Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58 
 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  ) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
)  
 MB Docket No. 03- 185 
 
FIFTH REPORT AND ORDER  
 
Adopted:  July 20, 2023 Released :  July 20, 2023  
 
By the  Commission :  Chairwoman Rosenworcel and Commissioner Carr issuing separate statements.  
TABLE OF CONTENTS  
Heading Paragraph #  
I. INTRODUCTION  .................................................................................................................................. 1 
II. BACKGROUND  .................................................................................................................................... 2 
III. DISCUSSION  ........................................................................................................................................ 8 
A. Authorizing FM6 Operations as Ancillary or Supplementary Services  ........................................... 8 
1. Existing FM6 Operations Serve the Public Interest as Required by Section 336(a)(2)  ............ 9 
2. Existing FM6 Operations Satisfy Section 336(b)(1)  ............................................................... 19 
3. Existing FM6 Operations Satisfy Section 336(b)(2)  ............................................................... 23 
B. Limiting FM6 Operations to Existing Operators  ........................................................................... 24 
C. Establishing Rules Governing FM6 Operations  ............................................................................ 35 
1. Codifying Certain FM6 STA Conditions  ................................................................................ 35 
2. Application of Part 73 FM Rules  ............................................................................................ 53 
3. Five Percent Fee For Ancillary or Supplementary Services  .................................................... 59 
D. Licensing of Additional NCE FM Stations  .................................................................................... 61 
E. Elimination of Certain  TV6 Interference Protections  .................................................................... 65 
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS ................................................................................................................ 66 
V. ORDERING CLAUSES  ....................................................................................................................... 71 
APPENDIX A – List of Commenters and Reply Commenters  
APPENDIX B – Final Rules  
APPENDIX C – Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis  
 I. INTRODUCTION  
1. In this Fifth Report and Order ( R&O ), we conclude that the public interest will be served 
by allowing the continued operation of existing analog FM radio services (FM6 operations) by channel 6 
digital low power television (LPTV) stations (FM6 LPTV stations), subject to certain conditions.  We 
also decline to adopt a proposal discussed in the Further Notice
1 that would allow new FM radio stations 
to be licensed on 82- 88 MHz across the United States, for lack of record support.2 
 
1 See Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission’s Rules to Establish Rules for Digital Low Power Television 
and Television Translator Stations , Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 03- 185, FCC 22- 40, 
paras. 50 -56 (2022) ( Further Notice ).  Appendix A of this R&O  contains a list of comments filed in response to the 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
2 II. BACKGROUND  
2. 2014 LPTV DTV Third NPRM and 2019 Refresh PN .  Because the FM radio spectrum 
band is adjacent to the TV spectrum band, FM radio listeners are able to receive the aud io portion of 
analog channel 6 stations at 87.75 MHz.3  Due to their ability to reach radio audiences, in the 1980s, some 
channel 6 LPTV stations began to use a portion of television spectrum to provide de facto  radio 
programming.4  In the LPTV DTV Third  NPRM ,5 we sought comment on whether analog FM6 operations 
are allowable by digital LPTV stations.6  Specifically, we sought comment on whether a digital LPTV 
station providing an analog FM radio- type service as an ancillary or supplementary service is consistent 
with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act) and the Commission’s rules (rules).7  We also 
sought comment on whether a digital LPTV station would be able to operate an analog transmitter 
without interfering or derogating its digital ope ration.8  In addition, we sought information on the 
potential for FM6 operations to cause interference to primary licensees such as noncommercial educational ( NCE ) FM radio licensees, and whether to adopt rules to prevent such interference.
9  The 
record was split with a coalition of FM6 LPTV stations supporting the Commission’s proposal to allow 
(Continued from previous page)   
Further Notice  and the shorthand abbreviations for each that appear in this R&O.   A list of previous commenters in 
this proceeding was contained in Appendix A to the Further Notice.   Previous comments are distinguished by the 
date they were filed.  
2 We also decline to address at this time a proposal to eliminate the television channel 6 (TV6) distance separation 
(interference protection) rules for radio services ope rating on reserved band FM channels 201- 220, or to 
alternatively revise and update them for a post -digital transition world.  See infra  Section III. E. –  Elimination of 
Certain TV6 Interference Protections.  
3 87.75 MHz is adjacent to noncommercial educatio nal (NCE) FM channel 201 (88.1 MHz).   Prior to the LPTV 
digital transition, some FM6 LPTV stations also operated on 87.7 MHz.  
4 See Further Notice  at paras. 3 -13 for a detailed account of the history of FM6 operations.  See comments filed by 
Venture Techno logy, LLC at 4 (Jan. 14, 2015) (Venture 2015 Comments).  P rior to the LPTV digital transition, we 
estimate that there were close to 30 LPTV stations providing FM6 service.  See Further Notice , para. 19 citing  
comments filed by Preserve Community Programming Coalition (PCPC) at 10 and Exhibit A (Jul. 3, 2019) (listing 
28 stations providing FM6 services as of June 2019).  
5 See Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission’s Rules to Establish Rules for Digital Low Power Television 
and Television Translator Stations , Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 03 -185, 29 FCC Rcd 
12536 (2014) ( LPTV DTV Third NPRM ). 
6 See LPTV DTV Third NPRM , 29 FCC Rcd at 12554, para. 47.  See 47 CFR § 74.790(m) that replaced 47 CFR § 
74.731(m) (mandating that LPTV stati ons terminate all analog operations not later than 11:59pm local time on July 
13, 2021).  
7 Id. at 12554, para. 49.  We also asked whether allowing this service would conflict with section 336(b)(1) of the 
Act, which states the TV frequency is “for the provision of advanced television services,” or conflict with the rule 
requiring that a digital LPT V station transmit an over -the-air video  program signal at no direct charge to viewers.  
Id. at 12554 -55, para. 49, citing 47 CFR § 74.790(g)(3) and 47 C.F.R. § 336(b)(1).   
8 Id. at 12555, para. 50, citing  47 U.S.C. § 336(b)(2).  Section 336(b)(2) of the Act provides that the Commission 
shall “limit the broadcasting of ancillary or supplementary services on designated frequencies as to avoid derogation 
of any advanced television services, including high definition television broadcasts, that the Commission may 
require using such frequencies….”  47 U.S.C. § 336(b)(2).  
9 LPTV DTV Third NPRM , 29 FCC Rcd  at 12555, para. 51.  The Commission also asked whether the Commission’s 
Part 73 FM radio rules should apply to FM6 operations, and whether FM6 operations should be subject to the five 
percent annual fee applicable to gross revenues from ancillary and supplementary services which are feeable.  Id . at 
12555- 56, paras. 52- 53, citing  47 U.S.C. §§ 336(b)(3), 336(e), and 47 CFR § 73.624(g).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
3 FM6 operations to continue as ancillary or supplementary services10 and FM radio broadcasters, including 
National Public Radio (NPR) and other noncommercial educa tional FM broadcasters, and full power 
television stations licensed on channel 6 opposing the proposal.11   
3. In December 2019, after a lack of consensus in the 2014 record, the Media Bureau 
(Bureau) released a public notice seeking to refresh the record.12  The Bureau sought specific comment on 
whether, and how, the Commission could legally limit the number of stations eligible to offer FM6 
services and the basis for any such limitation.13  The Bureau also sought comment on the possibility 
certain FM6 operat ions would cause impermissible interference to digital television stations (including 
co-channel interference) and to FM radio stations.14  The Bureau requested parties submit more recent 
technical studies demonstrating the feasibility of transmitting analog audio signals within a digital 
television station’s spectrum.15  The record received in response to the Refresh PN  largely mirrored the 
split record responding to the LPTV DTV Third NPRM .16 
4. 2021 Digital Transition and FM6 STA Filings .  The LPTV digital transition was 
completed on July 13, 2021.17  All remaining analog LPTV stations were required to terminate their 
 
10 See, e.g., Electronic Media Foundation (EMF) Comments at 2 (Jan. 9, 2015); George Flinn Comments at 4 (Jan. 9, 
2015); Venture Comments at 3 -4 (Jan. 9, 2015); Signal Above LLC (Signal) Comments at 5- 6 (Jan. 12, 2015); 
Metro TV, Inc. (Metro) Comments at 1 (Jan. 12, 2015); Murray Hill Broadcasting, LLC Comments at 1- 3 (Jan. 9, 
2015); One Ministries, Inc. (OMI) Comments at 1 (Ja n. 12, 2015); Island Broadcasting, LLC (Island) Comments at 
6 (Jan. 9, 2015); Joint FM6 Commenters Comments at 1 (Jan. 9, 2015); LPTV Spectrum Rights Coalition (LSRC) 
Comments at 12 (Jan. 14, 2015); Venture Reply Comments at 2- 3 (Feb. 2, 2015); Signal Repl y Comments at 3- 4 
(Feb. 2, 2015); OMI Reply Comments at 2- 3 (Jan. 27, 2015); Joint FM6 Commenters Reply Comments at 4- 6 (Feb. 
2, 2015); and LSRC Reply Comments at 6 (Feb. 4, 2015).  
11 See, e.g., NPR Comments at 3 -9 (Jan. 9, 2015); ABC, Inc. Reply Comments a t 1-3 (Feb. 2, 2015); NPR Reply 
Comments at 3 -8 (Feb. 2, 2015); and REC Networks (REC) Reply Comments at 1- 8 (Feb. 2, 2015).  
12 See Media Bureau Seeks to Update the Record on the Operation of Analog Radio Services by Digital LPTV 
Stations as Ancillary or Su pplementary Services , Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 11162 (MB 2019) ( Refresh PN).  The 
Bureau noted that a group of licensees of FM6 LPTV stations had submitted ex parte filings since the Commission’s 
2015 decision deferring action on the question of whether t o permit FM6 operations as ancillary or supplementary 
services.  Id.  at 11163, n.2, citing Letter from Channel 6 Commenters (June 10, 2019) (Channel 6 Commenters 2019 
Ex Parte ); Letter from PCPC (Jul. 3, 2019) (PCPC 2019 Ex Parte ); and Letter from Cal State (Aug. 1, 2019) (Cal 
State 2019 Ex Parte ). 
13 Specifically, the Commission asked whether only those “currently operating” analog channel 6 LPTV stations 
should be eligible, and whether “currently operating” should be determined as of the release date of the Refresh PN.  
Id. at 11165, para. 5.  
14 Id. at 11164, para. 4, citing  Channel 6 Commenters Ex Parte  at 15; PCPC Informal Comments at 9; and Cal State 
Ex Parte  at 2. 
15 Id. at 11164, para. 4.  
16 See e.g. , LSRC Comments at 2 -3, 5 (Jan. 23, 2020) (FM6 should not be charged 5% fee; should not be limited to 
existing operators; and will not cause interference); NPR Comments at 2 -11, 13 -18 (Jan. 23, 2020) ( FM6 LPTV  
should not be allowed at all; creates interfere issues with other licensed users; is an inefficient us e of spectrum; does 
not qualify as ancillary or supplementary service); cf.  LSRC Comments, at 12 (Jan. 14, 2015) ( FM6 LPTV  should be 
permitted as ancillary and supplemental service; no interference issues have arisen; service should not be subject to 
5% fee as it is not a “feeable” service); and NPR Reply Comments at 3 -9 (Jan. 9, 2015) (permitting FM6 LPTV is 
not a permissible ancillary or supplementary service; would be an inefficient use of spectrum; would likely cause 
interference) . 
17 See 47 CFR § 74.790(m) previously § 74.731(m).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
4 analog operations and begin operating in digital on that day.18  In March 2021, in an effort to preserve its 
FM6 operations following the digital transition deadline, a channel 6 LPTV station filed an application 
seeking authorization to convert its facility to ATSC 3.0 digital and to operate an ATSC 3.0 transmitter 
and a separate analog FM radio transmitter on 87.7 MHz .19  On June 10, 2021, the Bureau granted a 
digital engineering request for special temporary authorization (FM6 STA)20 to conduct such operations 
for a period of six months, subject to numerous conditions.21  Specifically, the station was required to:  
Convert to ATSC 3.0 digital operations; provide at least one video stream on the ATSC 3.0 portion on a 
full time (24 x7) basis; limit FM6 operations to 87.75 MHz; operate on a non- interference basis; provide 
audio and video coverage to similar populations; and provide status reports at certain intervals regarding 
interference and population reach.22  The station was also restricted from modifying, assigning or 
transferring the license of the facility.23  These conditions were established to prevent interference, 
evaluate the o perations of FM6 LPTV stations utilizing an FM transmitter and ATSC 3.0 transmitter at 
the same time, and maintain the status quo while the Commission continued to evaluate how to treat FM6 
operations.  The conditions were also intended to ensure that  the FM6 LPTV station did not prioritize its 
FM operations over its television operations, which was an issue during analog operations.  Other FM6 
LPTV stations subsequently requested an FM6 STA.  In total, the Bureau has granted FM6 STAs to 13 
FM6 LPTV station s that had previously been providing FM6 service while they were operating in 
analog.24  All the FM6 STAs contain the same conditions and have been extended multiple times.  The 
status reports provided with the FM6 STAs and their extensions have shown no i ncidents of interference 
with their own ATSC 3.0 television operations and other licensees, including FM radio licensees.  
5. 2022 Further Notice .  In our Further Notice, we sought to resolve the longstanding 
question of FM6 operations by seeking comment on whether allowing continued analog radio operations 
on TV channel 6 by existing FM6 LPTV stations serves the public interest.25  Specifically, we sought 
comment on whether FM6 operations should be authorized to continue in any capacity,26 the extent to 
which in the post -LPTV digital transition world consumers rely on FM6 programming, and whether such 
consumer reliance on programming should enter into the public interest analysis of FM6 services when 
programming is variable.27  We asked commenters to weigh the current benefits of FM6 radio 
programming against the lost opportunities from an expanded adjacent NCE FM service or digital LPTV 
service on channel 6.28  We also asked whether allowing continued analog FM6 operations is an efficient 
 
18 Id.  We note that a small number of LPTV and TV 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 l onger 
permitted, these LPTV and TV translator stations must remain silent until such time as they complete construction.  
19 See LMS File No. 0000138107; Further Notice , 34 FCC Rcd at 11166, para. 14.   
20 See LMS File No. 0000147729.  
21 See Letter from Barbar a A. Kreisman, Chief, Video Division, to Licensee  of KBKF -LD, San Jose, California , 
Venture Technologies Group, LLC (June 10, 2021) available at LMS File No. 0000147729.  
22 Id. at 2. 
23 Id.  Following issuance of the Further Notice , an additional condition w as added to the FM6 STA stating that the 
Bureau’s action was not intended to prejudge the outcome of the instant proceeding and that all licensees must come 
into compliance with any rules adopted by the Commission as part of  the instant proceeding.  See  e.g., Letter from 
Barbara A. Kreisman, Chief, Video Division, to Licensee of KBKF -LD, Venture Technologies Group, LLC ( Jan. 
20, 202 3) available at LMS File No. 0000205892.  
24 A list of the 13 stations is provided at infra  note 105.  See also Further Notice  at para. 16, n.43.  
25 Id. at para. 1.  
26 Id. at paras. 18 -21.  
27 Id. at para. 19.  
28 Id. at para. 20.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
5 use of Commission spectrum and comports with our recent efforts to adopt more efficient and innovative 
use of digital television spectrum,29 or instead whether programming currently provided by FM6 
operations could be provided through other me ans of delivery and would be more spectrally efficient.30 
6. In addition, we  sought comment on whether existing FM6 operations  comply with the 
ancillary or supplementary provisions of the Act and our rules,31 whether the operation of analog FM 
radio services in conjunction with a digital television service would cause impermissible interference to 
other radio and television licensees,32 and whether the fact that FM6 stations are operating in ATSC 3.0 
digital mode changes the potential for their analog FM6 oper ations to interfere with or derogate the LPTV 
station’s television service.33  To the extent we permitted FM6 operations to continue, we sought 
comment on how best to authorize FM6 operations, including whether the conditions attached to the FM6 
STAs shoul d remain34 and whether to limit future FM6 operations to only those LPTV channel 6 stations 
with “active” FM6 STAs on the release date of the Further Notice .35  We went on to ask whether, and 
under what circumstances, an LPTV station’s ancillary or supplem entary FM6 operations should be 
deemed “feeable” and subject to the five percent ancillary or supplementary fee.36  We also asked whether 
FM6 operations are “analogous to other services subject to regulation by the Commission” within the 
meaning of section  336(b)(3) of the Act and our rules and, if so, which of the Part 73 rules should apply 
to FM6 operations.37 
7. Finally, we asked for comment on a proposal to repurpose television channel 6 (TV 
channel 6) spectrum (82 -88 MHz) for FM services in locations wher e the channels are not being used to 
provide “actual television programming.”38  We sought comment on the technical feasibility of this 
proposal, the potential for interference, the costs and benefits of an expanded FM band, and if permitted 
whether use should be limited to NCE FM stations.39  We also sought comment on whether to eliminate 
TV channel 6 (TV6) interference protections for Low Power FM (LPFM) radio, NCE FM radio, Class D 
FM radio (10 watt), and FM translator stations operating on reserved band FM channels 201- 220, or, to 
alternatively revise and update our interference protections to better reflect a post -digital television 
transition world.40   
 
29 Id. 
30 Id. at para. 21  
31 Id. at paras. 23 -24. 
32 Id. at paras. 34 -36. 
33 Id. 
34 Id. at paras. 23 -33. 
35 Id. at paras. 41 -44.  “Active” is defined as an initial engineering STA that is granted and unexpired or a request for 
extension of an engineering STA that is granted or pending at the time of the release date of the 2022 Further 
Notice .  Id. at para. 41.  The  term “release date of the “Further Notice ” means the date the adopted Further Notice  
was released by the Commission, which was June 7, 2022.  
36 Id. at paras. 39 -40. 
37 Id. at paras. 37 -38. 
38 Id. at paras. 45 -49.   
39 Id. 
40 Id. at paras 50 -56.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
6 III. DISCUSSION  
A. Authorizing FM6 Operations as Ancillary or Supplementary Services  
8. After a lengthy proceeding involving multiple rounds of comments, we conclude that 
both the Act and our rules allow existing FM6 operations to be provided on an ancillary or supplementary 
basis to a channel 6 LPTV station’s digital television operation, and that it is in the public interest to 
preserve FM6 operations by existing FM6 LPTV stations.41  The Act provides that ancillary or 
supplementary services must be “consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity”;42 must 
be “consistent with the technology or method designated by the Commission for the provision of 
advanced television services”;43 and must “avoid derogation of any advanced television services.”44  We 
conclude that existing FM6 services meet all of these requirements of the Act.  
1. Existing FM6 Operations Serve the Public Interest as Required by Section 
336(a)(2)  
9. We conclude that existing FM6 operations are consistent with the mandate of section 
336(a)(2) of the Act that the Commission allow digital television stations “to offer such ancillary or  
supplementary services on designated frequencies as may be consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity.”
45  Specifically, we note the length of time that certain FM6 LPTV stations 
have been operating and efforts they undertook to conve rt to digital operations to limit consumer impact.  
To preserve their programming (especially public safety and emergency information) that viewers have come to rely on, we find the public interest will be served by continuing existing FM6 operations.  
Further we find that the benefits of preserving existing  FM6 LPTV stations outweigh concerns that FM6 
operations are an inefficient use of spectrum or could cause interference to their own television service or 
other licensed users.  
10. The record in this proceed ing reflects widespread recognition of the long history of 
public interest benefits provided by existing FM6 LPTV stations’ FM6 operations.
46  Since the 1980s, 
FM6 LPTV stations have maintained a close connection with the communities they serve through the ir 
 
41 In addition to permitting the 13 FM6 LPTV stations with active FM6 STAs to continue FM6 operations as an 
ancillary and supplementary service, we also permit WVOA -LD, to commence FM6 operations based on its unique 
circumstances.  See infra  Section III.B –  Limiting FM6 Operations to Existing Operators.  
42 47 U.S.C. § 336(a)(2).  
43 47 U.S.C. § 336(b)(1).  
44 47 U.S.C. § 336(b)(2).  
45 47 U.S.C. § 336(a)(2).  
46 See Further Notice  at para. 18 (“FM6 supporters have trumpeted the merits of FM6 operations by maintaining that 
they provide diverse, niche, and local programming that is not otherwise available in the stations’ communities.”); 
see also Electronic Media Foundation Comments at 2 (Jan. 9, 2015) (EMF 2015 Comments); George Flinn Comments at 4 (Jan. 9, 2015); Venture Comments at 3 -4 (Jan. 9, 2015) (Venture 2015 Comments); Signal Above 
LLC (Signal) Comments at 5 -6 (Jan. 12, 2015) (Signal 2015 Comments); MetroTV, Inc. Comments at 1 (Jan. 12, 
2015); Murray Hill Broadcasting, LLC (Murray Hill) Comments at 1- 3 (Jan. 9, 2 015); One Ministries, Inc. (OMI) 
Comments at 1 (Jan. 12, 2015); Island Broadcasting, LLC (Island) Comments at 6 (Jan. 9, 2015); Joint Commenters 
Comments at 1 (Jan. 9, 2015); and LSRC Comments at 12 (Jan. 14, 2015) (LSRC 2015 Comments); Venture Reply 
Comme nts at 2 -3 (Feb. 2, 2015); Signal Reply Comments at 3- 4 (Feb. 2, 2015); OMI Reply Comments at 2- 3 (Jan. 
27, 2015); Joint Commenters Reply Commenters at 4- 6 (Feb. 2, 2015); and LSRC Reply Commenters at 6 (Feb. 4, 
2015); Lovcom, Inc. Comments at 1 (Jan. 23, 2020); EMF Comments at 2- 4 (Jan. 23, 2020); Seattle 6 Broadcasting 
Company, LLC (Seattle 6) Comments at 1 (Jan. 22, 2020); Prism Broadcasting Network, Inc. Comments at 3 (Jan. 22, 2020); Kids Television, LLC Comments at 3 (Jan. 22, 2020); Hombre Network Re ply Comments at 1 (Feb. 4, 
2020).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
7 FM6 programming.47  Listeners have tuned to existing FM6 LPTV stations for foreign language, religious 
and sports programming; programming intended to support historically underserved populations such as 
native Spanish speakers, immigrant populations; a nd programming designed for niche music audiences.48  
In addition, existing FM6 LPTV stations provide emergency and public safety information that their listeners have come to rely upon in times of disasters.
49  Although some commenters contend that certai n 
FM6 LPTV stations are not serving the public interest because they are not providing any programming 
designed specifically for their local audiences but are merely airing music programming,50 we do not 
make distinctions based on format.51  Therefore, we find that the record weighs in favor of the public 
interest benefits provided by existing FM6 LPTV stations.52   
11. Although FM6 LPTV stations were required to discontinue analog television operations 
and convert to digital in July 2021, there were 13 FM6 LPT V stations that were able to complete their 
 
47 See NAB Comments at 5 (“loyal audiences have developed around some FM6 stations . . . and NAB believes 
permanent authorization of those established services is warranted and would serve the public interest”); PCPC 
Commen ts at 6 (the nature of the programming offered by existing FM6 LPTV stations provides a unique and 
substantial public interest benefit, largely due to the distinctive programming provided by existing FM6 LPTV 
stations, many of which serve “historically underserved populations, including native Spanish speakers, first - and 
second - generation immigrants, and older Americans”); NPR Comments at 5- 6 (“the public interest would be 
served” by permanently authorizing existing FM6 LPTV stations with a significant hi story of FM6 service); REC 
Comments at 18 (“the provision of analog audio services on 87.7 in the 13 FM6 markets have become something that the public has depended on”).  
48 See PCPC Comments at 2 -4 (KEFM -LD, Sacramento, California, broadcasts EthnoFM, a locally produced source 
of information for Sacramento’s Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Moldavian, Romanian, Georgian, Uzbek, Polish, Russian and Jewish ethnic immigrant communities); AVHN Comments at 2 (FM6 programming includes religious talk and 
music, public affair s, local affairs and news, education and sports); Flinn Comments at 1- 2 (FM6 programming 
includes minority -focused and religious programming); Guadalupe Radio Comments at 1 (KZNO -LD, Big Bear 
Lake, California and KRPE -LD, San Diego, California broadcast Spanish -language programming for the Roman 
Catholic Church); PCPC Comments at 2- 4 (KXDP -LD, Denver, Colorado broadcasts La Invasora, a locally 
produced, community oriented program format that includes Spanish- language news, traffic, and weather reports); 
PCPC Comments at 2 -4 and Signal Comments at 1- 2 (WDCN -LD, Fairfax, Virginia broadcasts La Nueva, a Spanish 
language music format with news and talk with a particular focus on the Washington, D.C. area’s large Central 
American community); SOL Comments at 1- 2 (WNYZ -LD, New York, New York serves the interests and needs of 
the Korean community in New York city); PCPC Reply Comments at 3- 4. 
49 See PCPC Comments 21 -22 (noting the FM6 LPTV stations could provide a public safety service by airing 
national security announcements); KTL Comments at 2 (FM6’s presence on the FM dial is essential to connecting 
community, facilitating civic participation, and maintaining public safety); LSRC 2015 Comments at 6 (FM6 
audiences enjoy and benefit from local news, community affairs  programming, and emergency messages in various 
languages); PCPC Reply Comments at 4- 5 (Feb. 6, 2020)  (FM6 stations provide an invaluable resource for 
emergency information during extreme weather events); David Ponomar Comments at 1 (Jan. 14, 2020) (FM6 
station notifies its audience of fire, flood and other emergencies and explains what to expect in case of power 
blackouts).  
50 See CFI Comments at 3 -4 (admonishing certain FM6 LPTV stations for playing Spanish- language and Christian 
music).  
51 See Changes in t he Entertainment Formats of Broadcast Stations , Memorandum Opinion and Order, 60 F.C.C.2d 
858, 863, para. 18 (1976) (“the marketplace is the best way to allocate entertainment formats in radio. . . .”),  recon. 
denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order , 66 FCC 2 d 78 (1977),  rev'd sub nom.,  WNCN Listeners Guild v. FCC , 
610 F.2d 838 (D.C. Cir. 1979),  rev’d,  450 U.S. 582 (1981).  
52 Even NPR, which historically has been opposed t o FM6 operations, now recognizes that “the public interest 
would be served” by permanently authorizing existing FM6 LPTV stations with a significant history of FM6 service.  
See NPR Comments at 5 -6.  And REC, another long- standing opponent of FM6 operations, acknowledges that “the 
provision of analog audio services on 87.7 in the 13 FM6 markets have become something that the public has 
depended on.”  REC Comments at 18.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
8 digital transition and resume their FM6 operations with an FM6 STA with limited, if any, service 
interruptions.53  We find that preserving the long- time audio programming offered by these remaining 
FM6 LPTV stati ons aligns with one of the Commission’s core principles guiding the digital transition—
minimizing service disruptions.54  FM6 LPTV stations provide free, over -the-air synchronized video and 
audio programming using a standard- compliant ATSC 3.0 signal and s upplement that programming with 
additional free, over -the-air analog audio broadcast services.  As discussed above, the availability of these 
additional audio services has provided programmers with a platform on which to invest in programming directed to unserved or underserved audiences that may not be available on any other stations in their 
markets – all while continuing to provide free over -the-air video programming pursuant to their television 
licenses.  To remove this service that radio listeners have  relied on for many years would contravene the 
Commission’s goal of preserving service.   
12. The public interest benefits of preserving existing FM6 operations also outweigh 
concerns about inefficient use of spectrum.
55  As we noted in the Further Notice  and several commenters 
point out, some analog FM6 LPTV stations had a history of minimal video service.56  With analog 
television operations, an FM6 LPTV station could not transmit a separate audio stream for its video 
programming and for radio reception.57  The rules we adopt today address this issue.58  As discussed 
further below, FM6 LPTV stations will be required to transmit a dual digital television and analog radio 
signal, thereby providing both new digital television services while maintaining existing audio services. 
The rules we adopt ensure that FM6 LPTV stations are first and foremost LPTV stations and that their 
video programming stream is prioritized over any audio stream.  Further, enhanced compression 
technologies encompassed in the ATSC 3.0 sta ndard provide broadcasters even greater bandwidth 
capacity on their channel for television services than under the ATSC 1.0 standard.59  Therefore, we 
believe the rules we adopt appropriately address previous concerns that FM6 LPTV stations are using 
their spectrum inefficiently.60  As the Commission has previously recognized, offering additional services 
 
53 We note that more than half of the 13 existing FM6 LPTV stations were able to convert to digital and resume their 
FM6 operations within 2 months of terminating their analog operations in July 2021.  The remaining stations 
resumed FM6 operations between 4 and 8 months after the July 2021 transition deadline mainly due to supply chain 
delays in obtaining the necessary FM6 equipment that were outside of their control.  See, e.g., Application for 
Extension of Time of WNYZ -LD, LMS File No. 0000142452 (granted June 14, 2021).  
54 See Review of the Commission’s Rules and Policies Affecting the Conver sion to Digital Television , Report and 
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 16 FCC Rcd 5946, 5956, para. 22 (2001) (“While we wish to 
assure broadcasters a measure of flexibility in constructing their DTV facilities, we continue to want to assu re that 
viewers do not lose service and we take seriously our mandate to speed the transition and to ensure that the spectrum 
is used efficiently.”); see also Incentive Auction Task Force and Media Bureau Set Forth Tools Available to 
LPTV/Translator Statio ns Displaced Prior to the Special Displacement Window , Public Notice, 32 FCC Rcd 4943 
(IATF and MB 2017) (announcing a “toolkit” that LPTV stations displaced by the Incentive Auction could avail themselves of in order to remain on the air).  
55 Further Notic e at para. 20; see also  Common Frequency, Inc. (CFI) Comments at 4 (Jan. 23, 2020).   
56 Id.  See also Reed Comments at 2 (FM6 LPTV stations -  when previously analog stations –  operated “effectively 
as aural -only FM radio stations; the video broadcast ha(d) little - or zero -  connection to the aural broadcast”); REC 
Comments at 12 (“[w]hile the FM6 stations have had a track record for offering audio services, there is no true established track record for offering video services . . . ”).  
57 PCPC Comments at 9.  
58 See infra Section III.C.1 –  Codifying Certain FM6 STA Conditions .   
59 See Authorizing Permissive Use of the “Next Generation” Broadcast Television Standard, GN Docket No. 16 -
142, Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 9930 (2017).  
60 We are not persuaded by commenters that suggest FM6 LPTV stations will abandon their current programming 
thereby undoing the public interest basis for allowing their continued FM6 operations.  See  Cal State Reply 
Comments at 4 (the ability of FM6 LPTV stations to abandon niche programm ing in favor of more profitable 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
9 on an existing television channel “contributes to efficient spectrum use and can expand and enhance use 
of existing spectrum.”61 
13. Further, we conclude that the public interest benefits of preserving existing FM6 
operations offset concerns about existing FM6 operations causing interference to an FM6 LPTV station’s 
own digital television service or to FM radio licensees.  To date, exis ting FM6 LPTV stations that have 
been operating under the technical limitations in the FM6 STAs and using ATSC 3.0 for their digital 
television signal  have an established track record of not causing interference to adjacent channel FM 
stations or their own  television signal.  Existing FM6 LPTV stations have been operating for almost two 
years via engineering STAs without any legitimate interference complaints from either adjacent channel FM radio stations or their own TV viewers.
62  Moreover, we note that n o commenter has presented 
credible evidence in the record that any of the existing FM6 LPTV stations have caused interference.   
14. To the extent that there have been interference -free FM6 operations, we observe that such 
record is limited to the anecdotal hi story of the 13 existing FM6 LPTV stations.  Based on co- existence 
concerns raised throughout this proceeding, the Commission has sought to develop a comprehensive record on the potential for FM6 operations to cause interference.  One area of potential int erference is to 
the “ host”
63 channel 6 LPTV station’s own digital operations.  We have asked if an FM6 LPTV station 
would be able to operate an analog transmitter without interfering or derogating its co- channel digital 
operation.64  Some commenters argued  that an FM6 LPTV station operating in digital could experience 
so-called “host interference ” – a phenomena where a new signal interferes with a station’s existing signal, 
in this case an LPTV station operating both digital television and analog FM radio  signals .65  Similarly, 
the Commission sought comment on the potential of interference to adjacent channel FM radio stations on 88.1 and 88.3 MHz.
66  Some commenters raised concerns that higher power FM6 operations on 87.75 
MHz could interfere with lower pow er adjacent channel FM radio stations operating on 88.1 MHz and 
88.3 MHz.67  Despite repeated requests,68 commenters have failed to produce detailed interference studies 
(Continued from previous page)   
formats demonstrates that there is no necessity for the Commission to permanently authorize FM6 operations); REC 
Comments at 8 (there is no guarantee that the commercial niche programming on FM6 LPTV stations will remain 
on these channels); CFI Comments at 6 (there is no expected permanence to FM6 LPTV stations existence or 
expectation of the public for that programming service to be continual).  To the contrary, the record throughout this 
proceeding indicates that “FM6 LPTV stations are highly incentivized, economically and otherwise, to continue offering their niche and localized content catering to very specific underserved communities.”  PCPC Comments at 
8-9. 
61 Advanced Television Systems & Their Impact Upon the Existing Television Broadcast. Service , Report and Order, 
12 FCC Rcd. 12809, para. 32 (1997).  
62 See Barreto Comments at 1 -2; CBC Comments at 4.  
63 A “host” station is a channel 6 LPTV station that provides a digital television service, but also provides an analog 
FM radio operation over the same channel.    
64 See LPTV DTV Third NPRM , 29 FCC Rcd  at 12555, para. 50 (“we also seek comment on the potential for a 
digital LPTV station’s analog FM radio -type service to interfere with or disrupt the LPTV station’s digital TV 
service”); Refresh PN, 34 FCC Rcd at 11164.  
65 NPR Comments at 4 (Jan. 14, 2015)  (NPR 2015 Comments) (“laboratory tests conducted by Linley Gumm and 
Charles Rhodes . . . demonstrate a high probability that an LPTV’s analog FM radio service will interfere with reception of the LPTV’s DTV service ); Bogner Comments at 1 (additional studi es of FM6 operations in ATSC 3.0 
environment are necessary).  
66 LPTV DTV Third NPRM , 29 FCC Rcd at 12555, para. 51 (“we seek comment on the potential of interference to 
other primary licensees”); Refresh PN, 34 FCC Rcd at 11164.  
67 See Cal State Comments at 6 (FM6 commenters ignore the potential for interference from FM6 LPTV stations to 
FM stations); Cal State 2020 Ex Parte at 2 (Commission is ignoring the potential for interference from FM6 LPTV 
stations operating in ATSC 1.0 to FM stations); Reed Comments at 3 -4 (STA reporting requirements for FM6 LPTV 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
10 that show that FM6 operations will not cause interference to either host digital telev ision operations or 
adjacent channel FM radio stations in all circumstances.  Therefore, because we have only anecdotal 
evidence involving specific unmodified stations, we are unable to conclusively state that no interference 
will occur from prospective ne w FM6 LPTV stations that do not have a track record of interference -free 
operations.69    
15. For prospective new FM6 operations, such interference concerns outweigh any benefits 
from adopting rules allowing new FM6 operations to commence, thus leading us to c onclude that 
adopting rules to allow all channel 6 LPTV stations to offer new FM6 services would not serve the public 
interest as required by section 336(a)(2) of the Act.70  Accordingly, we believe it prudent to proceed 
cautiously and establish rules in t his Order only for existing FM6 stations, which have an established 
track record of non- interference and a history of providing FM6 service to the public.  Commenters 
support limiting FM6 operations to the existing LPTV stations, provided we take steps to ensure that the existing stations (and WVOA -LD)
71 will continue to provide FM6 service without causing interference.72  
To that end, we adopt specific FM6 operational rules, such as limiting modifications and explicitly 
requiring that FM6 operations be conducted only on a non- interference basis.73   
16. We also conclude that the record in this proceeding demonstrates that there are no 
reasonable alternatives for existing FM6 operations that provide the same level of accessibility to existing 
audiences.74  We ar e persuaded that the additional expense and/or lack of access make other options 
impractical as reasonable substitutes for established audiences and services.  As commenters point out, to 
receive a digital audio stream on an LPTV station’s multicast channel, the listener would need to purchase 
a digital television receive antenna in order to access the audio stream.75  Further, listeners would lose the 
portability of an existing FM6 LPTV station’s audio signal as it would only be available on a television 
set, which is generally a fixed device.  Instead of having to take these additional, potentially costly steps 
to continue receiving this established audio programming, permitting existing FM6 opera tions to continue 
(Continued from previous page)   
stations operating pursuant to STAs was not sufficient to determine the potential for interference to FM stations); 
NPR 2015 Comments at 4 (studies conducted in 2014 underestimated the interference between FM 6 stations and 
FM radio); NPR Comments at 13 (Jan. 23. 2020) (FM6 LPTV stations present significant technical and interference 
issues); REC Networks at 6 -7 (Jan. 13, 2015) (questioning whether the Commission can prevent interference from 
FM6 LPTV stations to FM radio stations).  
68 Refresh PN,  34 FCC Rcd at 11164 (“we request the submission of any more recent technical studies 
demonstrating the feasibility of transmitting analog audio signals with a digital television station’s spectrum”); 
Further Notice  at para. 36 (“we encourage commenters to study the question of FM6 interference and to provide the 
results of these studies in their comments”).  
69 See Bogner Comments at 1 (additional studies of FM6 operations in ATSC 3.0 environment are necessary); NAB 
Reply Comments at 6 (unable to make an informed recommendation concerning the potential for interference from 
FM6 because the technical record is not yet sufficient).  
70 Even though some TV6 LPTV stations may have previously provided FM6 service while operating i n analog 
before the digital transition (i.e., legacy analog FM6 stations), we again do not have sufficient technical analysis to 
say for certain that there would be no interference to their own television operations or adjacent FM radio stations were we to  allow them to recommence FM6 operations.  
71 See infra Section III.  B. – Limiting FM6 Operations to Existing Operators.  
72 See NPR Reply Comments at 3.  
73 See infra  Section III. C. 1. – Codifying Certain  FM6 STA Conditions.  
74 See Further Notice at para. 21 (asking whether other options –  including a digital audio -only stream on a LPTV 
multicast channel, a lease of digital subchannels on a local FM or LPFM station, the Internet, or an FM or LPFM license – would be suitable alternatives to FM6 service).  
75 See PCPC Comments at 7 -8; REC Comments at 15 -17; VCY Comments at 5.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
11 as they are currently offered will allow listeners to utilize existing FM radio receivers, including in cars 
and using other portable radio devices, and continue to obtain FM6 audio programming in the manner that 
radio listeners are accustomed to receiving such audio content.  
17. Similarly, we find that relocating FM6 programming to digital subchannels on local FM 
or LPFM stations could also be a more costly option because it too would potentially involve the purchase 
of new equipment for som e consumers instead of relying on existing receivers.76  Additionally, FM6 
LPTV stations would have to negotiate programming agreements with FM and LPFM radio stations and pay to air their programming on other stations instead of simply airing their programming on their own station.
77  Further, given the unique types of programming often provided by FM6 LPTV stations, it may 
be difficult to find an entity interested in carrying their streams that is different from the entity’s programming.
78  As for making the programming available through the Internet, this would create 
significant barriers for listeners who do not have Internet access, may only have fixed Internet access (thus losing portability of the existing FM6 audio signal), or may not have mobile Int ernet access with 
sufficient data plans or a device capable of streaming audio.   
18. Finally, we find that obtaining a separate FM or LPFM radio license provides an unlikely 
alternative.
79  In particular, because LPFM stations must be operated on a noncommercial educational 
basis,80 they are not an option for FM6 LPTV stations that historically have operated as commercial 
stations.81  Further, in the case of either LPFM or full power FM, acquiring a station could be an 
expensive and time consuming proposition for many FM6 LPTV stations, especially for those in larger 
markets.  Therefore, for all of the foregoing reasons, we conclude t hat the public interest is best served by 
allowing existing FM6 operations to continue as an ancillary or supplementary service.   
2. Existing FM6 Operations Satisfy Section 336(b)(1) 
19. As required by Section 336(b)(1), we conclude that existing FM6 operations are 
“consistent with” the “technology or method designated by the Commission for the provision of advanced television services . . . .”
82  As an initial matter, we interpret the phrase “consistent with” to allow for a 
degree of flexibility by requiring ancillary or supplementary services to be compatible  with the 
technology or method for providing advanced television services.83  A more narrow reading of the phrase 
 
76 See PCPC Comments at 7 -8. 
77 See id.  
78 See id. at 8 (“because these limitations would fall disproportionately on low -income and non- English speaking 
listeners and threaten the Commission’s goal of providing access to more diverse programming, the public interest 
benefits of preserving FM6 programming are particularly pronounced”); see also REC Comments at 15.  
79 REC Comments at 16 (obtaining a license for an FM or LPFM station “would be an uphill battle as there is no 
true means to obtain a commercial FM license in a major market due to crowded spectrum  and the financial ability 
to prevail in competitive bidding if such commercial operations are made available”).  
80 See 47 CFR § 73.853.  
81 We believe most if not all FM6 LPTV stations are operating on a commercial basis as evidenced by the fact that 
most FM 6 LPTV stations submitted Annual DTV Ancillary/Supplementary Services Reports (LMS Form 2100 – 
Schedule 317) indicating that they have had revenues from their FM6 operations.  See, e.g., LMS File Nos.  0000173200 (KBKF -LD); 0000204627 (WRME -LD); 0000173199 (KZNO- LD); and 0000204582 (WMTO -LD).   
82 47 U.S.C. § 336(b)(1).  
83 See Intelsat LLC , Memorandum Opinion Order and Authorization,16 FCC Rcd 12280 (2001) (“The courts have 
not construed ‘consistent’ to mean ‘alike’ or ‘the same as.’  Rather, when preceding the preposition ‘with,’ they have 
recognized ‘consistent’ as meaning ‘agreeing’ or according in substance or in a form that is congruous or 
compatible. . . .  [W]e construe the ‘consistent with’ standard as inferring a degree of flexibility by requiring 
‘congruity or compatibility.’”) citing Environmental  Defense  Fund,  Inc. v. Environmental  Protection  Agency, 82 
F3d. 451, 457 (D.C. Cir. 1996), amended on other grounds , 92 F.3d.  1208 (D.C.  Cir. 1996),  citing Oxford English 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
12 “consistent with” that affords less flexibility would unreasonably constrain the types of anc illary or 
supplementary services stations can provide, thereby frustrating Congressional intent to “[p]ermit[] 
broadcasters more flexibility in using their spectrum assignments [] consistent with the public policy goal 
of providing additional services to t he public.”84  The Commission has most recently interpreted this 
provision of the Act broadly, observing that “Congress recognized that the transition from analog to digital broadcast technology would enable DTV licensees to provide new and innovative services . . . over 
their additional spectrum capacity and wanted to provide licensees with the flexibility necessary to utilize 
fully that new potential.”
85  In addition, we interpret the phrase “technology or method designated by the 
Commission for the provi sion of advanced television services” to mean the transmission standards 
required for digital television stations that have been adopted by the Commission and incorporated in the rules.
86  While the Commission’s rules allow LPTV stations to comply with eit her the ATSC 1.0 or 3.0 
standard in providing advanced television services, we analyze here compatibility of analog FM6 with 
only ATSC 3.0 consistent with the rules we adopt below.  
20. We find that existing analog FM6 radio operations are compatible with the ATSC 3.0 
standard, and therefore satisfy Section 336(b)(1).  The ATSC 3.0 standard allows for configurability, 
permitting FM6 LPTV stations to make their television signal narrower and/or have the signals settings 
modified to have increased error correctio n intended to prevent co- channel interference between the 
stations’ digital television and analog radio signals.87  Existing FM6 LPTV stations operating in ATSC 
3.0 have been able to  continue to deliver free over -the-air ATSC 3.0 television signals configured to 
occupy approximately 5.5 MHz of their digital channel capacity while at the same time providing analog 
FM6 on a frequency within their 6 MHz channel.88  The Act and our rules do not require a licensee to use 
its entire  6 MHz channel solely for  the provision of advanced television services.89  For these reasons, 
including the configurability afforded by ATSC 3.0, we find that existing analog FM6 radio operations 
are compatible with the ATSC 3.0 standard.   
21. We disagree with commenters suggesting that the definition of “advanced television 
services” should apply to all services that are incorporated into a digital television station ’s 6 MHz digital 
bitstream.90  Such a finding would be in complete contradiction with the flexibility afforded to 
(Continued from previous page)   
Dictionary 773 (2d 1989),  N.L. Indes , Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F2d 896, 898-899 (9th Cir. 1996), and Wickland  Oil 
Terminals  v. Asarco,  Inc., 792 F 2d 887, 891-892 (9th Cir. 1986).  
84 See House Report at 116.  
85 See Promoting Broadcast Internet Innovation Through ATSC 3.0, Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 5916, 5919, para. 6 (2020); PCPC Comments at 10- 11; SOL Comments at 5.  
86 47 CFR §§ 73.682, 74.782.  Section 336(i)(1) defines “advanced television services” as “ television services 
provided using digital or other advanced technology as further defined in the opinion, report, and order of the 
Commission entitled ‘Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the Existing Television Broadcast 
Service’, MM Docket 87 -268, adopted September 17, 1992, and successor proceedings.”  47 U .S.C. § 336(i)(1).  
87 See infra  para. 37.  
88 Television channel 6 encompasses the 82- 88 MHz band.  
89 In fact, in adopting the ancillary or supplementary provisions of our rules, the Commission provided numerous 
examp les of non- television services as being permissible ancillary or supplementary services including: “computer 
software distribution, data transmissions, teletext, interactive materials, aural messages, paging services, audio 
signals, subscription video” whether offered on a “broadcast, point -to-point, or point -to-multipoint basis.”  See 47 
CFR §73.624(c); see also In the Matter of Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, Fifth Report and Order, MM Docket No. 87 -268, 12 FCC Rcd 12809 (1997) adopting 
section 73.624(c) of the rules.  
90 See, e.g., REC Comments at 22 -23 (maintaining that the additional transmission of a so- called “sidecar” analog 
signal is not a part of the “advanced television system,” and thus is inconsistent with Section 336 of the Act).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
13 broadcasters under the Act, and implemented by our rules, to offer ancillary or supplementary services.  A 
digital LPTV station may offer ancillary or supplementary services on its assigned frequencies as long as 
such services are “ consistent  with the technology or method designated by the Commission for the 
provision of advanced television services”91 and, as discussed in greater detail below, “ avoid derogation 
of any advanced television services . . . that the Commission may require using such frequencies.”92  
Based on these facts, we conclude that FM6 LPTV stations operations are consistent with the technology or method designated by the Commission for the provision of advanced television systems, as required by 
section 336(b)(1) of the Act and defined by our  rules.  
22. We reject arguments that FM6 operations are precluded by section 336(b)(1) of the Act 
because FM6 stations are providing separate audio and visual offerings or that FM6 operations are not 
“consistent with technology or method designated by the Comm ission for the provision of advanced 
television services” because neither the ATSC 3.0 standard nor our rules specifically refer to analog audio 
signals.
93  As an initial matter, neither Section 336 nor our rules mandate that particular ancillary or 
supple mentary services must be specifically integrated into or mentioned within the pertinent digital 
television transmission standard (in this case, ATSC 3.0) or in our rules.  Rather, the Commission’s rules 
require only that a digital television station transmit at least one over -the-air video program signal at no 
charge to viewers as a precondition to offering ancillary and supplementary services.94  Our rules also 
permit digital LPTV broadcasters to transmit separate aural and visual program material as long as the 
visual signal can be viewed on a receiver based on the ATSC standard.95  Here, FM6 stations comply with 
this rule by providing a television signal while the analog audio stream is transmitted through a separate 
analog audio carrier.   
3. Existing FM6 O perations Satisfy Section 336(b)(2)  
23. As required by Section 336(b)(2), we next find that existing FM6 operations do not 
“derogat[e] any advanced television services.”96  One commenter claims that, by providing an FM6 
operation that uses a portion of an LPTV  station’s bandwidth, it is “denying advanced television services 
to the entire 6 MHz band as required by statute” and that this “derogate[s] the NextGen ATSC 3.0 
experience and therefore does not meet the statutory test.”97  We disagree.  The derogation p rong of 
section 336(b)(2) prohibits derogation of “any advanced television services . . . that the Commission may 
require using such frequencies.”98  The derogation standard does not address what hypothetical advanced 
television services a station could of fer; rather, it addresses the advanced television services a station 
actually offers and are otherwise required by the Commission.  Under our rules broadcasters are only 
required to provide one free over -the-air video programming stream.99  Further, as discussed above, 
broadcasters are not required to utilize their entire 6 MHz stream solely for television services and are 
authorized by the Act and our rules to offer ancillary or supplementary services over a portion of their 
spectrum.100  The record demonst rates that the use of ATSC 3.0 to broadcast a station’s television 
 
91 47 U.S.C. § 336(b)(1) (emphasis added).  
92 47 U.S.C. § 336(b)(2) (emphasis added).  
93 See REC Comments at 22 -23. 
94 47 CFR § 73.624(b) . 
95 47 CFR § 74.795.  
96 47 U.S.C. § 336(b)(2).  
97 See REC Comments at 23.  
98 47 U.S.C. § 336(b)(1).  
99 See supra para. 22. 
100 See supra para. 20.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
14 stream(s) is intended to prevent interference between the station ’s digital television and analog radio 
signals  and thereby does not run afoul of the derogation provision of section 336(b)( 2) of the Act or 
section 73.624(c) of our rules.101  
B. Limiting FM6 Operations to Existing Operators  
24. We adopt our proposal102 to allow only FM6 LPTV stations with “active” FM6 STAs to 
continue to provide FM6 service.  As proposed in the Further Notice , we will define “active” FM6 STAs 
to be initial FM6 STAs that were either granted and unexpired, or a request for extension of an STA that 
was granted or pending at the time of the release date of the adopted Further Notice (that is, June 7, 
2022).103  We also require that to be considered an “active” FM6 STA, the STA must remain unexpired 
(i.e., through grant of subsequent extension (s)) or have a pending extension request on file as of the 
effective date of this R&O .   
25. Eligible FM6 LPTV Stations .  We conclude that the public interest benefits of preserving 
the existing programming of the 13 FM6 LPTV stations with active FM6 STAs outw eighs the risk of 
potential interference to other licensed users by these 13 FM6 LPTV stations.104  We also find that 
limiting the class of stations eligible to provide FM6 services is consistent with both section 336(a)(2) of 
the Act, which states that the  Commission shall adopt regulations authorizing ancillary or supplementary 
services that “may be consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity,”105 and section 
336(b)(5) of the Act, which states that in adopting regulations authorizing anc illary or supplementary 
services the Commission shall “prescribe such other regulations as may be necessary for the protection of 
the public interest, convenience, and necessity.”106  These 13 stations (as well as WVOA -LD), present 
unique circumstances that  weigh in favor of permitting continued FM6 operations as an ancillary or 
supplementary service.107  
26. We find the 13 FM6 LPTV stations with active FM6 STAs are distinguishable from other 
channel 6 LPTV stations that have either never provided FM6 service or were legacy FM6 stations when they were operating in analog, but are no longer providing such service.  As an initial matter, the 13 FM6 
LPTV stations with active FM6 STAs have a history of providing consistent FM6 service both prior to 
 
101 See infra para. 37.  47 U.S.C. § 336(b)(1); 47 CFR § 73.624(c). .  
102 Further Notice  at para. 41.  
103 Id. 
104 Id. at para. 19.  The 13 existing FM6 LPTV stations are:  KBKF -LD, San Jose, California; WMTO -LD, Norfolk, 
Virginia; KXDP -LD, Denver, Colorado; WTBS -LD, Atlanta, Georgia; WRME -LD, Chicago, Illinois; KZNO -LD, 
Big Bear Lake, California; KEFM -LD, Sacramento, California; WEYS -LD, Miami, Florida; WDCN -LD, Fairfax, 
Virginia; KRPE -LD, San  Diego, California; KGHD -LD, Las Vegas, Nevada; WPGF -LD, Memphis, Tennessee; and 
WNYZ -LD, New York, New York.   
105 47 U.S.C. § 336(a)(2).  
106 47 U.S.C. § 336(b)(5).  
107 Some commenters maintain that limiting the class of entities that can provide FM6 service is  inconsistent with 
the requirement under section 307(b) of the Act to “provide a fair, efficient, and equitable distribution of radio 
service.”  See CMC Comments at 1;OMI Comments at 1 citing  47 U.S.C. § 307(b).  As an initial matter, Section  
307(b) appli es only when the Commission is “considering applications for licenses, and modifications and renewals 
thereof.”  47 U.S.C. § 307(b).  In this Order, however, no applications are before us; rather, we establish rules for existing licensees to provide certai n ancillary or supplementary services, so s ection 307(b) does not apply.  In 
addition, given their lower power and secondary nature, the Commission has not considered the mandate of section 
307(b) when deciding how to allocate LPTV stations.   See Inquiry into the Future Role of Low -Power Television 
Broadcasting and TV Translators , BC Docket No. 78- 253, Report and Order, 51 Rad. Reg. 2d 476, 490 -91 (1982) 
(concluding that, given their lower power and secondary status, LPTV applicants should be free to choose their proposed channels subject to the technical rules) (subsequent citations omitted).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
15 and following the J uly 13, 2021 LPTV digital television transition.  These stations not only promptly 
transitioned to digital operations, but they also converted to ATSC 3.0 and obtained an FM6 STA within a 
reasonable period following their digital transition.  As a result, listeners have maintained their reliance 
on these stations, and preserving access to programming on which listeners have come to rely weighs heavily in favor of permitting these 13 FM6 LPTV stations to continue their existing FM6 operations.  
Second, permi tting only the existing FM6 LPTV stations to provide FM6 service presents a solution to 
the interference concerns raised by adjacent -band FM stations.  Existing FM6 LPTV stations’ facilities 
have been “frozen” in place and were not permitted to be modified.  While such stations have been 
operating without any verified complaints of interference,
108 we have established rules to ensure that such 
interference- free operations continue into the future with no negative impact on other licensees or their 
own digita l television service.109  The same cannot be said of FM6 operations from prospective new FM6 
LPTV stations for which we do not have a track record of non- interference since the LPTV digital 
television transition.  
27. WVOA -LD.  We conclude that WVOA -LD, Westvale, New York, should be permitted to 
provide FM6 operations.110  In the Further Notice, we specifically sought comment on the case of 
WVOA- LD, and whether it should qualify as an exception to our finding that eligibility for continuing to 
provide FM6 service should be cut -off as of the release date of the adopted Further Notice.111  The station 
previously provided FM6 service while an analog station, and was prepared to operate an FM6 station prior to the release of the Further Notice .
112  However, the station w as unable to complete its conversion 
to ATSC 3.0 digital operations and initiate FM6 operations pursuant to an FM6 STA due to a delay in 
grant of an application for minor modification .  Grant of the application was delayed  because the requisite 
international coordination clearance from Canada had not been received by the Commission prior to 
release of the Further Notice.113  WVOA- LD indicates that such minor modification was necessary in 
order to adequately implement their digital television  service and recommence its FM6 operation.114  We 
 
108 See supra paras. 13- 14. 
109 See infra  Section III. C. - Establishing Rules Governing FM6 Operations . 
110 WVOA- LD is licensed to Metro TV, Inc.  
111 Further Notice  at para. 44, n.115.  
112 See Letter from David D. Oxenford, Esq. counsel for Metro TV., Inc. to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, MB 
Docket No. 03- 185 at 3 (filed May 31, 2022) (Metro TV May 2022 Ex P arte) (maintaining that the station has 
provided FM6 servi ce since 2013); Metro TV Comments at 2 -5 (discussing the station’s extensive history of FM6 
operations).   
113 Metro TV Comments at 4 -6 (discussing WVOA -LD’s efforts to complete its digital conversion and the 
circumstances outside of its control that prevente d it from commencing FM6 operations prior to release of the 
Further Notice ).  The Commission has since received concurrence from Canada and granted the minor modification.  
LMS File No. 0000186547 (filed Mar. 11, 2022; granted Aug. 15, 2022).  WVOA -LD subs equently completed 
construction of the minor modification facilities and filed a license to cover application that was granted on May 31, 
2023.  See LMS File No. 000215263.  Because this proceeding was ongoing at the time of the grant, the license was 
granted with a condition stating that WVOA -LD was not permitted to conduct FM6 operations, subject to the 
outcome of this proceeding.  Given our decision today to permit WVOA -LD to offer FM6 services, we instruct the 
Media Bureau to add a notation to the WVOA -LD license indicating that FM6 operations are permitted pursuant to 
Section 74.790(o) of the Commission’s rules and this R&O .     
114 Metro TV Comments at 4 -6.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
16 find the delay in obtaining international coordination was truly outside of WVOA- LD’s control,115 and 
good cause to permit WVOA-LD to provide FM6 operations.116  No commenter opposes this finding.117 
28. In order to confirm that no interference will occur, we require that WVOA -LD initially 
commence FM6 operations under special temporary authority and operate under such authority for a 
period of one-year.  Although WVOA- LD argues that such a requirem ent is unnecessary,118 we disagree 
because unlike the 13 existing FM6 LPTV stations, we do not have a record of WVOA-LD operating in digital while providing FM6 service.
119  Therefore, within 85 days of the effective date of this R&O120 we 
require WVOA- LD to commence both ATSC 3.0 and FM6 operations by filing an application to convert 
its facility to ATSC 3.0, and request for engineering STA.121  During the one -year period the station is 
operating pursuant to an FM6 STA, WVOA-LD will be required to comply with all rules adopted in this 
R&O  that would otherwise pertain to an LPTV station conducting FM6 operations.  In addition, WVOA-
LD is required to file status reports of interference, as required for FM6 STAs, disclosing whether it has 
received any complaints o f interference.  During the initial six-month STA, status reports will be required 
after 90 days and 180 days of operation.122  Upon extension of its STA, if granted, WVOA- LD must file 
one final status report disclosing whether it has received any interference complaints within five days of expiration of the STA.  It must also state whether it intends to continue to provide FM6 s ervice on a 
permanent basis following expiration of the STA.  If no interference is found and WVOA- LD states it 
wishes to continue FM6 operations permanently, then WVOA-LD will be permitted to continue FM6 
operations on the same basis as the other 13 stati ons discussed herein without the need for an STA.  
 
115 Metro TV Comments at 4, 6 -8.  The Commission has recognized certain delays in international coordination as 
truly beyond the control of the station.  See Third Periodic Review of the Commission’s Rules and Policies Affecting 
the Conversion to Digital Television , 23 FCC Rcd 2994, 3038, para. 78 (2007)  (“We will consider delays due to 
international coo rdination where resolution of the international coordination issue is truly beyond the control of the 
station . . . .”).  Here, WVOA -LD took all steps necessary to secure Canadian approval and the delays in approval 
were truly outside the control of WVOA.  
116 See ICO Glob.  Commc’ns  (Holdings)  Ltd. v. F.C.C. , 428 F.3d 264, 270 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (finding no 
inconsistency and therefore no abuse of discretion in agency’s decision to grant a waiver to one licensee based on 
certain factors, including a gap due to a special legal obstacle created by a limit on investment in Canadian licensees, 
but not to a second licensee in whose case those factors were absent).     
117 See NPR Comments at 10 -1 (“NPR recognizes that, although WVOA -LD’s service has been offline since the 
DTV deadline of July 13, 2021, WVOA -LD had an established listenership at the time and a pending construction -
permit application.  To this end, should the Commission permit FM6 operations outside of the STA Stations, we urge the Commission to limit permis sion only to WVOA -LD.”). 
118 See WVOA Comments at 6.   
119 See infra paras. 13-14 (discussing the 13 FM6 LPTV stations’ history of interference -free operation under the 
FM6 STAs); see also Metro TV Comments at 4 -6 (WVOA could not complete conversion and commence service by 
the release date of the Further Notice  due to then pending approval of its application).  
120 The period represents the amount of time WVOA -LD would have had to resume FM6 operations in order to have 
been included in the group of 13 FM6 LPTV st ations with “active” FM6 STAs if its minor modification application 
did not require international coordination and was actionable upon filing when filed on March 11, 2022.   
121 WVOA- LD must notify the Bureau no more than 10 days after it commences FM6 opera tions by filing a written 
letter with the Secretary’s office, to the attention of the Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau and by providing an 
electronic version of that letter to the Chief of the Video Division, Media Bureau.  The letter must provide the date 
the Station completed its transition to ATSC 3.0 and the date that it commenced FM6 operations.  
122 WVOA- LD’s status reports must be filed with the Secretary’s office, to the attention of the Chief of the Video 
Division, Media Bureau.  An electronic copy  must also be sent via electronic mail to the Chief of the Video 
Division, Media Bureau.    Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
17 29. New Entrants and Other “Legacy” Analog FM6 LPTV Stations.  In contrast, we cannot 
make similar conclusions about legacy analog FM6 LPTV stations that ceased FM6 operations or LPTV 
channel 6 stations that ha ve never provided FM6 services.  In the Further Notice , we recognized that 
there may be a limited number of legacy analog FM6 LPTV stations that discontinued their FM6 operations at the time of the LPTV digital transition in July 2021, but intended to resu me their FM6 
operations once their new digital facilities were completed.
123  We asked if we should permit these 
stations to begin providing FM6 operations under the same conditions as existing FM6 LPTV stations.124  
In response, we received comments from two legacy FM6 LPTV stations – WJMF -LD, Jackson, 
Mississippi, licensed to KTL,125 and KBFW-LD, Arlington, Texas, licensed to Benavides.126  We find 
that these stations are distinguishable from the 13 FM6 LPTV stations with active FM6 STAs and WVOA- LD. 
30. WJMF -LD terminated its analog television operations in July 2021 to comply with the 
LPTV digital transition deadline
127 and completed its conversion to ATSC 1.0 digital operations in 
January 2022.128  Although it was a legacy FM6 LPTV station, the station, at a minimum, has not 
provided FM6 service since at least July 13, 2021, nor (unlike WVOA- LD) did it take steps to preserve 
FM6 operations.  As such we are unable to conclude that there is an audience that relies on WJMF -LD’s 
FM6 operations, in contrast to the 13 existing operators that have been providing service and submitting 
periodic reporting demonstrating a lack of interference from their operations.  There is also no record of FM6 operations upon which to determine if the station could operate without causing interference.  While 
the Station’s current digital license largely mirrors the contour of its former analog facility, in May 2022 
WJMF -LD was granted a construction permit to increase its coverage area.
129  Such a modification could 
significantly alter th e potential interference profile of the station and remains unbuilt, unlike the 13 
existing operators about whose FM6 operations we do have a record of non- interference.  WJMF -LD also 
failed to provide any circumstances, as in the case of WVOA -LD, that pre vented it from taking steps to 
maintain its FM6 operations, as the 13 other stations did, following the digital television transition 
deadline.  KTL had ample time following the digital transition deadline and prior to release of the Further 
Notice  to pursue steps to preserve its FM6 operations, but for its own independent reasons chose not to 
take action.   
31. As for KBFW -LD, it was a legacy analog FM6 LPTV station that did not convert to 
digital ATSC 1.0 until September 1, 2021.130  Unlike WJMF -LD, however, i t continued its FM6 analog 
operation, without Commission authority, until sometime in May 2022 when the station was instructed by 
the Enforcement Bureau to cease and desist its FM6 analog operations.131  The station did not seek to 
convert to ATSC 3.0 until July 2022.132  Similar to WJMF -LD, the station has not provided FM6 service 
 
123 Further Notice  at para. 44.  
124 Id. 
125 KTL Comments at 1 -2.   
126 Benavides  Comments  at 2-3. 
127 LMS File No. 0000152481.  
128 LMS File No. 0000179353.  
129 LMS File No. 0000190172 (granted May 9, 2022) .  
130 LMS File No. 0000158342 (granted Nov. 18, 2021).  
131 Benavides Comments at 3-4.   
132 Id. at 4.  KBFW- LD has pending before the Bureau a n application to convert its station to ATSC 3 .0.  LMS File 
No. 0000195651.  We provide KBFW- LD 30 days following release of this R&O  to notify the Video Division 
(Division) of its intent to proceed with transitioning its facility to ATSC 3.0 operations.  If KBFW- LD intends to 
proceed with transitioni ng to ATSC 3.0, it must amend its pending application to identify its new transition date.  
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
18 for an extended period of time – having last engaged in authorized operations nearly two years ago.  As 
such, we are unable to conclude there is an audience that has continued to r ely on KBFW -LD’s FM6 
operations, as we have for the 13 FM6 stations that have continued to provide FM6 service, with limited or no interruption.  Further, as was the case with WJMF -LD, there is no record of the station operating as 
an FM6 LPTV station purs uant to an FM6 engineering STA upon which to determine if the station could 
operate without causing interference.
133  KBFW -LD also fails to provide any circumstances truly beyond 
its control, as in the case of WVOA -LD, that prevented it from taking steps to  maintain its FM6 
operations, as 13 other stations did following the LPTV digital television transition deadline.  Like KTL, 
Benavides had ample time following the digital transition deadline and prior to release of the Further 
Notice  to pursue steps to pr eserve its FM6 operations, but did not take the necessary steps in time.   In 
light of all these facts, we reject KTL and Benavides’ calls to be permitted to provide FM6 services on 
their channel 6 LPTV stations.  
32. Likewise, channel 6 LPTV stations that are seeking to be new entrants to FM6 operations 
do not have similar equities at play as the 13 FM6 LPTV stations, as they have no established listener 
base that relies upon them,134 and we therefore find that there are insufficient public interest reasons to 
outweigh the interference concerns brought on by new FM6 operations.  We also find that WVOA -LD is 
distinguishable from potential “new entrants” because WVOA -LD had an established audience prior to 
the digital transition and was prepared to proceed with FM6 operations, but was prevented from doing so 
because approval of its application was pending international coordination.135  Even to the extent that 
there are licensees that obtained channel 6 LPTV stations with the expectation that they may be able to provi de FM6 operations, the public interest rationale — maintaining service on which an audience has 
come to rely — does not apply to hypothetical scenarios about service a licensee might provide.  In 
addition, these new entrant stations have no record regarding interference because they have not been 
providing FM6 service, unlike the 13 existing FM6 operators which have an established track record of 
(Continued from previous page)   
Alternatively, KBFW- LD may withdraw its application.  Should KBFW- LD fail to amend its request or seek 
withdrawal of its application within 30 days, the Bureau is i nstructed to dismiss the pending application  
Benavides contends that Bureau staff assured him that he would be permitted to obtain an FM6 STA.  Benavides 
Comments  at 2, n.2; see also  id. at 4-6.  This appears to be an inaccurate characterization of the guidance provided.  
In a series of e- mails dating back to August 2021, Bureau staff provided both Benavides and his counsel detailed 
instructions on how to proceed with filing an FM6 STA.  Benavides and his counsel failed to follow these 
instructions and instead proceeded to continue to provide, at minimum, analog FM service, without a valid 
authorization.  Notwithstanding any potential misunderstanding about obtaining an FM6 STA, Benavides still w as 
not prepared to convert to ATSC 3.0 and commence FM6 operations pursuant to FM6 STA until July 2022.  See e-
mail correspondence between Benavides, his counsel and Bureau staff, copies of which are available at LMS File No. 0000195651.  
133 KBFW- LD did oper ate in digital ATSC 1.0 with an FM6 operation for several months but such operation was not 
authorized and we will not recognize it for purposes of determining the station’s operational record.  
134 See Barreto Comments at 1 (licensee of an channel 6 LPTV station W06DA -D, Aguada, PR and would develop 
FM6 operations if given the opportunity); CBC Comments at 1- 2 (licensee of a channel 6 LPTV station KMCF -LD, 
Visalia, CA that sought and was denied an FM6 engineering STA because it was not a legacy FM6 station); Luna Comments at 1 (licensee of two channel 6 LPTV stations , K06PU -D Yakima, WA, and K06QD -D Pasco, WA , and 
has been awaiting a Commission decision on the FM6 matter before pursuing FM6 operations); OMI Comments at 
1-2 (licensee of three unnamed channel 6 LPTV stations and would like the opportunity to provide FM6 operations); 
VCY Comments at 9 (licensee of channel 6 LPTV station WDMY -LD, Toledo, OH that sought and was denied an 
FM6 STA because it was not a legacy FM6 station),  
135 See infra  para. 27.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
19 no interference.136  For the foregoing reasons, we also reject these stations’ requests to be permitted to 
provide FM6 services in the future.137  
33. We also reject arguments that our decision to limit FM6 operations to certain stations is 
arbitrary and capricious.138  As discussed above, we conclude that the public interest is served by 
maintaining existing FM6 services provided by stations that have actively taken steps to ensure continuity 
of service to their listeners.  We are also limiting the class of stations based on concerns of potential 
interference to other licensed users in areas where FM6 services are not curr ently provided or to their own 
digital channel 6 television operations.139  The 13 existing FM6 LPTV stations have a proven record of 
not causing interference to either other licensed FM station operations or to their own digital channel 6 operations.
140  We have no such record of interference- free FM6 operations by new stations or legacy 
FM6 stations no longer operating.  We conclude that the risk of upsetting the current, interference- free 
environment outweighs the benefit of permitting new FM6 LPTV station s and is contrary to the public 
interest rationale by which we have determined that continued operation of current analog FM6 operations following the stations’ digital television transition is justified.    
34. We also are not persuaded by the argument that not all potential FM6 operators had the 
opportunity to convert to digital operations and obtain a n FM6 STA.
141  As discussed above, the 
Commission’s examination of whether to permit the continuation of such services has extended nearly a 
decade.  As such, we believe that all channel 6 LPTV stations have had adequate notice of a potential change in Commission rules.
142  In fact, a significant number of stations did take note and have been 
providing FM6 service following their conversion to digital, thus undermining arguments by some 
 
136 See i nfra paras. 13-14.  
137 VCY, licensee of WDMY -LD, Toledo, Ohio, sought reconsideration of the Division’s denial of its request for 
special temporary authority to provide FM6 operations.  See VCY America, Inc.’s Petition for Reconsideration (July 
11, 2022) seeking reconsideration of Letter to VCY America, Inc. from Barbara A. Kreisman, Chief Video Division 
(June 8, 2022) (both available at the station’s LMS Facility ID No. 49188).  In light of our decision today, we instruct the Bureau to dismiss VCY’s petitio n for reconsideration.  VCY also has pending before the Bureau a 
pending application to convert its station to ATSC 3.0.  LMS File No. 0000191355.  We provide VCY 30 days following release of this R&O  to notify the Division of its intent to proceed with transitioning its facility to ATSC 
3.0 operations.  If VCY intends to proceed with transitioning to ATSC 3.0, it must amend its pending application to 
identify its new transition date.  Alternatively, VCY may withdraw its application.  Should VCY fail to amend its 
request or seek withdrawal of its application within 30 days, the Bureau is instructed to dismiss the pending application.  
138 See CFI Comments at 8 ( citing AT&T Servs., Inc. v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n , 21 F.4th 841, 845– 46 (D.C. Cir. 
2021) quoting Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass’n v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. , 463 U.S. 29, 
43, 103 S. Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983)); Multicultural Radio Broadcasting, Inc. Comments at 3 (Jan. 22, 2020).  
139 See supra paras. 25-26. 
140 While the s ame cannot currently be said for WVOA -LD, as discussed above WVOA presents a unique 
circumstance in which the station was prepared to proceed with FM6 operations, but was prevented from doing so due to reasons truly outside of its control. It has subsequently completed construction of its facility and we are adopting requirements herein to determine if the Station can establish a track record of no interference to other 
licensed operations.  See supra paras. 27-28. 
141 See CMC Comments at 1; VCY Comments at 8; Luna Comments at 1; SOL Comments at 10; Barreto Comments 
at 3; KTL Comments at 2 -3; ATBA Comments at 2 -3; Ridgeline Reply Comments at 1- 2; TZSTC Comments at 1 -2; 
Metro Comments at 7 -8; OMI Reply Comments at 1 -2; CBC Comments at 2 -3.  
142 See Further Notice  at para. 43.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
20 commenters that FM6 LPTV stations were not able to continue operations in the face of  regulatory 
uncertainty.143   
C. Establishing Rules Governing FM6 Operations 
1. Codifying Certain FM6 STA Conditions  
35. Existing FM6 LPTV stations will be permitted to continue their FM6 operations subject 
to a new rule we adopt that codifies certain conditions that are currently contained in the FM6 STAs.144  
FM6 LPTV stations will be required to keep current their FM6 STAs until the rules we adopt become 
final.   We disagree with commenters that suggest that no rules are necessary.145  We find that rule s are 
needed to ensure that FM6 LPTV stations continue to operate in a manner that is consistent with the 
public interest rationale for allowing FM6 operations to continue, to prevent interference with other licensees, and to prevent the derogation of thei r television signal as required by the Act and our rules. 
36. In the Further Notice  we sought comment on whether any rules permitting FM6 
operations should include the conditions in the FM6 STAs, as discussed above.
146  For the reasons 
outlined more fully below , we codify the following requirements based the current conditions set forth in 
the FM STAs: (1) FM6 LPTV stations must operate in ATSC 3.0 digital format; (2) FM6 LPTV stations 
must provide their FM6 operations on 87.75 MHz; (3) FM6 operations must be conducted on a non-
interference basis to any other licensed primary or secondary user; (4) FM6 LPTV stations must provide 
at least one stream of synchronized video and audio programming on the ATSC 3.0 portion of the spectrum at any time the station is opera ting; (5) FM6 operations may not exceed the coverage area of the 
FM6 LPTV station’s ATSC 3.0 synchronized video/audio programming stream; and (6) FM6 LPTV stations may make modifications to their technical facilities, as otherwise permitted under Part 74 o f the 
Rules, so long as the contour of the station’s modified facilities remains within its current protected contour.  We decline to require that FM6 LPTV station licenses be prohibited from being assigned or transferred or that they be subject to periodic reporting requirements, though we do require that FM6 
LPTV stations notify us of their intent to continue to or cease to provide FM6 operations and provide an 
ongoing certification as part of their license renewal application.  
37. Requirement to Operate in A TSC 3.0 Format.  As the Bureau included as a condition in 
the FM6 STAs, we require FM6 LPTV stations operate using the ATSC 3.0 digital standard.
147  In the 
Further Notice , we sought comment on whether the fact that FM6 stations are operating in ATSC 3.0 
digital mode changes the potential for their analog FM6 operations to interfere with or disrupt the LPTV 
 
143 Barreto Comments at 3 (existence of the FM6 service in doubt and extinction seemed inevitable so station 
declined to initiate FM6 service during uncertainty); CBC Comments at 2 -3 (FM6 service threatened with 
prohibition, some licensees would have liked to initiate FM6 operations, but too uncertain); CMC Comments at 1 
(“For the smaller guy like CMC, the expense and risk were too high in the past to have already converted.”); KTL 
Comments at 2 -3 (“Without knowing that the FCC will authorize these services on a permanent basis, it was too 
great a financial risk to spend the money needed to make the conversion and request the STA previously.”); Luna 
Comments at 1 (“wealthy broadcasters who were able to deploy this kind of service  early before minority 
broadcasters were given the chance to”); OMI Reply Comments at 1 (“distinction between rich LPTV broadcasters 
who have converted to ATSC 3.0 early and … the smaller operators who haven’t yet had a chance.” ).   
144 See infra  App. B – Final Rules .   
145 See CMC Comments at 1 (“FM6 authorizations should simply fall under the licensed operation of the LPTV 
station without any restrictions other than the 87.75 MHz operation being at or less than the authorized power for the 
LPTV station”); and  Marquee Comments at 1 -2 (FM6 LPTV stations “should not be subject to any meaningful 
additional oversight as long as it causes no improper interference with other stations”).  
146 Further Notice at para. 23.  
147 See 47 CFR § 73.682(f) outlining the Next Gen TV  broadcast television transmission standard.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
21 station’s ATSC 3.0 digital TV service.148  Commenters unanimously support this requirement as a 
condition of being able to provide FM6 operations.149  We r ecognize that this is a departure from our 
policy of a voluntary transition for television stations to the ATSC 3.0 digital format;150 however, we find 
in this unique circumstance it is a necessary requirement in order to address concerns that FM6 operation s 
will derogate the FM6 LPTV station’s television service.151  Some commenters argue that previous 
studies show the potential for interference from FM6 operations to the LPTV station’s own digital 
operation.152  However, these studies were conducted while FM6 LPTV stations were operating in ATSC 
1.0.  As evidenced by the “Perry Priestly” study153 and more recently through real -world operations under 
the FM6 STAs, b ecause the ATSC 3.0 digital format is more configurable  the existing  FM6 LPTV 
stations have been able to make their television signal narrower and/or have the signals settings modified 
to have increased error correction intended to prevent co -channel interference between the stations’  
digital television and analog radio signals.  Accordingly, in the case of the 13 existing FM6 LPTV 
stations, operating in ATSC 3.0 appears to have  address ed concerns that FM6 operations will interfere 
with or derogate their own digital television operation.  Therefore, in or der to ensure that FM6 LPTV 
stations comply with the derogation standard set forth in the Act and our rules,154 we will require that they 
transmit their television signal using the ATSC 3.0 standard.  
38. Operation on 87.75 MHz.  We require FM6 transmissions to  be conducted at 87.75 MHz.  
We observed in the Further Notice  that limiting operations to 87.75 MHz would help prevent interference 
to any other licensed user.155  A majority of commenters supported this requirement.156  This is the 
frequency currently being used by all current FM6 LPTV stations and as a result it has been tested and 
shown by the 13 existing FM6 LPTV stations through their FM6 STAs to provide a quality FM signal 
without causing interference to other FM stations.157  We reject requests by comm enters that ask us to 
allow FM6 operations on 87.7 MHz in order to give licensees the opportunity to improve analog FM6 
reception.158  This is a 50 kHz shift from what has been authorized under the current FM6 STAs and as 
 
148 Further Notice at para. 36.  
149 See AVHN Comments at 3; NAB Comments at 5 -6; PCPC Comments at 18; CBC Comments at 4; SOL 
Comments at 7; VCY Comments at 6.  
150 LPTV stations may choose to operate in ATSC 3.0 but ar e not required to.  See Authorizing Permissive Use of the 
“Next Generation” Broadcast Television Standard, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,  
32 FCC Rcd 9930, 9932, para. 1 (2017) (authorizing television broadcasters including LPT V stations to use the 
ATSC 3.0 standard on a voluntary, market -driven basis).  
151 See supra para. 23; see also LPTV Digital Third NPRM , 29 FCC Rcd at 12555, para. 50; Refresh PN, 34 FCC 
Rcd at 11164, para. 4.  
152 See comments filed by Linley Gumm at 1 -13 (Nov.  14, 2014); NPR at 8- 11 (Jan. 15, 2015); NPR at 13- 17 (Jan. 
23, 2020); and REC Networks at 6- 14 (Jan. 21, 2020).  
153 See Further Notice at paras . 35-36 citing Reply comments filed in MB Docket No. 03- 185 by PCPC at 11- 12 and 
Engineering Statement (Feb. 14, 2020) (maintaining that the Perry Priestly study demonstrates that, “not only is 
ATSC 3.0 compatible with an 87.7 MHz analog audio carrier, but the two signals can operate simultaneously with 
almost no degradation to either signal.”)  
154 47 U.S.C. § 336(b)(2) ; 47 CFR § 73.624(c).  
155 Further Notice  at para. 25.  
156 See AVHN Comments at 3 ; CMC Comments at 1; PCPC Comments at 18; SOL Comments at 7.  
157 As a condition to their FM6 engineering STAs, FM6 LPTV stations were required to operate on 87.75 MHz and 
to report any interference that occurred from their operations.  No such interference has been reported to date.  See , 
e,g, FM6 STA of KBKF -LD, San J ose, California at LMS File No. 0000147729, granted June 10, 2021.  
158 See NAB Comments at 8.  NAB argues that “[t]his small 50 kHz shift in frequency away from the FM band 
would presumably reduce the potential for interference to FM stations operating in the reserved band while 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
22 such, w e are reluctant to permit th is change without a thorough technical examination of such a move.  
Absent additional technical data supporting a shift to 87.7 MHz, none of which has been provided in the 
record, we find taking the time now to develop a record would only serve to needlessly prolong an 
already complex proceeding.  In addition, it is not clear what cognizable benefit to receivability there 
would be based on the documented experiences of FM6 LPTV stations that have been providing FM service over 87.75 MHz.  
39. Operation of FM6 on a No n-Interference  Basis .  We adopt our proposal from the Further 
Notice  and require that  FM6 operations be conducted on a non- interference basis “to any other licensed 
user, including but not limited to broadcast television or radio users.”
159  We agree with commenters that 
FM6 LPTV stations must operate without causing any impermissible interference to other licensed users, 
both users with primary and secondary interference protection rights.160  We disagree with NAB that 
codification of this cond ition is unnecessary  if FM6 operations are restricted to just a limited number of  
stations.161  By codifying this condition, we seek to continue to prevent interference and make clear that 
any interference to other licensed users will not be permitted as th ese services are being offered purely on 
an ancillary or supplementary basis. 
40. Synchronized Video and Audio.  We further adopt the requirement that FM6 LPTV 
stations must provide at least one stream of synchronized video and audio programming on the ATSC 3.0 portion of the spectrum at any time the station is operating.
162  We conclude that adoption of this 
operational requirement will ensure that FM6 LPTV stations remain dedicated to providing the type of 
digital television service that viewers have come to expect from TV stations in addition to their FM6 
operations .  This requirement will also ensure that the spectrum , which has been allocated for the 
provision of television service, is being used in an efficient manner and for its primary purpose .163  A 
majority of commenters support this requirement.164  We disagree with the single commenter that called 
this requirement “constitutionally dubious.”165  Our decision to require one stream of synchronized video 
and audio programming is “content neutral” in tha t it does not reference or implement any requirements 
regarding the content of the speech.166  The D.C. Circuit has applied a “heightened rational basis” 
standard of review to content -neutral broadcast regulation.167  Applied here, requiring one stream of 
synchronized video and audio programming is reasonably tailored to satisfying the substantial 
governmental interest in  ensuring that frequencies allocated for television service continue to be used for 
the types of television services viewers have come to expect from TV stations.  
(Continued from previous page)   
improving compatibility and fidelity for FM receivers that can tune only in 200 kHz steps.”  See also Bovis 
Comments at 1 (“[b]ecause analog TV is now defunct, there is no reason to require these stations to transmit only on 87.75 as opposed to 87.7 which is what . . . most FM radios with digital tuners actually tune”).  
159 Further Notice  at para. 25.  
160 See AVHN Comments at 3; PCPC Comments at 18; PCPC Reply Comments at 13- 14; Reed Comments at 2.  
161 NAB Comments at 5 -6. 
162 See Further Noti ce at para. 28. 
163 See id.  at paras. 28 -29. 
164 See AVHN Comments 3; NAB Comments at 8; PCPC Comments at 8;  SOL Comments at 7; VCY Comments at 
9. 
165 Bovis Comments at 1.   
166 See Virginia Pharmacy Bd v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc ., 425 U.S. 748, 771 (1976)  (defining 
“content -neutral” speech regulations as “those that are justified without reference to the  content  of the regulated 
speech”).  
167 Ruggiero v. FCC, 317 F.3d 239, 243-44, 247 (D.C.  Cir. 2003) .  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
23 41. The synchronized video and audio programming condition was originally imposed on the 
FM6 STAs to ensure that digital LPTV stations providing FM6 operations continued to provide television 
service that meets viewers’ expectations .168  Prior to the LPTV digital television transition in July 2021, 
when FM6 operations were being conducted as part of a n LPTV station’s analog channel 6 operation, 
most FM6 LPTV stations were sacrificing the extent of their television service by airing limited video-
only programming.169  Because the audio signal for their analog TV station was dedicated to providing 
the FM6 service, the video service contained minimal video- only content, such as community bulletin 
boards.170  FM6 LPTV stations ap peared to be focusing their resources on their radio FM6 operation over 
their television operation.171  However, digital television provide s these stations a new opportunity to 
offer more substantial, independent video content synchronized with audio while still preserving their 
FM6 operations.  Although other digital television stations are required to provide only one over -the-air 
video  program signal at no direct charge to viewers,172 and may offer video only or separate video and 
audio on their television  operations, given FM6 LPTV stations’ past practice favoring their FM6 
operations at the expense of their television operations, we continue to believe it is prudent to make clear 
that an FM6 LPTV station must offer at least one stream of synchronized vide o and audio programming.  
This will ensure that FM6 LPTV stations provide the type of digital television service that viewers have 
come to expect from TV stations  while also preserving their FM6 operations . 
42. As proposed in the Further Notice, we also declin e to adopt the condition imposed in the 
current FM6 STAs that the synchronized audio and video programming be provided on a full time (24x7) 
basis.173  Because our rules provide that LPTV stations are “not required to adhere to any regular schedule 
of operation,”174 we find it more appropriate to adopt the revised version of this condition proposed in the 
Further Notice  that requires that FM6 LPTV stations provide at least one stream of synchronized video 
and audio programming on the ATSC 3.0 portion of the spectrum “at any time the station is operating.”175  
There was no opposition to this proposed revision.  
43. LPTV and FM6 Operational Contours .  We also adopt the requirement that the service 
contour176 of a station’s FM6 operation may not exceed the protect ed contour177 of the LPTV station.178  
 
168 Advanced Television Systems & Their Impact Upon the Existing Television Broadcast. Service, Report and 
Order, 12 FCC Rcd. 12809, para. 28 (1997) (in authorizing the use of ancillary or supplementary service the 
Commission stated:  “We expect that the fund amental use of the 6 MHz DTV license will be for the provision of 
free over -the-air television service.”)  
169 See, e.g ., comments filed in MB Docket No. 03- 185 by CFI at 1 (Jan. 23, 2020); NPR at 2 (Jan. 23, 2020); and 
reply comments filed in MB Docket No. 0 3-185 by NPR at 6 (Feb. 2, 2015).  
170 Id. 
171 See, e.g., comments filed in MB Docket No. 03- 185 by CFI at 1 (Jan. 23, 2020); NPR at 2- 4 and 10 -11 (Jan. 23, 
2020); Heller at 1 (Jan. 23, 2020); and reply comments filed in MB Docket No. 03- 185 by NPR at 11- 12 (Fe b. 7, 
2020).  
172 47 CFR § 73.624(b).  
173 Further Notice  at para. 30.  
174 See 47 CFR § 74.763.  
175 Further Notice  at 30.  In order to ensure that a station’s FM6 operations are not prioritized over its television 
service and that television remains its primary purp ose, we will consider a station to be “operating” any time it is 
engaged in FM6 operations over its channel.  See supra para. 12 (finding that allowing existing FM6 operations to 
continue is in the public interest because we are adopting rules that ensure FM6 LPTV stations are “first and 
foremost LPTV stations and that their video programming stream is prioritized over any audio stream.”).  
176 We define “service contour” as the service contour provided for in section 73.313 of the rules.  See 47 CFR § 
73.313.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
24 A similar condition was included in the FM6 STAs to prevent FM6 LPTV stations from configur ing their 
LPTV station’s technical facilities in a manner that would favor their FM6 operation over their digital 
television ope ration , something that, as just discussed, occurred while FM6 LPTV stations were solely 
operating in analog.179  We find that a dopting a similar provision here will help to ensure that FM6 LPTV 
stations continue to focus their attention on the operation of their digital LPTV station -  the primary 
purpose of their station license.180  Further, we conclude that adoption of this requirement will provide a 
predictable coverage area for the FM6 signal.181  
44. Commenters are united in their support for this requirement ,182 however, there is 
disagreement on how to determine if the service contour of a station’s FM6 operation is exceeding the 
protected contour of  its television operation.183  After considering the record and further technical 
analysis, we conclude that the best approach is to require the service contour of FM6 operations to be contained within, and may not exceed, the  LPTV station’s  protected contour.  We find the alternative 
approaches suggested by commenters are impractical and overly burdensome.  It would be difficult, if not 
impossible, for an FM6 station to test all locations where both the synchronized video/audio and the analog FM signal can be heard.
184  Further, our rules recognize different standards for measuring the 
strength of a digital LPTV signal and an FM audio signal.  Rather than try to reconcile those differences 
in a single, “one -size-fits-all rule,” we will allow FM6 LPTV stations to demonstrate the service contour 
of their FM6 operations and the protected contour of their TV operation s using established methodologies 
for each service in our rules.185   
(Continued from previous page)   
177 We define “protected contour” as the protected contour provided for in section 74.792 of the rules.  See 47 CFR § 
74.792.  
178 We note that, in the Further Notice , we proposed that “the FM6 coverage area must be contained within and may 
not exceed the coverage area of the LPTV station’s synchronized video/audio programming stream . . . .”  Further 
Notice at para. 28.  To more accurately describe the coverage areas of the FM6 and TV operations and to reflect the 
language used by our rules, we will use the te rm “service contour” to describe the FM6 station’s coverage area and 
“protected contour” to describe the TV station’s coverage area.  See supra notes 17 6 and 177.  
179 Id. at para. 41 . 
180 Further Notice at para. 29.  
181 We note that currently FM6 LPTV stations operate with co- located television and FM6 facilities.  FM6 LPTV 
stations operate separate transmitters -  one digital television and one analog FM radio – that are combined into one 
transmission line and broadcast with a combined antenna.  The rules we adopt today permit only this type of 
configuration.  
182 See AVHN Comments 3; NAB Comments at 8; PCPC Comments at 8; SOL Comments at 7; VCY Comments at 
9. 
183 REC Comments at 24 (FM6 LPTV stations should be required to go “on drive tests with antennas of similar 
design to show that in all places where the analog audio FM station can be heard, the video signal is able to decode 100 percent of the time”); Reed Comments at 3 (“a better limiting factor is to require that the FM 6 operation’s 28 
dBu F(50,50) contour not exceed the current DTV noise -limited contour for DTV6, which is 28dBu F(50,90)”); 
Bovis Comments at 1 (“[i]t would be better to simply limit the ERP of the FM aural carrier to either match or not exceed the licensed digital (television) ERP”).   
184 See REC Comments at 24.  
185 See 47 CFR §§ 73.313 and 74.792 (referencing 73.625(b)(1)).  FM6 LPTV stations have been using this approach 
in their 90 -day and 180 -day status reports filed as a condition to their FM6 STAs.  FM6 LPTV stations have been 
successfully demonstrating in these reports that the service contour of their FM6 operations (as determined using the standard Part 73 methodology) does not exceed that of the protected contour of their LPTV operations (as 
determin ed using the standard Part 74 methodology).  We have no reason to question either the methodologies or 
results of these showings, especially as we have not received any evidence to the contrary.      Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
25 45. Technical Modifications.  We will permit FM6 LPTV stations to make modifications to 
their technical facilities, as otherwise permitted under Part 74 of the Rules, so long as the protected 
contour of the station’s modified television facilities remains within its current protected contour and the 
service contour of the station’s FM6 operations does not exceed the protected contour of the station’s 
television operation.186  Initially, as a condition in FM6 engineering STAs, the Bureau restricted 
modifications in order to “lock” the FM6 LPTV station facilities operations in place while we were 
evaluating the potential for interference from FM6 operations to other users.187  In the Further Notice we 
sought comment on whether to maintain this condition and whether to provide any exceptions.188  
Commenters felt that this restriction was too stringent and expressed their concerns that such a condition 
could limit FM6 LPTV stations from making modifications to better serve their audiences.189  
46. Although the record reflects that there have been no reports of interference from the FM6 
operations of the 13 existing FM6 LPTV stations, this has been based on their current operations which 
have been frozen for almost two years.  Therefore, in order to prevent possible interference that could 
result if an FM6 LPTV station were to modify its facilities, we find it is appropriate to limit modifications 
that could expand an FM6 LPTV station’s FM6 operations beyond the protected contour  of its television 
operations  as of the release date of this R&O .  Allowing such changes c ould potentially upset the current 
interference free environment that serves as one basis for permitting continued FM6 operati ons.190  FM6 
LPTV stations may seek to alter their  protected contour if they can demonstrate that the change is an 
“engineering necessity”191 or can meet the Commission’s general waiver standard.192  Any showing of 
 
186 For example, LPTV stations on channel 6 are not authori zed to operate with an ERP greater than 3 kW.  See 47 
CFR § 74.735(b)(1).  
187 The condition stated:  “[d]uring the term of this STA, the technical facilities of (FM6 LPTV station) may not be 
modified.”  See, e.g., LMS File No. 0000184381.  
188 Further Notice  at para. 31.  
189 See ATVN Comments at 3 -4 (modifications to facilities are often necessitated by circumstances not of the 
licensee’s making and FM6 LPTV stations should be permitted to make technical modifications without having to 
request and obtain a waiver) ; Flinn Comments at 3 (any prohibition on reasonable technical modifications threatens 
to impede FM6 LPTV stations and harm their listeners); Metro Comments at 8 (“[i]f these FM6 services are 
valuable and in the public interest, providing those services to more people, if the increases in service do not create 
increased interference, would be in the public interest as well”); PCPC Comments at 18 -19 (prohibiting LPTV 
stations providing FM6 operations from modifying their facilities is an unnecessary restrict ion that would potentially 
inhibit the ability of FM6 LPTV stations to provide consistent service); TZSTC Comments at 2 (questioning whether it is necessary or even in the public interest to limit modifications); VCY Comments at 7 (no analogous 
service includes permanent prohibitions on modification).  
190 See supra para s. 13-14. 
191 For example, loss of a tower site or change in equipment due to malfunction would constitute “engineering 
necessity.”  Generally things that are voluntary business decisions, such as seeking to relocate facilities to serve a 
larger audience, would not be deemed an “engineering necessity.”  We note that during the pendency of this 
proceeding, the Division  allowed an FM6 station, WRME -LD, Chicago, Illinois, to make modifications to its 
technical facilities.  See Letter to WLFM, LLC from Barbara A. Kreisman, Chief, Video Division (Feb. 8, 2023) 
available at LMS File No. 0000208892.  The Division found that the proposed modification was the result of the station’s landlord adding an additional tenant to its shared tower and therefore the station was forced to l ower the 
height of its antenna to avoid possible issues with distortion to the station’s antenna pattern.  Id. at 2.  The Division 
concluded that the change was an “engineering necessity” and the public interest would be served by grant of the 
minor change  application.  Id.  The Division also permitted an FM6 station, WDCN -LD, Fairfax, Virginia, to 
operate at reduced power for a limited period of time while it was repairing failing equipment.  See Letter to Signal 
Above, LLC from Barbara A. Kreisman, Chief,  Video Division (May 15, 2023) available at LMS File No. 
0000211128.  The Division granted the station’s request for STA and waived the condition on the station’s FM6 
STA prohibiting modifications to its facility.  Id.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
26 “engineering necessity” must include a detai led demonstration that the modification will not cause any 
interference to other licensed users.193  We conclude that allowing stations the flexibility to make minor 
modifications while remaining within the station’s protected contour, or to alter their pro tected contour 
based upon a showing of “engineering necessity” or under the Commission’s general waiver standard, 
balances any concerns about a station’s ability to maximize their service to viewers.   
47. Assignment and Transfer of FM6 LPTV Stations.  We conclude that FM6 LPTV stations 
should be permitted to be assigned or transferred.  The FM6 STAs included a condition that limited FM6 
LPTV stations from being assigned or transferred while FM6 operations were being conducted.194  While 
licensees of FM6 LPTV stations were always free to transfer their stations, such action would have 
required the termination of their FM6 operation.  In the Further Notice, we questioned whether inclusion 
of such a limit in our final FM6 rules would continue to serve the public interest.195  We now conclude 
that it would not.  
48. The Bureau imposed a restriction on transfers and assignments in an effort to maintain 
the status quo during the pendency of this proceeding and to prevent speculative transactions.196  This 
action stemmed from a concern that, during the pendency of this proceeding, parties could seek to obtain an FM6 station without any intention of continuing FM6 operations and for the sole purpose of 
immediately “flipping”  the station to another party for a quick profit if continued FM6 operations were 
ultimately permitted.
197  A small number of commenters believe it should be retained “in perpetuity” in 
order to prevent future speculation of FM6 LPTV stations.198  However, now that this proceeding is 
complete and we have confined FM6 LPTV stations to only a limited number of stations199 that have 
demonstrated an interest in maintaining their FM6 operations into the future, we conclude that there is no longer a risk of parties speculating in FM6 LPTV stations.  As discussed above, the steps taken by the 
remaining FM6 LPTV stations to complete their digital television transition and quickly resume FM6 operations shows their clear desire to continue to provide FM6 service to their listeners.
200  Furthermore, 
(Continued from previous page)   
192 A waiver is appropriate only if bot h (1) special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and (2) 
such deviation better serves the public interest.  NetworkIP, LLC v. FCC, 548 F.3d 116, 125- 128 (D.C. Cir. 2008) 
(citing Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. , 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (1990)).  Generally, the Commission may waive any 
rule if there is good cause to do so and, in making this determination, may take into account considerations such as 
hardship, equity, or more effective implementation of overall policy on an individual basis .  See 47 C.F.R. § 1.3 ; 
Northeast Cellular , 897 F.2d at 1166 (“ [A] waiver is appropriate only if special circumstances warrant a deviation 
from the general rule and such deviation will serve the public interest.  The agency must explain why deviation 
better serves the public interest and articulate the nature of the special circumstances to prevent discriminatory 
application and to put future parties on notice as to its operation”) ; WAIT Radio v . FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. 
Cir. 1969) (“The agency’s discretion to proceed in difficult areas through general rules is intimately linked to the 
existence of a safety valve procedure for consideration of an application for exemption based on special 
circumstances.”) . 
193 See ATVN Comments at 3 -4; PCPC Comments at 18 -19; PCPC Reply Comments at 14.  
194 Further Notice  at para. 32.  
195 Id. 
196 Id. 
197 Id. 
198 See Cal State Reply Comments at 7 (if FM6 LPTV station operators feel so strongly about serving their niche 
audiences, let them continue to do so in perpetuity); Reed Comments at 3 (existing restriction on transfer should remain in place to help deter other LP TV stations from moving to channel 6 for the purpose of creating an FM radio 
station to then sell at a profit).   
199 See supra Section III.  B. – Limiting FM6 Operations To Existing Operators . 
200 See supra para. 26.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
27 we find that prohibiting the assignment or transfer of these stations would undermine a key rationale by 
which we have based our decision to permit the continued operation of these stations – the preservation of 
existing service  that listeners rely upon.201  To the extent a current licensee no longer wishes to operate its 
station it should be permitted, like any other licensee, to sell its station to someone that wants to continue 
to offer its television operations, along with its  FM6 operations if they so choose.  Accordingly, we find 
the limitation on transfers is no longer necessary and we conclude that the public interest would not be 
served maintaining the  restriction .202   
49. We clarify that an FM6 LPTV station’s FM6 operation is not severable from its digital 
television license and may not be assigned or transferred independently from the FM6 LPTV station.203  
We base this conclusion upon the fact that we are not separately authorizing FM6 operations, but rather 
are allowing them as an ancillary or supplementary service to the FM6 LPTV station’s main digital 
television license.  An FM6 LPTV station is permitted to provide FM6 operations only as a result of it 
offering a free over- the-air television service.204   
50. Reporting Requirements.   We adopt our tentative conclusion and will not require FM6 
LPTV stations to undertake periodic reporting requirements similar to those contained in their FM6 
STAs .205  The periodic reporting requirement was included as a condition to the FM6 STAs to monitor 
the ongoing STA operations of FM6 LPTV stations for reports of interference and to see if FM6 LPTV stations were complying with the condition that their digital television and analog FM radio operations 
were serving similar populations.
206  We agree w ith the majority of commenters that the periodic 
reporting requirement is no longer necessary.207  In this R&O , we adopt permanent rules to address the 
circumstances that the reporting requirement was established to monitor.  Failure to comply with these 
rules will result in sanction and potentially loss of the ability to continue providing FM6 service.  
51. Other parties argue that the submission of written reports is still needed in order to 
confirm system operation and to gather data to confirm that th e FM6 service can be implemented and 
operated in the public interest .208  We disagree.   The record, which includes real -world information 
collected over nearly the last two years from FM6 LPTV stations’ FM6 STA operations demonstrates  that 
interference from  the 13 existing FM6 LPTV stations is not likely to occur  to either adjacent -band FM 
radio operations or to the host LP TV station’s channel 6 operations .209  Further, t here have been no 
 
201 See AVHN Comments at 3; Flinn Comments a t 3; KTL Comments at 3 -4; Metro Comments at 8 -9 (“[it] would 
make no sense to preserve service to the public through this proceeding only for that service to have to terminate if a 
station was ever assigned or transferred.”); NAB Comments at 5 -6; PCPC Comm ents at 19 -21 (the purpose of 
authorizing FM6 operations is to preserve an existing and much valued program service for listeners, not to preserve 
the benefits of ownership); VCY Comments at 7; EMF Comments at 3- 4 (Jan. 22, 2020); LSRC Comments at 5 
(Jan. 22, 2020).  
202 To the extent that an FM6 LPTV station is assigned or transferred and the new licensee intends to continue FM6 
operations it must include a statement to that effect in its assignment or transfer application.  The new licensee will be required to meet all the requirements in the rules for FM6 operations and should they choose to discontinue FM6 
operations, such discontinuation is permanent.  
203 See PCPC Comments at 21 (asking that the Commission clarify this point).  
204 See 47 U.S.C. 336(b)(1) and 47 CFR § 73.624(b) .   
205 Further Notice  at para. 33.  
206 Id. 
207 See Metro Comments at 8 -9; AVHN Comments at 3 -4; Flinn Comments at 3; NAB Comments at 5 -6; PCPC 
Comments at 19- 21; VCY Comments at 7; PCPC Reply Comments at 14; KTL Comments at 3- 4.   
208 See SOL Com ments at 7 -8; Reed Comments at 3.  
209  Copies of the FM6 LPTV station 90- day and 180- day status reports are available at each of the FM6 LPTV 
stations’ main station records on LMS.  See supra  note 104.  We again note that our analysis of interference free 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
28 legitimate reports of interference being caused by the 13 FM6 LPTV stations that have been operating 
under STAs.210  In addition, FM6 LPTV stations are permitted to make modifications to their facilities 
only under very limited circumstances.  As a result of these facts, we see no basis for requiring FM6 
LPTV stations to c ontinue to submit periodic reports.211  
52. Required FM6 Operational Notices.  We will require that, after review and approval of 
the information collection requirements adopted herein by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Bureau will issue a Public Notice announcing the deadline for all FM6 LPTV stations to notify the 
Media Bureau whether they will continue FM6 operations and confirm their precise FM6 operational 
parameters.
 212  Because we are not licensing FM6 operations separately, this verificati on enables a 
confirmation of which stations ’ FM6 operations will be ongoing and provide continued certainty with 
regards to those operations.213  FM6 LPTV stations will also be required to include in this notification the 
current operating parameters of the ir FM6 operations.214  An FM6 LPTV station that voluntarily chooses 
to permanently discontinue FM6 operations  is required to notify the Media Bureau within 30 days of 
permanently ceasing FM6 operations.  If an FM6 station permanently ceases FM6 operations  either 
voluntarily or is deemed to have discontinued operations pursuant to our Part 73 rules,215 it will not be 
(Continued from previous page)   
FM6 operations applies solely to the 13 stations that have been operating under FM6 STAs.  This does not mean that 
interference would not occur if we were to allow other TV6 stations to commence FM6 o perations.  
210 Cal State has long insisted that FM6 operations will cause interference to stations in the NCE portion of the FM 
radio band (88 to 92 MHz).  Cal State Reply Comments at 6- 7.  The Enforcement Bureau (EB) received an 
interference complaint from  KKJZ(FM), licensed to Cal State, regarding FM6 station KZNO -LD in Big Bear Lake, 
CA (KZNO), licensed to Venture Technologies Group that included an engineering exhibit.  See Interference 
Complaint of California State University, Long Beach Research Founda tion, Licensee of KKJZ(FM), Long Beach, 
CA (Nov. 22, 2022), a copy of which is available at station Facility ID 8197.  Upon investigation, and following a 
request for additional information, the purported interference could not be confirmed.  Based on this  fact and a 
separate Media Bureau review of the engineering exhibit included, Cal State’s complaint was closed by the 
Enforcement Bureau.  
211 See Barreto Comments at 1 -2; CBC Comments at 4; NAB Reply Comments at 3.  
212 The Media Bureau is instructed to add a notation to each FM6 LPTV station’s license to reflect that it is 
permitted to provide FM6 operations pursuant to the rules adopted by this R&O .   
213 The notation added to the station’s license shall reflect that it is permitted to provide FM6 operations pu rsuant to 
the rules adopted by this R&O  and operational parameters specified in its notification.  
214 Such information must include:  maximum effective radiated power (ERP); radiation center above ground level 
(RCAGL); radiation center above mean sea level ( RCAMSL); antenna height above average terrain (HAAT); 
antenna type (directional or non- directional); directional antenna pattern (if applicable); antenna make and model; 
transmitter power output (TPO); and a description of the transmission system, including any transmission lines, connectors, combiners, etc ., and their associated losses.  Should any technical parameters of the s tation’s FM6 
operations change, the l icensee must provide written notification to the Media Bureau at least ten (10) days prior to 
such modifications occurring.  
215 See infra  Section III. C.  2 – Application of Part 73 FM Rules; App. B -  Final Rules.   As part of our finding below 
that FM6 LPTV station’s requirement to comply with certain analogous FM rules, we note that pursuant to 47 CF R 
§ 73.1740(a)(1) FM6 LPTV stations’ FM6 operations must adhere to the minimum operating schedule for FM stations.  Failure to do so absent valid special temporary authority to operate at variance, see  47 CFR §§ 
73.1740(a)(4) or 73.1635, will result in sanction or other actions, which could include consideration at renewal of 
whether the station has served the public interest.  47 U.S.C. § 309(k).  One of the primary rationales by which we 
are permitting continued FM6 operations is in order to provide conti nuity service .  See supra  paras. 10-12.  We find 
that failure by an FM6 LPTV station to adher e to the minimum operating schedule for FM stations, without valid 
special temporary authority, is presumptively adverse to the public interest.  We also note that  should an FM6 LPTV 
station’s digital television operation temporarily cease operations, the station will be required to also discontinue its FM6 operation until such time as the digital television operation resumes as engaging in FM6 operations is 
depende nt upon it providing the digital television service.  See 47 CFR § 73.624(b) .    Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
29 permitted to resume FM6 operations in the future.216  Finally , as an additional measure to ensure that FM6 
LPTV stations are continuing to serve the public, we will also require that FM6 LPTV stations certify in 
their license renewal application that they have continued to provide FM6 operations in accordance with 
the F M6 rules during their prior license term.217  All notifications required by this paragraph shall be 
made by written letter and mailed to the FCC Office of the Secretary, Attention:  Chief, Video Division, 
Media Bureau.218   
2. Application of Part 73 FM Rules  
53. Although FM6 operations are not separately authorized or licensed,219 we conclude that 
the public interest will be best served by requiring FM6 operations to be subject to appropriate Part 73 rules that currently apply to  full service FM radio stations, inclu ding emergency alert and online public 
file requirements.  We also find that application of certain of our rules is consistent with and required by section 336(b)(3) of the Act.
220  Furthermore, FM6 LPTV stations, as they are licensed as LPTV stations, 
must  continue to comply with all applicable Part 73 and 74 rules that pertain to their digital television 
operations.  
54. In the Further Notice  we sought comment on whether FM6 operations are analogous to 
other services and whether, and if so which, Part 73 rules should apply.221  Section 336(b)(3) of the Act 
provides that, in prescribing the regulations required by ancillary or supplementary services, the 
Commission shall “apply to any other ancillary or supplementary service such of the Commission’s 
regulations as are applicable to the offering of analogous services by any other person . . . .”222  Based on 
this statutory requirement, we conclude that certain rules that pertain to full service FM radio stations 
should be applied to FM6 LPTV stations since FM6 LPTV s tations offer services that are “analogous” to 
full service FM radio stations.   A majority of commenters support this approach.223   
 
216 All actions with respect to the cessation of FM6 operation will be final as with any action to permanently 
discontinue a broadcast operation.  See  47 CFR § 73.1750.  Cessation of FM6 operations only shall not affect the 
status of an LPTV station’s license or its ability to continue to provide digital television service.  
217 See 47 USC § 336(d) (“In the Commission’s review of any application for renewal of a broadcast license for  a 
television station that provides ancillary or supplementary services, the television licensee shall establish that all of 
its program services on the existing or advanced television spectrum are in the public interest.  Any violation of the 
Commission r ules applicable to ancillary or supplementary services shall reflect upon the licensee’s qualifications 
for renewal of its license.”).  We delegate authority to the Media Bureau to determine the most appropriate means 
for these stations to make such certif ication, be it by an attachment to the renewal application or some other 
reasonable means.  
218 An electronic copy of any notification must also be sent via electronic mail to the Chief of the Video Division, 
Media Bureau.  A copy of all notifications shall be uploaded by the Media Bureau to the station’s LMS file.    
219 Commenters were in agreement that FM6 should not be separately authorized.  See, e.g., EMF 2015 Comments at 
3-4; Signal Above 2015 Comments at 8; Venture 2015 Comments at 7  
220 See infra  App. B –  Final Rules.  We also conclude that we adopt such rules and policies for FM6 operations 
under our general Title III authority.  See 47 U.S.C. § 303 –  Powers and Duties of Commission.  
221 Further Notice  at para. 38.  
222 47 U.S.C. § 336(b)(3).  
223 See AVHN Comments at 4 (FM6 operations should be subject to Part 73 of the rules that apply to full -service 
FM stations); Cal State Reply Comments at 5 -6 (Commission must impose the same service, power and height 
limitation rules on FM6 LPTV stations that regulate FM translator stations under P art 74 of the rules); NPR 
Comments at 7 -8 (“to the extent they do not conflict with or duplicate the specific conditions the Commission 
proposes, every rule governing over -the-air FM radio broadcast service should als o apply to FM6 LPTV stations”); 
Public Media Comments at 5 (FM6 LPTV stations should be subject to the same public interest obligations as any 
other FM radio station); Reed Comments at 4 (if an FM6 LPTV station is going to provide an FM broadcast service, 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
30 55. As a practical matter, we agree that listeners are not necessarily able to distinguish 
between an FM6 LPTV station’s FM oper ations and a traditional FM station.224  Further, viewers 
watching an FM6 LPTV station’s digital television programming may not be simultaneously listening to 
the station’s analog FM6 audio programming, and vice versa.225  As a result, we find it is importan t that 
FM6 LPTV stations continue to comply with the rules that are otherwise applicable to FM radio operations, including but not limited to our rules related to advertising/commercials, programming, and 
the Emergency Alert System (EAS).
226  In particular, in order to prevent viewers and listeners from 
missing vital EAS alerts, we want to make clear that  FM6 LPTV stations must maintain the capability to 
separately air EAS alerts on both their television and their FM6 operations.227   
56. Further, a lthough LPTV s tations are not required to maintain an online public inspection 
file (OPIF),228 we find it is appropriate to require FM6 LPTV stations to main tain one for their FM6 
operations.  While some commenters argue that there is no purpose to be served by requiring that FM6 
LPTV stations maintain an OPIF solely for their FM6 operations,229 we agree with commenters 
maintaining that such a requirement safeguard s regulatory compliance with regard to FM operations and 
provides parity with other FM stations.230  To be clear, the OPIF requirement will apply only to the FM6 
LPTV station’s FM6 operations.  
57. We disagree with the argument that requiring FM6 LPTV stations to comply with both 
LPTV and certain Part 73 FM rules is unnecessary or inappropriate as a result of their secondary status or because all relevant regulations already apply by nature of their status as an LPTV station .
231  This 
argument does  not reflec t how FM6 operations are actually conducted in the digital context and would be 
inconsistent with section 336(b)(3) of the Act.232  First, t he Act specifically mandates that the 
Commission apply regulations to ancillary or supplementary services that are analogous to other regulated services.
233  The secondary nature of LPTV stations is irrelevant to whether the analogous services 
(Continued from previous page)   
it must adhere to all P art 73 broadcast rules); VCY Comments at 5 (certain P art 73 rules for FM radio should be 
applied to FM6 LPTV stations); Joint Commenters 2015 Comments at 2- 3; Venture 2015 Comments at 7- 8. 
224 See Public Media Comments at 5.  
225 See NAB Comments at 7 -8. 
226 See infra  App. B –  Final Rules -  Section 74.790(o).   
227 See 47 CFR § 11.1(a) outlining the equipment deployment requirements for FM radio stations.   
228 See 47 CFR § 73.3526.  
229 Barreto Comments at 1 (“it would not be logical to require an  FM6 operator to maintain a public inspection file 
for the FM6 service when none is required for the parent secondary LPTV station”); NAB Reply Comments at 5 
(because LPTV stations are not required to maintain a public inspection file, NAB agrees with comm enters that 
argue FM6 LPTV stations should not have to maintain a separate file).  
230 See Public Media Comments at 5 (requiring FM6 LPTV stations to maintain an OPIF will serve as a vital 
resource for the public and local television stations for any matters of regulatory compliance ).  We instruct the 
Media Bureau to create an OPIF for each FM6 LPTV station in the Commission’s database for all FM6 LPTV 
stations and to notify the Stations by written letter once they are able to file documents in their OPIF.  Co mpliance 
with the OPIF requirement will take effect either upon effective date of the rule or 30 days following creation of the 
Stations’ OPIF, whichever is later.  
231 PCPC Comments at 21 (arguing that “any relevant regulations already apply by nature of an FM6 station’s status 
as a licensed LPTV station … [n]othing about FM6 operations justifies applying rules designed for primary stations to a station operating as a secondary service.”); PCPC Reply Comments at 14 -15; EMF 2015 Comments at 3- 4; 
Signal 2015 Comments at 8.  
232 47 U.S.C. § 336(b)(3).  
233 See supra para. 54.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
31 provision of the Act should apply.  There is no exception in either the  Act or our rules  from this 
requirement for stations with secondary status that are providing ancillary or supplementary services .  
Second, while LPTV and FM radio may have some overlapping rules, they are distinct and independent 
services with different r ules.234  For example, LPTV stations do not have an OPIF requirement and have 
different station identification requirements.235  The record is clear that the aim of these FM6 operations is 
to provide an audio service that is analogous to other FM radio servi ce and received using FM radio 
tuners .236  Therefore, we find that such FM6 operations provided by FM6 LPTV stations is analogous to 
those of licensed FM radio operations and should be regulated as such.  
58. We do, however, find that specific Part 73 technical  rules237 for full service FM radio 
stations should not apply to FM6 operations  because FM6 LPTV stations are operating on frequencies 
and subject to certain conditions that make the application of certain FM technical rules unnecessary and 
impractical.238  Although FM6 LPTV stations operate separate television and radio transmission systems, 
pursuant to the new rules we have adopted today, the FM6 operations will be restricted in certain respects.  
For example , FM6 LPTV stations are permitted to make changes to their FM6 station facilities only under 
very limited circumstances (without a showing of “engineering necessity” or a waiver) ,  are limited to 
operating on 87.75 MHz, may offer FM6 service only within the LPTV station’s protected contour, and 
may operate only on a non- interference basis.239  We have also limited the number of FM6 LPTV stations 
to a finite group that have already proven  they do not cause the interference that many of the  Part 73 
technical rules for FM stations  are intended to prevent .240  Accordingly, we find that applying the specific 
technical rules in sections 73.201- 73.277, 73.310- 73.312, and 73.314- 73.318 in the context of FM6 
operations are not only unnecessary, but could be contradictory to the specific rules we have adopted 
governing FM6 operations.    
3. Five Percent Fee For Ancillary or Supplementary Services  
59. Consistent with our determination to allow FM6 operations to continue on an ancillary or 
supplementary basis, we find that FM6 LPTV stations that offer feeable ancillary or supplementary services are subject to the five percent fee on the gross revenue of such services and must submit an 
Annual DTV Ancillary/Supplementary Services Report.
241  Commenters unanimously agree tha t FM6 
LPTV stations offering feeable ancillary or supplementary services should be subject to this fee and 
reporting requirement.242   
 
234 The situation before us is inherently different from the “FM multicast” scenario cited by PCPC where an FM 
radio station provides multiple HD streams all of which are all subject to the same FM radio operational rules.  
PCPC Comments at 21.  
235 Cf. 47 CFR § 74.783 with 47 CFR § 73.1201.  
236 See supra paras. 10-12. 
237 The FM radio technical rules are contained in 47 CFR § 73.201 –  73.333.  
238 See PCPC Comments at 21; PCPC Reply Comments at 14 -15; LSRC Comments at 4 -5 (Jan. 21, 2020).  
239 See supra Section III. C. 1 - Codifying Certain FM6 STA Conditions  and App. B –  Final Rules.  
240 See supra Section III.  B. – Limiting FM6 Operations To Existing Operators  and paras. 13-14. 
241 FCC Form 2100 Schedule 317.   See 47 CFR § 73.624(g)(1)(i); PCPC Comments at 16.  
242 See AVHN Comme nts at 4 (no objection to such a fee, provided that revenues derived from commercial 
advertisements would be excluded from the fee calculation, as is currently the case); Barreto Comments at 3 -4 (it is 
appropriate that FM6 services be considered ancillary or supplementary and subject to the fees imposed on revenues 
received from such services); Marquee Comments at 2 (imposing the five percent fee on FM6 operations will “strongly benefit the public by bringing in new monies to the FCC and the U.S. Treasury”) ; PCPC Comments at 18 
(if the licensee receives compensation in return for transmitting material other than commercial advertisements , 
those operations should be considered an ancillary service and subject to the 5 percent regulatory fee).  We also note 
(continued….)   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
32 60. As we observed in the Further Notice ,243 our ancillary or supplementary rules provide 
that digital television stations (inc luding digital LPTV stations) must annually remit a fee of five percent 
of the gross revenues derived from all “feeable” ancillary and supplementary services.244  The 
Commission has defined “feeable” ancillary or supplementary services as services for which  payment of a 
subscription fee or charge is required in order to receive the service,”245 or if no payment is required from 
consumers, the licensee “directly or indirectly receives compensation from a third party in return for the 
transmission of material p rovided by that third party (other than commercial advertisements used to 
support broadcasting for which a subscription fee is not required).”246  Given these rules, any FM6 LPTV 
station that provides “feeable services” is required to comply with the Rules and both remit the required 
fee and submit an Annual DTV Ancillary/Supplementary Services Report to indicate that they provided 
feeable services, the amount of gross revenues of such services, and whether they have remitted the 
requisite five percent fee.247   
D. Licensing of Additional NCE FM Stations  
61. We decline to adopt the proposal discussed in the Further Notice to repurpose TV6 
spectrum (82- 88 MHz) for FM services nationwide in locations where the channels are not being used to 
provide television programming.248  We find that the record does not support such a plan to remove a 
portion of the remaining spectrum al lotted for television use and converting it to radio use.  We find that 
the plan is neither feasible, because of the possibility of interference; nor efficient, because receivers are 
(Continued from previous page)   
that several FM6 LPTV stations began making fee payments on their FM6 operations.  See Further Notice  at n.111 
(noting that last year KBKF -LD, San Jose, California submitted a payment of $7,875 reflecting its five percent fee 
payment); see also Venture 2015 Comments at 8; Seattle 6 Comments at 1 (Jan. 22, 2020); PCPC Comments at 30-
31 (Jan. 22, 2020); PCPC Reply Comments at 10 (Feb. 6, 2020).  
243 Further Notice at paras. 39 -40. 
244 47 CFR § 73.624(g) ; see also  47 U.S.C. § 336(e).  
245 See 47 CFR § 73.624(g)(1)(i); see also  47 U.S.C. § 336(e)(1)(A).  Moreover, the rules provide that “[t]he fee 
required by this provision shall be imposed on any and all re venues from such services, including revenues derived 
from subscription fees and from any commercial advertisements transmitted on the service.”  See 47 CFR § 
73.624(g)(1)(i).  
246 See 47 CFR § 73.624(g)(1)(ii);  see also  47 U.S.C. § 336(e)(1)(B).  Fur ther, the rules provide that “[t]he fee 
required by this provision shall be imposed on any and all revenues from such services, other than revenues received 
from a third party in return for the transmission of commercial advertisements used to support broadcasting for 
which a subscription fee is not required.”  See  47 CFR. § 73.624(g)(1)(ii).  
247 The Media Bureau and Office of Managing Director are directed to issue any guidance, as necessary, to facilitate 
payment of the required fee.  
248 See Further Notice  at paras. 45 -49.  See also NPR Comments at 16.  In July 2020, NPR argued FM6 is not an 
efficient use of spectrum, the TV6 resource was not being fully utilized by television broadcasters and much of the 
spectrum was laying fallow, especially in the rural parts of the country.  Accordingly, we sought comment in the Further Notice  about whether to allow FM on 82- 88 MHz, whether it should be limited to NCEs, and technical 
feasibility.  Further Notice at para. 45 -49, citing Letter from Gregory A. Lewis, Deputy General Co unsel, NPR, to 
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, in MB Docket No. 03 -185 (Jul. 9, 2020) at 1 (NPR July 2020 Ex Parte ); see 
also Letter from Christina H. Burrow, Cooley, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, MB Docket No. 03 -185 (filed 
Apr. 13, 2021) (NPR April 2021 Ex Parte ).  In recent filings, NPR has modified its request to ask that the 
Commission instead make changes to interference protections.  See, e.g., NPR Comments at 15 -16; see also  Letter 
from Amanda Huetinck, Assistant General Counsel, NPR, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, in MB Docket No. 03-185 (Jul. 25, 2022) at 1 (NPR July 2022 Ex Parte ) (stating NPR supports “the Commission’s proposal to allow 
permanent operation of legacy FM6 operations, so long as FM6 operations are limited to only t he legacy stations 
discussed in the NPRM and those operations are subject to appropriate rules to ensure parity with FM stations.”); see 
also NPR Reply Comments at 3 -6.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
33 not capable of receiving FM stations below 87.7 FM; nor appropriate, beca use TV6 spectrum is still 
needed for broadcast television use.   
62. First, we agree with commenters that the interference implications of NPR’s plan to 
reallocate unused TV6 spectrum have not been adequately considered.249  Further, we find that NPR’s 
stated efficiency goal of adding up to 30 new FM channels cannot be achieved because it would not be 
possible to use all 30 channels in one place.250  Although in theory 30 FM channels are available in the 
band that comprises TV6, in practice it would not be possible to use all 30 channels in one place given interference considerations.
251  Practically speaking, the number of channels for use by new FM radio 
stations in any one area would be significantly fewer .252 
63. We find that even in places where there are available allocations for FM stations under 
the proposal, listeners would not be able to receive most transmissions because FM radio receivers 
receiv e only the top- most portion of the 82- 88 MHz band (87.7 or 87.9 MHz) of the 6 MHz channel that 
comprises TV6.253  We agree with commenter concerns that FM radio receivers cannot “tune down” to 
the rest of the spectrum – 82.1- 87.5 MHz.254  Therefore, we agree  that it would be impractical to 
reallocate unused TV6 spectrum for use by new FM radio stations when it is unlikely that listeners would 
be able to receive most of the broadcasts from these new FM radio stations.255 
64. Finally, although some commenters suppor t NPR’s  proposal by suggesting that it is a 
better use of spectrum because TV6 is not ideal for digital television broadcasting,256 we disagree, and 
note that many TV stations operate on TV6.  According to NAB, as of July 2022, 98 television stations were authorized to operate on TV6 in the United States.
257  Some of these stations serve large, sparsely 
 
249 See Bovis Comments at 1; Bovis  Reply Comments at 1; KTL Comments at 3 (no objection to NPR's proposal as 
long as the FCC establishes protection from interference so that NCE stations and FM6 operations can co- exist); 
REC Reply Comments at 14 (“NPR's comments also lack any kind of technical showing that would need to be 
implemented in the event that Channel 200 or any other channels in the 76- 88 MHz spectrum were to be opened for 
sound broadcasting.”).  
250 See Further Notice at para. 47.   
251 Id.  See also PCPC Comments at 10.  
252 Further Notice  at n.124 (noting as an example that in New York City, there are only 7 full -power radio stations 
licensed to the top 6 MHz of the FM radio band.  The other 23 frequencies are licensed to stations on Long Island, 
New Jersey, Connecticut, and areas of New York north of New York City to avoid interference.).   
253 See Further Notice at para. 48.  
254 See Ridgeline Comments at 1 -2  (“Extending the FM band lower into channel 6 bandwidth is a non- starter. With 
no receivers in automobiles capable of receiving these frequencies it would be ineffective use of bandwidth to use 
channel 6 for radio.”); OMI Comments at 1 (“most all of the car radios in the United States do not tune down further than 87.5 MHz”); PCPC Comments at 10 (“listeners would not even be able to receive FM stations below 87.7”).  
255 See CMC Comments at 1 (“If the spectrum was made available for radio, there wouldn't be anyone who could 
receive it, and this would deprive the use of this spectrum for TV for which receivers are ubiquitous.”).  
256 See, e.g., Marquee Comments at 1 (“it boils down to an argument of whether a television broadcaster’s FM 
station is any better or worse than a non- profit station’s use of the channel”); IBS Comments at 3 (“IBS strongly 
supports reserving 87.5, 87.7, and 87.9 for new NCE FM stations, and opposes the authorization of a hybrid commercial and NCE operation for stations operating at such frequencies.”); CFI Comments at 1 -2 (“FCC should 
adopt 82- 88 MHz across the United States for FM radio broadcasting. ”); Lee C omments at 1 (“it would be  far more 
effective to repurpose the TV Channel 6 spectrum to up to 30 new all -digital FM radio stations, rather than limit the 
“TV6” spectrum to just one “Franken FM station”); Rogers Comments at 3 (TV channels 2- 6 “are seen as a no-
man’s land by TV stations now with only a handful of stations broadcasting across these five channels”); REC Comments at 9 (the current trend for full -service TV stations is to move from low VHF channels to channels in the 
high VHF and UHF spectrum).  
257 See NAB Comments at 2 (July 18, 2022).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
34 populated areas where the relatively low power consumption of TV6 transmitters makes it economical to 
provide television service to rural Americans.  Others s erve densely populated urban areas where no 
alternative channels exist in more desirable spectrum.258  Furthermore, ATBA contends a number of TV6 
stations could also serve as “lighthouse” stations for NextGen TV, providing a critical transition path for  
television broadcasters as they migrate to ATSC 3.0.259  The record persuades us that 82 -88 MHz is still 
needed for television, especially given that the UHF spectrum available for broadcast  television  has been 
dramatically reduced in recent years.260  Therefor e, we decline to repurpose TV6 spectrum in areas where 
there are presently no TV6 stations to permit the construction of new FM stations that , in many cases, 
listeners will be unable to receive because their receivers cannot “tune down” to the lower portions of the  
82-88 MHz frequency  (i.e., 82.1- 87.5 MHz ).261 
E. Elimination of Certain  TV6 Interference Protections 
65. Although we received comments on this matter,262 we did not receive sufficient technical 
studies and analysis upon which to base any final decisions to revise our TV6 interference rules.  Any 
changes to these rules, which were originally adopted when television was operating in analog, would 
need to reflec t the fact that all television is now operating in digital.  Despite asking in the Further Notice  
for commenters to analyze the existing digital television landscape and suggest whether and how the 
existing TV6 interference provisions should be retained, r evised or updated, we received little comment to 
that effect.263  Therefore, given the incomplete nature of the record, we decline to revise the TV6 
interference rules at this time.  We will seek additional comment about this matter at a future date.264  We 
 
258 Id.  See also PCPC Reply Comments at 15 -16 (“Between the need for television service on channel 6 and the 
demonstrated problems with an expanded FM band, preserving existing channel 6 stations and service to their 
viewers remains in the public interest.”).  
259 ATBA Comments at 6 (“ But it also cannot be ignored that LPTV stations are uniquely situated to deliver next 
generation video and data services that harness the power of broadcast technology to benefit the public  without the 
constraints faced by many full power stations… .”).  See also Public Media Reply Comments at 1 (“Any reduction in 
spectrum available for television services could severely hinder implementation of new innovative television 
technologies, such as  NextGen TV (ATSC 3.0) and distributed transmission systems . . . .”).  
260 See Public Media Comments at 2 -3 (discussing the impact of the television incentive auction and post -incentive 
auction repacking process).  
261 See NAB Comments at 3 (July 18, 2022) (“However, the minimal relief afforded by a limited repurposing of TV 
channel 6  to the FM service in areas where there are presently no channel 6 stations is unlikely to outweigh the 
potential costs.”); Bovis Reply at 2 (arguing that NPR’s proposal prioritizes currently non- existent radio listeners 
over existing TV viewers of channel s 5 and 6).  
262 See University of Alabama Reply Comments at 1- 3; ATBA Comments at 7 -8; Bovis Comments at 2; CFI 
Comments at 10; CMC Comments at 1; CTI Reply Comments at 1; EMF Reply Comments at 1- 5; IBS Comments at 
4; Luna Comments at 1; NAB Comments at 9- 10 and Reply Comments at 5- 6; NPR Comments at 12- 15 and Reply 
Comments at 5 -6; OMI Comments at 1; PCPC Comments at 23- 24 and Reply Comments at 17- 18; Public Media 
Reply Comments at 1- 2; Reed Comments at 6 -7; REC Networks Comments at 25 and Reply Comments at 5 -13 and 
21-22; SOL Comments at 11- 12; WPVI Comments at 2- 6 and Reply Comments at 1 -4; Letter from Michelle 
Bradley . Founder,  REC Networks, MB Docket No. 03- 185 at 1-2 (filed July 3, 202 3).  
263 See Further Notice at paras. 54 and 56.  
264 In addition, NPR prop osed that the Commission adopt a narrow rule change to enable existing NCE FM radio 
stations to modify their authorizations to relocate to channel 200 (87.9 MHz).  See NPR Comments at 15 -16; NPR 
Reply Comments at 6- 7.  As this change could impact our revis ions to the TV6 interference rules, we find that it 
would be more appropriate to consider NPR’s proposal in conjunction with a future TV6 interference proceeding.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
35 encourage interested parties to continue to work together to find a solution and develop comprehensive 
technical studies to support their position.265 
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS  
66. Regulatory Flexibility Act .  The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA),266 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.”
267  Accordingly, we have prepared a Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the possible impact of the rule changes contained in this Report and Order on small entities.  The FRFA is set forth in Appendix C. 
67. Paperwork Reduction Act.  The R&O  contains a new or modified information collection 
requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law No. 104-13.  It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA.  
OMB, th e general public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the new or modified 
information collection requirement contained in the proceeding.  In addition, we note that pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
268 we prev iously sought specific comment on how we 
might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”
269  We have described impacts that might affect small businesses, which includes most 
businesses with fewer than 25 employees, in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), attached as Appendix C. 
68. 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 Fifth Report and Order  to Congress and the Government Accountability office, pursuant to 
5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A). 
69. 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. 
70. A dditional Information.  For additional information on this proceeding, please contact 
Shaun Maher, Video Division, Media Bureau at (202) 418-2324 or, Mark Colombo , Video Division, 
Media Bureau at (202) 418-7611 or Mark.Colombo@fcc.gov .  
V. ORDERING  CLAUSES  
71. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4, 301, 
303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, and 336 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
§§ 151, 154, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, and 336, this Fifth Report Order IS ADOPTED. 
72. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 4, 
301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, and 336 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
 
265 REC Networks (REC) included a petition for rulemaking requesting that the Commission consider the 
reallocation of television channels 5 and 6 for use with a new “WIDE FM” service.  See REC Comments at 26 -109; 
REC Reply Comments at 58.  We conclude that REC’s proposal is outside of the scope of this proceeding and will 
not be considered in this R &O. 
266 5 U.S.C. §§ 601– 612.  The RFA 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).  
267 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).  
268 Pub. L. No. 107 -198. 
269 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(4).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
36 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 336, part 74 of the Commission’s rules, 47 
CFR part 74, IS AMENDED as set forth in Appendix B effective thirty (30) days after publication in the 
Federal Register, except for sections 74.790(o)(9) and 74.790(o)(10) which contain new or modified information collection requirements that require review and approval by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act.  The Commission directs the Media Bureau to 
announce the effective date of that information coll ection in a document published in the Federal Register 
after the Commission receives OMB approval.  
73. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Office of the Secretary, Reference 
Information Center, SHALL SEND  a copy of the Fifth Report and Order , including the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.  
74. 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 Fifth 
Report and Order to Congress and to the Government Accountability Office.  
      FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  
 
 
 
 
      Marlene H. Dortch  
      Secretary Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58 
37 APPENDIX A  
 
List of Commenters and Reply Commenters  
 
Comments  
Advanced Television Broadcasting Alliance (ATBA)  
AlmaVision Hispanic Network, Inc. (AHNI) 
Public Media - America's Public Television Stations, Joint Licensee Group, National Educational 
Telecommunications Association, Public Broadcasting Service (Public Media)  
Barreto, Juan Matos (Barreto)  
Bogner, Richard (Bogner)  
Bovis, Hank (Bovis) CMC Broad casting Company Incorporated (CMC) 
Cocola Broadcasting Cos. LLC (Cocola or CBC) Common Frequency, Inc. (CFI) 
Flinn, George (Flinn) 
Gerald Benavides (Benavides)  
Guadalupe Radio (GR)  
Intercollegiate Broadcasting System, Inc. (IBS)  
Kids Television LLC (KTL)  
Woodward - KORE Broadcasting, LLC (Woodward) Luna Foods, Inc. (Luna) 
Marquee Broadcasting, Inc. (MBI)  
Metro TV, Inc. (Metro TV) 
National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)  
National Public Radio, Inc. (NPR) Rogers, Nelson Jay (Rogers) 
One Ministries, Inc. (OM I) 
Preserve Community Programming Coalition (PCPC)  
Lee - QXZ Media Works LLC (Lee)  
Read, Aaron (Read) 
REC Networks (REC)  
Signal Above, LLC (Signal) 
Sound of Long Island, Inc. (Sound) 
T Z Sawyer Technical Consultants (TZ)  
VCY America, Inc. (VCY) WPVI Televi sion (Philadelphia), LLC (WPVI) 
 
Reply Comments  
Bogner 
Bovis 
California State University Long Beach Research Foundation (Cal State) 
Cocola or CBC  
Communications Technologies, Inc. (CTI) Educational Media Foundation (EMF) La Favorita  Radio Network, Inc. (LFRN) 
OMI  
Public Media 
Metro TV  
NAB  
NPR  
PCPC  
REC  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
38 Squires, Caleb (Squires)  
Ridgeline TV (Ridgeline)  
University of Alabama 
WPVI  
 
Ex Partes 
Metro TV, filed June 1, 2022 Metro TV, filed November 7, 2022 Metro TV, filed November 15, 2022 
NPR, filed July 25, 2022 
REC, filed September 14, 2022 
REC, filed July 7, 2023 
Venture Technologies Group, filed July 1, 2022 (Venture)  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
39 APPENDIX B  
 
Final Rules  
  
Part 74 of Title 47 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations is amended to read as  follows:   
 
1.  The authority citation for part 74 continues to read as follows:   
 
Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 310, 336, and 554.   
 
2.  Add s ection 74.790(o)  to read  as follows:  
 
74.790 -  Permissible service of digital TV translator a nd LPTV stations.  
 
* * * * *  
 
(o) Provision of analog FM radio operations by digital LPTV channel 6 stations (FM6 LPTV stations).  
FM6 LPTV stations may provide analog FM radio operations (FM6 operations) on an ancillary or 
supplementary basis subject to the following:  
(1) The FM6 LPTV station must have been providing FM6 operations pursuant to an active 
engineering special temporary authority on June 7, 2022, or as otherwise permitted by the Commission.  
(2) The FM6 LPTV station must be operating in ATSC 3.0 digital format, as authorized in  § 
74.782.  
(3) FM6 operations may only be conducted on 87.75 MHz. 
(4) FM6 operations shall be conducted on a non- interference basis to any other licensed user, 
including but not limited to broadcast television or radio users.  
(5) the FM6 LPTV station’s FM6 service contour must be contained within and may not exceed 
the protected contour of the FM6 LPTV station’s synchronized video/audio programming stream. These contours shall be determined using established methodologie s in § 73.313 of this chapter (FM radio) and 
§ 74.792 (LPTV).  
(6) the FM6 LPTV station must provide at least one stream of synchronized video and audio 
programming, at any time the station is operating.  
(7) FM6 LPTV stations may make minor modifications to  their technical facilities, as otherwise 
permitted under parts 73 or 74 of this chapter , so long as the station’s proposed modified “protected 
contour,” as defined in § 74.792 , does not exceed its protected contour as it was authorized on July 20, 
2023, or where the station can demonstrate that such change is being made due to an engineering 
necessity such as the loss of a tower site or change in equipment due to malfunction and where the station 
can also demonstrate that the modification will not cause a ny interference to other licensed users.  
(8) FM6 LPTV stations may be assigned or transferred; however, an FM6 LPTV station’s FM6 
operation is not severable from its digital license and may not be assigned or transferred separate from the 
FM6 LPTV station.  
(9) FM6 LPTV stations must notify the Media Bureau within 30 days of permanently ceasing 
FM6 operations.  Such notification hall be made by written letter and mailed to the FCC Office of the 
Secretary, Attention:  Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau.  If an FM6 LPTV station permanently ceases 
FM6 operations, FM6 operations may not resume.  
(10) FM6 LPTV stations must certify in an attachment to their license renewal application that 
they have continued to provide FM6 service in accordance with the FM6 rule s during the prior license 
term.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
40 (11) FM6 LPTV stations shall continue to be subject to all part 73 and 74 rules applicable to low 
power television stations.  In addition, the following rules shall apply to FM6 LPTV stations with respect 
to their FM6 operations:  
Part 11 of this chapter  The Emergency Alert System (EAS)  
73.293 Use of FM multiplex subcarriers . 
73.295 FM subsidiary communications services . 
73.297 FM stereophonic sound broadcasting.  
73.310 FM technical definitions.  
73.313  Prediction of coverage . 
73.319 FM multiplex subcarrier technical standards . 
73.322 FM stereophonic sound transmission standards . 
73.333 Engineering c harts  
73.1201 Station identification. 
73.1206 Broadcast of telephone conversations.  
73.1207 Rebroadcasts.  
73.1208 Broadcast of taped, filmed, or recorded material.  
73.1209 References to time. 
73.1211 Broadcast of lottery information.  
73.1212 Sponsorship identification; list retention; related requirements.  
73.1216 Licensee -conducted contests.  
73.1217 Broadcast hoaxes.  
73.1250 Broadcasting emergency information.  
73.1300 Unattended station operation.  
73.1635 Special temporary authorizations (STA).  
73.1740 Minimum operating schedule.  
73.1750 Discontinuance of operation.  
73.1940 Legally qualified candidates for publ ic office.  
73.1941 Equal opportunities. 
73.1942 Candidate rates.  
73.1943 Political file.  
73.1944 Reasonable access.  
73.2080 Equal employment opportunities (EEO).  
73.3526 Online public inspection file of commercial stations.  
73.4005 Advertising -  refusal to sell.  
73.4045 Barter agreements.  
73.4055 Cigarette advertising. 
73.4060 Citizens agreements.  
73.4075 Commercials, loud. 
73.4095 Drug lyrics.  
73.4097 EBS (now EAS) attention signals on automated programing systems.  
73.4165 Obscene language.  
73.4170 Obscene broadcasts.  
73.4180 Payment disclosure: Payola, plugola, kickbacks.  
73.4185 Political broadcasting and telecasting, the law of.  
73.4190 Political candidate authorization notice and sponsorship identification.  
73.4215 Program matter: Supplier ide ntification.  
73.4242 Sponsorship identification rules, applicability of.  
73.4250 Subliminal perception.  
73.4255 Tax certificates: Issuance of.  
73.4260 Teaser announcements.  
73.4265 Telephone conversation broadcasts (network and like sources).  
  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
41 APPENDIX C  
 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis  
 
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA)1 an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the 
Commission’s Rules to Establish Rules for Digital Low Power Television and Television Translator 
Stations , Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice ) released June 7, 2022.2  The Commission 
sought written public comment on the proposals in the Further Notice, 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. This Report and Order adopts rule changes to allow channel 6 digital low power 
television stations that have been providing analog FM radio services, and only those stations, to continue their FM6 operations, subject to certain conditions which will also be codified in the rules.  Continuing to 
allow existing FM6 operations serves the public interest and minimizes service disruptions to 
programming on which listeners have relied.   
3. In the Report and Order , the Commission adopts rules for FM6 operations, including that 
FM6 LPTV  stations must operate i n ATSC 3.0 digital format, must transmit FM6 at 87.75 MHz, and FM6 
operations must not interfere with any other licensed user .  The coverage area of an FM6 LPTV  station’s 
analog FM radio operation may not exceed the coverage area of the LPTV station’s ATSC  3.0 
synchronized video/audio programming stream .  FM6 LPTV  stations must also provide at least one 
stream of synchronized video and audio programming on the ATSC 3.0 portion of the spectrum at any time the station is operating .  FM6 LPTV  stations may make  modifications to their technical facilities, as 
otherwise permitted under Part 74 of the rules, so long as the protected contour of the station’s modified 
facilities remains within its current protected contour.  
4. The Report and Order also adopts reporting requirements, requiring that if an FM6 LPTV  
station decides to permanently discontinue FM6 operations, it must notify the Media Bureau within 30 days of permanently ceasing FM6 operations .  FM6 LPTV  stations must also certify in an attachment to 
their octe nnial license renewal application that they have continued to provide FM6 operations in 
accordance with the FM6 rules during their prior license term .  Section 74.763(c) of the r ules apply to 
FM6 operations, so that an FM6 LPTV  station that does not provide an FM6 operation for a period of 30 
days or more , absent circumstances beyond its control , will be deemed to have permanently discontinued 
FM6 operations .  Additionally, FM6 LPTV  stations must include all of the items required by the  public 
inspection fi le (PIF) rule for full service FM radio stations in their LPTV station PIF.  
5. The Report and Order also adopts requirements for application of Part 73 and 74 rules to 
these stations and services.  FM6 LPTV  stations will continue to be subject to all applicab le Part 73 and 
74 rules that pertain to their television station operations, and their FM6 operations will be separately 
subject to those Part 73 rules to which full service FM radio stations are currently subject, as contained in 
our new FM6 rule – 74.790 (o). 
 
1 See 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, see  5 U.S.C. §§ 601 -612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104- 121, Title II, 110 Stat. 847 (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 , Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 03- 185, FCC 22- 40, 
Appx. C  (2022)  (Further Notice ). 
3 See 5 U.S.C. § 604.   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
42 6. Finally, the Report and Order  adopts the fee requirements for FM6 LPTV  stations.  Any 
FM6 LPTV station that receives compensation for the transmission of material by a third party, other than 
commercial advertisements used to support non-subscription based broadcasting, on its FM6 operation 
shall be subject to the existing rule requiring a five percent fee on gross revenues from such 
compensation.  FM6 LPTV  stations that do not receive such compensation shall not be subject to the five 
percent fee.  Any FM6 LPTV  station providing feeable ancillary or supplementary services must submit 
an Annual DTV Ancillary/Supplementary Services Report and report that they provided such fee- based 
services, the amount of gross revenues of such services, and whether they have remitted the requisite five percent fee.  
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA  
7. 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  
8. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, 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   
9. 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  
10. The RFA direct s the Commission to provide a description of and, where feasible, an 
estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the rules adopted herein.5  The RFA 
generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” 
“small organization,” and “small government jurisdiction.”6  In addition, the term “small business” has 
the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.7  A small business 
concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration.8 
11. 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 
 
4 Id. § 604(a)(3).  
5 Id. § 603(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).  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.”  5 U.S.C. § 601(3 ). 
8 15 U.S.C. § 632.   
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.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
43 establishments also produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, 
whic h in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule.11  Programming may 
originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.12  The SBA small 
business size standard for this industry classifies businesses having $41.5 million or less in annual 
receipts as small.13  2017 U.S. Census Bureau data indicate that 744 firms in this industry operated for the 
entire year.14  Of that number, 657 firms had revenue of less than $25,000,000.15  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 March 31, 2023, there were 1,375 licensed commercial television stations.
16  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 BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on April 7, 
2023, and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.   In addition, the 
Commission estimates as of March 31, 2023, there were 383 licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) 
television stations, 381 Class A TV stations, 1,887 LPTV stations and 3,119 TV translator stations.17  The 
Commission, however, does not c ompile 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. The Report and Order contains new reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance 
requirements for the licensing and certification for small entity FM6 LPTV  stations that provid e FM6 
service.  
14. 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 because many of these requirements are part of an existing reporting 
process.  
15. The Report and Order  adopts four new reporting requirements for FM6 LPTV  stations 
that wish  to continue to or cease to provide FM6 service, including the requirement that FM6 LPTV  
stations notify the Media Bureau within 30 days if they decide to permanently discontinue FM6 
operations.  FM6 LPTV  stations must certify in an attachment to their octennial license renewal 
 
11 Id. 
12 Id. 
13 See 13 CFR § 121.201,  NAICS Code 515120 (as of 10/1/22 NAICS Code 516120).  
14 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.  
15 Id.  The a vailable 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 . 
16 Broadcast Station Totals as of March 31, 2023, Public Notice, DA 23- 300 (MB rel. Apr. 6, 2023)  (March  2023 
Broadcast Station Totals PN ), https://www.fcc.gov/document/broadcast -station -totals -march -31-2023 . 
17 Id.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
44 application that they have continued to provide FM6 operations in accordance with the FM6 rules during 
their prior license term.  FM6 LPTV  stations must also include all of the items required by the PIF rule 
for full service FM radio  stations in their LPTV station PIF .  Additionally, FM6 LPTV  stations that 
provided feeable ancillary or supplementary service must submit an Annual DTV 
Ancillary/Supplementary Services Report and report that they provided feeable services, the amount of 
gross revenues of such services and whether they have remitted the requisite five percent fee.  These 
requirements will result in a modified paperwork obligation for small entities and other licensees.  The Commission will seek the requisite approval, such as those required to comply with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
18 to account for the increased burdens resulting from this modified 
reporting requirement.  
F. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and Significant 
Alternative s Considered  
16. 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 alternativ e 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 
17. The actions taken by the Commission in the Report and Order were considered t o 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 Report and  Order  to minimize any significant economic 
impact on small entities and some alternatives that were considered.  
18. Among the alternatives considered to minimize significant impact on small entities, the 
Commission considered whether FM6 programming could be delivered via another delivery method such as other broadcast methods or internet only, and found that these methods were less efficient and 
potentially more costly to small entities than maintaining the existing service.
20  The Commission also 
considered whether to preserve or alter the service contour for FM6 service.  In deciding that the service 
contour not exceed the protected contour of the LPTV station’s ATSC 3.0 synchronized video/audio 
programming stream, the Commission determined that alternative approaches presented where 
impractical and overly burdensome.21 
19. It is anticipated that some of the new reporting requirements will likely result in minimal 
additional costs because the Commission adopted requirements which can be executed as part of an 
existing process and within the timeframe for certain other filing requirements.   This includes certifying 
in an attachment to an existing octennial license renewal application that the station provided FM6 service 
during the prior license te rm in accordance with the FM6 rules.  Further,  FM6 LPTV  stations must adhere 
to the requirements of licensed users providing similar services, including the PIF rule for full service FM 
radio stations in their LPTV station PIF , and submitting an Annual DTV Ancillary/Supplementary 
Services Report if they provide a feeable service, report provision of feeable services, their gross 
revenues, and whether they have remitted the requisite five percent fee .   
 
18 Pub. L. No. 104 -13. 
19 5 U.S.C. § 60 4(a)(6 ). 
20 Report and Order  at paras.  13-15; Further Notice  at para.  21. 
21 Report and Order  at paras.  40-41; Further Notice  at para.  30-31.  Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58  
 
45 G. Report to Congress  
20. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order , including this FRFA, in a 
report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.22  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.  A 
copy of the Report and Order, and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal 
Register .23
 
22 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).  
23 See Id. § 604(b).   Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58 
46 STAT EMENT OF  
CHAIRWOMAN JESSICA ROSENWORCEL  
 
Re: 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, Fifth Report and 
Order (July 20, 2023).  
 
Back in the 1980’s a small number of low power television stations operating on channel 6 began 
to provide supplemental audio programming.  They took advantage of the physics of their location on the 
broadcast television band, because the uppermost portion of t he channel where these television stations 
made their home was also capable of reception on the lowermost portion of the FM radio dial.   
 
So far, so good.  Because ultimately this led to more broadcast services to more people in the 
community.  But when t he low power digital television transition rolled around, this got complicated—
fast.  That’s because when these stations upgraded to digital transmission, they were unable to reach their 
analog radio audience.    
 
For the past two years, we have kept these stations on the air with the equivalent of regulatory 
gum and bailing wire.  We set up a temporary process that allowed for the use of a separate analog radio 
transmitter in combination with a digital television facility.   
 
Now it is time for something sturdier and more permanent.  In light of the fact that we have had 
two years of experience with this arrangement and no incidents of interference with television operations 
and adjacent licensees, including other stations on FM radio, we are aut horizing these FM6 stations to 
continue providing analog radio service as “ancillary or supplementary services” under the Communications Act.  
 
That may sound technical.  But to the communities these stations serve it really matters.  Right 
here in Washingt on, for instance, WDCN —La Nueva is one of these stations. Broadcasting out of 
Fairfax, Virginia, it is targeted to those with ties to Central America, featuring public service 
programming, music, and content from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.  This  is a small station 
that is a big deal to its listeners.  We make it possible today for them to continue to broadcast to their radio listeners, because we know in a world where content feels like it is everywhere, there is still 
something special about loc al radio and a signal in the air.   
 
Thank you to the team responsible for this effort, including Jim Bradshaw, Mark Colombo, Robin 
Fagan, Tom Horan, Barbara Kreisman, Shaun Maher, Evan Morris, Holly Saurer, and Al Shuldiner from the Media Bureau as well a s David Konczal and Anjali Singh from the Office of General Counsel.    Federal Communications Commission  FCC 23 -58 
47 STATEMENT OF  
COMMISSIONER BRENDAN CARR  
 
Re:  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, Fifth Report and Order (July 20, 
2023). 
 
Throughout his life, Percy Spencer was many things —an orphan, a farmer, a drop out, a Navy 
man, and a self -taught engineer.  In 1945, it was his love of electricity that had brought him to the 
Raytheon Corporation.  Among other things, Percy was responsibl e for testing magnetrons, which are 
vacuum tubes inside of radars that operate at very high power levels.   
 
Now, in addition to being a jack of all trades, Percy had a bit of a sweet tooth.  And on one 
particular day, he had a candy bar in his pocket.  Af ter a while, and more than a few close passes to the 
magnetrons, he noticed that the candy bar had melted.  In fact, it had gotten quite warm.  
 Percy thought he might be on to something, but, being a man of science, he needed more proof.  
Next came some p opcorn kernels that started popping like mad.  Then came an egg that blew up in the 
face of a skeptical colleague.  I can’t say for certain that this is where we got the expression “egg on your 
face,” but I can say that these culinary adventures brought us  what we now know as the microwave.  
 
Today’s item presents us with a similar story of serendipity.  For many years, the Commission 
has been trying to figure out what to do with the FM6 stations.  And just when it looked like the DTV 
transition would be the  final entry in the FM6 Wikipedia page —yes, they have their own Wikipedia 
page —a new technology breathed life into the service.  I have long believed that ATSC 3.0 would 
revolutionize the broadcast television industry, but I had no idea that this cutting- edge technology would 
help preserve over -the-air radio service near the bottom of the TV band.  So I applaud the ingenuity of 
these stations, and I am pleased that, moving forward, they will also be increasing their video programming in ATSC 3.0.  
 If I’m be ing honest, I doubt our action today will be as consequential as Percy’s discovery.  After 
all, there are probably over a hundred microwaves in the FCC Headquarters alone.  But for the listeners in these markets who have come to rely on these stations for entertainment and emergency information, our 
action today may be just as meaningful.  
 
I would like to thank the Media Bureau staff for their long and diligent work on this matter.  The 
item has my support.