.
* * * * *
(b) In the event that causes beyond the control of the low power TV or TV translator station licensee 
make it impossible to continue operating, the licensee may discontinue operation for a period of not Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
31more than 30 days without further authority from the FCC. Notification must be sent to the FCC via a 
Suspension of Operations Notice filing in LMS, not later than the 10th day of discontinued operation. 
During such period, the licensee shall continue to adhere to the requirements in the station license 
pertaining to the lighting of antenna structures. In the event normal operation is restored prior to the 
expiration of the 30 day period, the FCC shall be notified via a Resumption of Operations Notice filing 
in LMS of the date normal operations resumed. If causes beyond the control of the licensee make it 
impossible to comply within the allowed period, a request for Special Temporary Authority (see § 
73.1635 of this chapter) shall be made to the FCC no later than the 30th day for such additional time as 
may be deemed necessary via LMS. 
* * * * *
14.   Revise § 74.783 to read as follows: 
§ 74.783 Station identification.
(a) Each low power TV station as defined by § 74.701(f) must transmit its station identification using one 
of the following methods:
(1) When originating programming, as defined by § 74.701(h), a low power TV station may use the 
station identification procedures given in § 73.1201 of this chapter on its primary stream.  Other 
streams may use the method in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. The identification procedures given in 
the remainder of this paragraph are to be used at any time the station is not originating programming; 
or
(2) By transmitting the call sign in the short channel name field of the Program and System and 
Information Protocol (PSIP) (or its ATSC 3.0 equivalent) for at least one stream on the station.  If the 
station is assigned an alphanumeric call sign consistent with § 74.791(d) and its call sign has more 
than 7 characters, it may drop the “-D” from the end of the call sign when identifying with this Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
32method; or 
(3) By arranging for the primary station, whose signal is being rebroadcast, to identify the low power 
TV station by transmitting an easily readable visual presentation or a clearly understandable aural 
presentation of the low power TV station's call letters and location. Two such identifications shall be 
made between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. each broadcast day at approximately one hour 
intervals during each time period. Television stations which do not begin their broadcast day before 9 
a.m. shall make these identifications in the hours closest to these time periods at the specified 
intervals.
(b) Licensees of television translator stations may arrange for identification via the method in paragraph 
(a)(3) of this section.  Licensees of television translators who make such arrangements for station 
identification to be made by the television station whose signals are being rebroadcast by the translator, 
must secure agreement with this television station licensee to keep in its file, and available to FCC 
personnel, the translator's call letters and location, giving the name, address, and telephone number of 
the licensee or his service representative to be contacted in the event of malfunction of the translator. It 
shall be the responsibility of the translator licensee to furnish current information to the television 
station licensee for this purpose.
(c) Transport Stream ID (TSID) values are identification numbers assigned to stations by the FCC and 
stored in the Commission’s online database.  Two sequential values are assigned to each station.
(1) All low power TV stations originating programming shall transmit their assigned odd-numbered 
TSID, if one has been assigned.  All TV translator stations, and low power TV stations not originating 
programming, shall pass through the assigned TSID of the originating station, unless the translator or 
low power TV station is modifying the signal of one or more originating stations in such a way that it 
is not clear which originating station’s TSID should be used.  In that case, the station shall transmit its 
assigned odd-numbered TSID if one has been assigned.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
33(2) In ATSC 3.0, a similar value is used called a Bit Stream ID (BSID).  LPTV stations operating in 
ATSC 3.0 mode shall utilize their assigned even-numbered TSID as their BSID, and LPTV/translator 
stations shall transmit the BSID as otherwise required of the TSID in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
15.   Section 74.784 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 
§ 74.784 Rebroadcasts.
* * * * * 
(b) The licensee of a low power TV or TV translator station shall not rebroadcast the programs of any 
other TV broadcast station or other station authorized under the provisions of this subpart without 
obtaining prior consent of the station whose signals or programs are proposed to be retransmitted. The 
FCC shall be notified of the call letters of each station rebroadcast, and the licensee of the low power 
TV or TV broadcast translator station shall certify it has obtained written consent from the licensee of 
the station whose programs are being retransmitted.  This notification shall be provided by e-mail to 
TVRebroadcast@fcc.gov, the Video Division’s e-mail box.  
* * * * *
16. Remove and reserve § 74.786.
§ 74.786 [Removed and Reserved]
17.  Section 74.787 is amended by removing paragraph (a)(5)(viii) and adding paragraph (c) to 
read as follows:   
§ 74.787 Licensing.
* * * * * 
(c) Licensing.  An application to construct a new low power TV or TV translator station or change the 
facilities of an existing station will not be accepted if it fails to protect an authorized Class A, low power 
TV, or TV translator station or an application for such a station filed prior to the date the low power TV Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
34or TV translator application is filed.
18.  Remove and reserve § 74.789.
§ 74.789 [Removed and Reserved]
19.   Section 74.790 is amended by revising paragraph (g)(3) and adding paragraph (n) to read as 
follows: 
§ 74.790 Permissible service of TV translator and LPTV stations.
* * * * *
(g) * * * 
(3) Whenever operating, an LPTV station must transmit at least one over-the-air video program signal 
at no direct charge to viewers at a resolution of at least 480i (vertical resolution of 480 lines, 
interlaced). 
* * * * *
(n) An LPTV station shall transmit at least the minimum Program System and Information Protocol 
(PSIP) information necessary for receivers to display the station’s programming.  The station is not 
required to utilize any specific virtual channel number but must avoid creating a contour overlap with 
any full power TV or Class A TV station’s virtual channel, or creating a contour overlap with another 
LPTV station using the same virtual channel. 
20.   Section 74.791 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: 
§ 74.791 Call signs.
* * * * *
(d) Call sign protocol.  The use of the initial letter generally will follow the pattern used in the broadcast 
service, i.e., stations west of the Mississippi River will be assigned an initial letter K and those east, the Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
35letter W. The two letter combinations following the channel number will be assigned in order, and 
requests for the assignment of the particular combinations of letters will not be considered. The channel 
number designator for Channels 2 through 9 will be incorporated in the call sign as a 2-digit number, 
i.e., 02, 03, etc., so as to avoid similarities with call signs assigned to amateur radio stations.  In the 
event that the two letter combination following the channel numbers reaches ZZ, the next subsequent 
call sign shall have three letters, beginning with AAA. 
21.   Section 74.795 is amended by: 
a. Removing “and” at the end of paragraph (b)(4);
b. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (b)(5) and adding “;” in its place; and
c. Adding paragraphs (b)(6) and (7).
The additions read as follows: 
§ 74.795 Low power TV and TV translator transmission system facilities.
* * * * *
(b) * * * 
(6) The apparatus must be equipped with automatic controls that will place it in a non-radiating 
condition when no signal is being received on the input channel, either due to absence of a 
transmitted signal or failure of the receiving portion of the facilities used for rebroadcasting the signal 
of another station. The automatic control may include a time delay feature to prevent interruptions 
caused by fading or other momentary failures of the incoming signal; and
(7) Wiring, shielding, and construction shall be in accordance with accepted principles of good 
engineering practice. 
* * * * *  Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
APPENDIX B
Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) released in July 2022.2  The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) sought written 
public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA.  No comments were 
filed addressing the IRFA.  This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.3 
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order
2. The Report and Order reflects the Commission’s effort to update its rules following the 
termination of analog operations in the low power television (LPTV) and TV translator services 
(collectively LPTV/translator).  The Commission adopts certain rules previously applicable to analog 
operations for digital operations and considers requests and comments received on subjects not included 
in the NPRM proposals, including analysis of the cost and benefits of the proposed rules.
3. In the Report and Order, the Commission retains the rule requiring LPTV stations that 
avail themselves of the provisions set forth in the LPTV Pilot Project Digital Data Services Act (DDSA) 
digital data service pilot project to comply with the Commission’s rule implementing the DDSA.  The 
Report and Order amends the Commission’s rules for LPTV/translator alphanumeric call signs to account 
for exhaustion of all two letter call sign combinations for some channel numbers, and consistent with the 
Commission’s policy that all stations have a unique call sign, the Report and Order codifies the current 
practice of assigning a call sign ending in three letters beginning with “AAA” and continuing sequentially 
through the alphabet ("AAB”, “AAC”, etc.) in such cases.  The Report and Order also requires digital 
LPTV stations to comply with the station identification provisions in Section 74.783 applicable to analog 
operations, updated to reflect digital operations.  Additionally, the Commission adopts its proposal to 
include an option for LPTV stations to use the Program and System Information Protocol (PSIP) to 
transmit the station’s call sign as the “short channel name” on at least one stream of programming that the 
LPTV station transmits, and mandates the broadcast of the station's assigned TSID (or BSID, which is the 
Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) 3.0 functional equivalent), assuming one is assigned.  
4. The Report and Order adopts a modified version of the Commission’s proposal to require 
a minor modification application on FCC Form 2100, Schedule C for all station relocations, including 
those under 500 feet, but allows for coordinate corrections of under 3 seconds latitude and/or longitude 
without paying a filing fee.  The Report and Order also codifies the staff’s practice of requiring LPTV 
stations to transmit with a virtual channel that avoids conflicts with any full power or Class A station's 
virtual channel in cases where a contour overlap would arise, or with virtual channels chosen by other 
LPTV stations.  Further, the Report and Order updates various filing requirements that currently specify 
submission by letter or other means to the FCC to instead require submission in the Commission’s 
Licensing and Management System (LMS), or otherwise through electronic submission, and clarifies 
what documentation is required when applications are submitted with various kinds of directional 
patterns.  In addition, the Report and Order removes references in the rules to the use of antennas with 
1 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, 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). 
2 See Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission’s Rules to Establish Rules for Digital Low Power Television 
and Television Translator Stations, Update of Parts 74 of the Commission’s Rules Related to Low Power Television 
and Television Translator Stations, Order and Sixth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 22-58 (rel. July 13, 2022) 
(NPRM); Erratum, FCC 22-58 (rel. Sept. 9, 2022).
3 5 U.S.C. § 604.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
37solely vertical polarization, and requires that the design of broadcast antennas is such that horizontal 
power is intended to be higher than or equal to the vertical power in all directions.
5. The Report and Order also adopts updates to the coordinates found throughout Section 
74.709 from NAD 27 to NAD 83 and otherwise conforms the values in Section 74.709(a) with those 
found in Section 90.303.  These coordinates are used only to determine where the Commission will or 
will not grant applications.  Section 74.703(e) still requires the resolution of actual interference, so the 
adjustments to Section 74.709(a) will not change the required amount of interference protection between 
LPTV/translator stations and land mobile operations.  Finally, the Report and Order adopts updates to the 
quality standard set forth in Section 74.790(g)(3) to reflect that 480i video resolution is “comparable in 
resolution to analog television programming,” consistent with the update the Commission made to its full 
power station rules. 
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA 
6. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the rules and policies proposed 
in the IRFA.
C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration
7. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, the Commission is required to respond 
to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), 
and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those 
comments.4  
8. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this 
proceeding.
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will 
Apply
9. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of 
the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein.5  The RFA generally 
defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small 
organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”6  In addition, the term “small business” has the 
same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act (SBA).7  A small 
business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.8  
10. The rules adopted herein will directly affect small television broadcast stations.  Below, 
we provide a description of such small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small 
entities, where feasible.
4 Id. § 604(a)(3).
5 Id. § 604(a)(4).
6 Id. § 601(6).   
7 Id. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small business concern” in 15 U.S.C. § 632(a)(1)).  
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.”  Id.
8 15 U.S.C. § 632.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
3811.Television Broadcasting.  This industry is comprised of “establishments primarily 
engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.”9  These establishments operate television broadcast 
studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public.10  These 
establishments also produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, 
which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule.  Programming may 
originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.  The SBA small 
business size standard for this industry classifies businesses having $41.5 million or less in annual 
receipts as small.11  2017 U.S. Census Bureau data indicate that 744 firms in this industry operated for the 
entire year.12  Of that number, 657 firms had revenue of less than $25,000,000.13  Based on this data, we 
estimate that the majority of television broadcasters are small entities under the SBA small business size 
standard. 
12. As of December 31, 2022, there were 1,375 licensed commercial television stations.14  Of 
this total, 1,282 stations (or 93.2%) had revenues of $41.5 million or less in 2021, according to 
Commission staff review of the BIAKelsey Media Access Pro Online Television Database (MAPro) on 
January 13, 2023,15 and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.  In 
addition, the Commission estimates as of December 31, 2022, there were 383 licensed noncommercial 
educational (NCE) television stations, 383 Class A TV stations, 1,912 LPTV stations and 3,122 TV 
translator stations.16  The Commission, however, does not compile and otherwise does not have access to 
financial information for these television broadcast stations that would permit it to determine how many 
of these stations qualify as small entities under the SBA small business size standard.  Nevertheless, given 
the SBA’s large annual receipts threshold for this industry and the nature of these television station 
licensees, we presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small 
business size standard.
E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements for Small Entities 
13. In this section, we identify the reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance 
requirements adopted in the Report and Order and consider whether small entities are affected 
disproportionately by any such requirements.  While the Commission is not in a position to determine 
whether small entities will have to hire professionals to comply with our decisions and cannot quantify 
the cost of compliance for small entities, the approaches we have taken to implement the requirements 
have minimal or de minimis cost implications for impacted entities.
9 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “515120 Television Broadcasting,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=515120&year=2017&details=515120.
10 Id.
11 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 515120 (as of Oct. 1, 2022 NAICS Code 516120). 
12 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of Shipments, 
or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 515120, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=515120&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.
13 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and 
revenues are used interchangeably, see https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices.
14 Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2022, Public Notice, DA 23-21 (rel. Jan. 11, 2023) (December 2022 
Broadcast Station Totals PN), https://www.fcc.gov/document/broadcast-station-totals-december-31-2022.
15 BIA Advisory Services, BIAKelsey Media Access Pro Online Television Database, 
http://www.biakelsey.com/data-platforms/media-access-pro (last visited on Jan. 13, 2023).
16 Broadcast Station Totals PN. Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
3914. The Commission concludes it will modify Section 74.751(b)(4) to require 
LPTV/translator licensees and permittees to file a minor modification application requesting authorization 
for all station relocations, including those moving the antenna or the antenna structure less than 500 feet 
(152.4 meters), but will permit stations seeking to correct coordinates by less than 3 seconds of latitude 
and/or longitude to do so without paying a filing fee.17  These requirements will result in a modified 
paperwork obligation for small entities and other licensees.  The Report and Order adopts a new Section 
74.762 regarding frequency measurements, which would require small and other LPTV/translator stations 
to measure the frequency of their output channel as often as necessary, but not exceeding 14 months, to 
ensure operation consistent with the ATSC standard in Section 73.682 of the rules.  The Commission also 
adopts LPTV station identification proposals to comply with Section 74.783, updated to reflect digital 
operations, including the option to transmit the station’s “short channel name” on at least one stream of 
programming.  Further, the Report and Order amends our rules to require LPTV/translator licensees and 
permittees to file written reports, submissions, letters, notifications, or other required filings in LMS, or 
otherwise by electronic submission, thereby streamlining application submission, processing, and record 
keeping for small and other entities.  The Commission will seek approval and the corresponding burdens, 
such as those require to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),18 to account for this 
modified reporting requirement.
F. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 
Significant Alternatives Considered
15. The RFA requires an agency to provide, “a description of the steps the agency has taken 
to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities…including a statement of the factual, 
policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the 
other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities 
was rejected.”19 
16. The actions taken by the Commission in the Report and Order were considered to be the 
least costly and minimally burdensome for small and other entities impacted by the rules.  As such, the 
Commission does not expect the adopted requirements to have a significant economic impact on small 
entities.  Below we discuss actions we take in the Order to minimize any significant economic impact on 
small entities and some alternatives that were considered.
17. The Report and Order adopts a number of proposals that would codify the staff’s current 
practices or better reflect technological advancements in the industry that may benefit small entities.  For 
example, the Report and Order codifies the staff’s practice of requiring LPTV stations that voluntarily 
transmit with a virtual channel to choose one that avoids conflicts with any full-power or Class A 
station’s virtual channel in cases where a contour overlap would arise, or with virtual channels chosen by 
other LPTV stations.  We considered alternatives by the Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE) that would 
require small and other LPTV licensees to enter these channels in LMS, but decline this option because 
LPTV virtual channel assignments do not need Commission approval.  Moreover, the Report and Order 
removes references in the rules to the use of antennas with solely vertical polarization, and requires that 
the horizontal power is intended to be higher than or equal to the vertical power in all directions, 
consistent with the requirements for full-power stations.  We considered proposals from the National 
Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and SBE that we modify the wording of the proposed rules, and 
adopted the clearer language proposed by NAB.  These revisions simplify, streamline, and modernize 
existing rules and procedures that will enable small and other LPTV/translator stations to more easily 
comply with licensing requirements through familiar and low cost measures.  We also adopted a rule for 
17 See revised Section 74.751(b)(4) and (c) (Modification of transmission systems).  The rule as currently written 
exempts relocations of the station’s antenna structure by less than 500 feet from the application process. 
18 Pub. L. No. 104-13.
19 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(6).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
40LPTV stations allowing the option of identifying by using PSIP to transmit the station’s call sign as the 
“short channel name” on at least one stream of programming that the LPTV station transmits. 20  The rule 
we adopted is simpler and less expensive than other methods of identification for stations that are already 
using PSIP. 
18. The Report and Order also updates the coordinates in Section 74.709 from NAD 27 to 
NAD 83 in order to conform the values with those found in Part 90 of the Commission’s rules.  These 
coordinates are used only to determine whether the Commission will or will not grant applications.  
Section 74.703(e) still requires the resolution of actual interference, and so the Commission would not 
need to balance the interference protection afforded to land mobile operation with the updated, 
streamlined benefits for small entities as a result of this revision.  While NAB encourages us to add a note 
to Part 90 regarding land mobile assignments, we decline to do so due to a pending petition for 
rulemaking on that subject.  Further, the Report and Order updates various filing requirements that 
currently specify submission by letter or other means to the FCC to instead require submission in LMS or 
electronically.  The Commission anticipates that this option will lessen the physical burden on small 
entities.  
19. A few commenters explicitly addressed the costs and benefits of the proposed rules or 
provided specific data and analysis supporting claimed costs and benefits in response to the NPRM.  
Specifically, Canyon TV/Cannaliato noted the financial burden TSIDs would impose to community 
translators, and that replacing equipment to comply with the rules would be a financial burden for 
translator stations.  NTA cited similar cost concerns in its comments.  In assessing the impact on small 
entities, we took into consideration potential financial burdens on small and other LPTV/translators, and 
in adopting the TSID- and PSIP-related rules we had proposed, we clarified that we did not intend to 
impose a requirement that could have led to increased cost.  Additionally, Canyon TV/Cannaliato raised 
the possibility of additional costs due to our proposed requirement to regularly conduct frequency 
measurements.  However, in adopting this proposed rule, we believe small and other LPTV/translator 
stations can comply without replacing existing equipment.  Specifically, stations can comply with the rule 
by reviewing the station’s signal on a spectrum analyzer and determining that the pilot carrier (for ATSC 
1.0) and the overall signal (for ATSC 1.0 and ATSC 3.0) appear correctly and are properly contained 
within their assigned spectrum, consistent with the standard in use and our rules.  We also clarified in the 
Report and Order that we do not believe the frequency measurement requirement will lead to increased 
cost, and identified specific portions of Section 73.682 that contain the information needed to conduct 
frequency measurements, easing the burden on small and other entities in comparison to citing the entire 
broadcast standard.  
G. Report to Congress
20. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a 
report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.21  In addition, the Commission 
will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
SBA.  The Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal 
Register.22
20 NPRM at para. 16 and n.48.  
21 Id. § 801(a)(1)(A).
22 See id. § 604(b).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-25
41APPENDIX C
List of Commenters
Commenters
Canyon TV
One Ministries, Inc.
Scripps Broadcasting Holdings LLC
National Association of Broadcasters
Wireless Access, LLC
Advanced Television Broadcasting Alliance
Mountain Broadcasting Corporation 
Cohen, Dippell and Everist, P.C.
The LPTV Broadcasters Association 
National Television Association
U.S. Television LLC
Reply Commenters
Hammett & Edison, Inc.
Mountain Broadcasting Corporation 
National Association of Broadcasters
Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc.
The LPTV Broadcasters Association
Ex Parte Comments
National Association of Broadcasters
National Television Association