Home/Federal/Federal Register/2021-26375

Proposed Rule2021-26375

Authorizing Permissive Use of the “Next Generation” Broadcast Television Standard

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

December 13, 2021

Issuing agencies

Federal Communications Commission

Abstract

In this document, the Commission proposes changes to its Next Gen TV rules designed to preserve over-the-air television viewers' access to the widest possible range of programming while also supporting television broadcasters' transition to the next generation of broadcast digital television (DTV) technology. In response to a Petition filed by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), the Commission proposes to allow Next Gen TV stations to include within their license certain of their non-primary video programming streams (multicast streams) that are aired in a different service on ``host'' stations during a transitional period, using the same licensing framework, and to a large extent the same regulatory regime, established for the simulcast of primary video programming streams on ``host'' station facilities.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 236 (Monday, December 13, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 236 (Monday, December 13, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70793-70808]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26375]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 73 and 74

[GN Docket No. 16-142; FCC 21-116; FR ID 60151]

Authorizing Permissive Use of the ``Next Generation'' Broadcast
Television Standard

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission proposes changes to its Next
Gen TV rules designed to preserve over-the-air television viewers'
access to the widest possible range of programming while also
supporting television broadcasters' transition to the next generation
of broadcast digital television (DTV) technology. In response to a
Petition filed by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), the
Commission proposes to allow Next Gen TV stations to include within
their license certain of their non-primary video programming streams
(multicast streams) that are aired in a different service on ``host''
stations during a transitional period, using the same licensing
framework, and to a large extent the same regulatory regime,
established for the simulcast of primary video programming streams on
``host'' station facilities.

DATES: Comments are due on or before February 11, 2022; reply comments
are due on or before March 14, 2022. Written comments on the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) proposed information collection requirements must
be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and
other interested parties on or before February 11, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 16-142,
by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/">http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
<bullet> Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050

[[Page 70794]]

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
<bullet> U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
<bullet> Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and
Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788 (OMD
2020). See <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<bullet> During the time the Commission's building is closed to the
general public and until further notice, if more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of a proceeding, paper filers
need not submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number; an original and one copy are sufficient.
People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4b2d28287e7b7f0b2d2828652c243d">[email&#160;protected]</a> or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (TTY). Comments regarding the PRA proposed information
collection requirements. ``Currently under 60-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function. Your comment must be
submitted into <a href="http://www.reginfo.gov">www.reginfo.gov</a> per the above instructions for it to be
considered. In addition to submitting in <a href="http://www.reginfo.gov">www.reginfo.gov</a> also send a
copy of your comment on the proposed information collection to Cathy
Williams, FCC via email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6f3f3d2e2f090c0c41080019">[email&#160;protected]</a> and to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#642705100c1d4a330d08080d050917240207074a030b12">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this
proceeding, contact Evan Baranoff, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#034675626d2d416271626d6c6565436560602d646c75">[email&#160;protected]</a>, of the Media
Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-2120. Direct press inquiries to
Janice Wise at (202) 418-8165. For additional information concerning
the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements
contained in this document, send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#20707261604643430e474f56">[email&#160;protected]</a> or contact
Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), FCC 21-116, adopted on
November 4, 2021 and released on November 5, 2021. The full text of
this document is available electronically via the FCC's Electronic
Document Management System (EDOCS) website at <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/edocs">https://www.fcc.gov/edocs</a>
or via the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) website at
<a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>. (Documents will be available electronically
in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) Alternative formats
are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fc9a9f9fc9ccc8bc9a9f9fd29b938a">[email&#160;protected]</a>
or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at
(202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Synopsis

I. Introduction

1. In this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), we
propose changes to our Next Gen TV rules designed to preserve over-the-
air (OTA) television viewers' access to the widest possible range of
programming while also supporting television broadcasters' transition
to the next generation of broadcast digital television (DTV)
technology. In response to a Petition filed by the National Association
of Broadcasters (NAB), we propose to allow Next Gen TV stations \2\ to
include within their license certain of their non-primary video
programming streams (multicast streams) \3\ that are aired in a
different service on ``host'' stations \4\ during a transitional
period, using the same licensing framework, and to a large extent the
same regulatory regime, established for the simulcast of primary video
programming streams on ``host'' station facilities.\5\ Given that Next
Gen TV stations must, without any additional allocation of spectrum,
prioritize serving ATSC 1.0 viewers while voluntarily transitioning to
ATSC 3.0, we seek to take actions that will minimize viewer disruption
as much as possible. Specifically, this FNPRM seeks to facilitate and
encourage partnerships that will minimize potential disruptions by
permitting stations in a market to work together to preserve viewers'
access to ATSC 1.0-formatted programming during the transition. We
intend to facilitate broadcasters' voluntary transition to 3.0, which
can provide consumers with the benefit of new and innovative services,
while protecting consumers who continue to rely on 1.0 equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ By ``Next Gen TV'' broadcaster or station, we mean a
television broadcaster or station that has obtained Commission
approval and commenced broadcasting its signal using the ATSC 3.0
standard in its local market. A station can deploy ATSC 3.0 service
either by converting its own facility to ATSC 3.0 or by airing its
ATSC 3.0 signal(s) on a station in its local market that has
converted its facility to ATSC 3.0 (which we refer to as an ATSC 3.0
``host'' station). For purposes of this FNPRM, a station's ``own''
channel or facility refers to the channel and facility on which it
operated prior to its transition to ATSC 3.0 (even if it has already
converted to operate in 3.0). We use this term to distinguish
between operations on this facility and a station's operations on a
host facility.
\3\ For purposes of this FNPRM, ``multicast'' stream(s) refers
to a TV broadcast station's non-primary video programming stream(s);
that is, stream(s) other than the station's primary video
programming stream.
\4\ A ``host'' station is one whose facilities are being used to
transmit programming originated by another station (``guest'') as
part of a local simulcasting arrangement. We propose below that, as
with primary stream simulcasting, host and guest stations may not be
broadcasting in the same service (i.e., a guest station that
continues to broadcast in ATSC 1.0 may only seek a host or hosts
broadcasting in ATSC 3.0).
\5\ We also expect to modify our Next Gen TV license application
form (FCC Form 2100) to accommodate this change. We note that our
proposed rules do not prohibit the use of private contractual
arrangements for partner stations to air their multicast streams.
For regulatory compliance purposes, such streams would be considered
multicast streams of the host partner station, not the originator
station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

2. Next Gen TV is the newest broadcast TV transmission standard,
developed by the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC), that
promises to enable broadcasters to deliver an array of new services and
enhanced content features to consumers. In 2017, the Commission
authorized television broadcasters to use the Next Gen TV transmission
standard, also called ``ATSC 3.0'' or ``3.0,'' on a voluntary, market-
driven basis. The Commission required that broadcasters voluntarily
deploying ATSC 3.0 service must, with very limited exceptions,\6\
continue to air at least their primary stream using the current-
generation DTV transmission standard, also called ``ATSC 1.0'' or
``1.0,'' to their viewers through ``local simulcasting.'' Under the
Commission's rules, Next Gen TV broadcasters are encouraged, but not
required, to simulcast their 3.0 multicast streams in a 1.0 format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ LPTV and TV translator stations may deploy ATSC 3.0 service
without providing an ATSC 1.0 simulcast signal. In addition, full
power and Class A stations may request a waiver of the simulcast
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The Commission found that the local simulcasting requirement is
crucial to deploying Next Gen TV service in a manner that minimizes
viewer disruption. The Next Gen TV standard is not backward-compatible
with existing TV sets or receivers,

[[Page 70795]]

which have only ATSC 1.0 and analog tuners. Accordingly viewers will be
unable to watch ATSC 3.0 transmissions on their existing televisions
without additional equipment. Thus, it is critical that Next Gen TV
broadcasters continue to provide service using the current ATSC 1.0
standard while the marketplace adopts devices compatible with the new
3.0 transmission standard in order to avoid forcing viewers to acquire
expensive new equipment or depriving them of their local television
service during the transition. Because a TV station cannot, as a
technical matter, simultaneously broadcast in both 1.0 and 3.0 format
from the same facility on the same physical channel, local simulcasting
must be effectuated through voluntary partnerships that broadcasters
seeking to provide Next Gen TV service enter into with other
broadcasters in their local markets. A Next Gen TV station must partner
with another television station (i.e., a temporary ``host'' station) in
its local market to either: (1) Air an ATSC 3.0 channel at the
temporary host's facility, while using its original facility to
continue to provide an ATSC 1.0 simulcast channel, or (2) air an ATSC
1.0 simulcast channel at the temporary host's facility, while
converting its original facility to the ATSC 3.0 standard in order to
provide a 3.0 channel.\7\ A Next Gen TV station's ATSC 1.0
``simulcast'' must be ``substantially similar'' to that of the primary
video programming stream on the ATSC 3.0 channel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ In either case, a Next Gen TV broadcaster must simulcast the
primary video programming stream of its ATSC 3.0 channel in an ATSC
1.0 format, so that viewers will continue to receive ATSC 1.0
service. By the time the transition is complete, any temporary
authority granted for local simulcasting will expire, and a station
will once again be required to air all of its licensed programming
on its own single channel. The Commission has committed to consider
the state of the transition and the Next Gen TV marketplace in the
Spring of 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. The process for considering applications to deploy ATSC 3.0
service includes coverage requirements for a Next Gen TV station's ATSC
1.0 simulcast signal.\8\ The Commission sought to minimize disruption
to viewers resulting from the voluntary deployment of ATSC 3.0 while
recognizing that if a station moves its ATSC 1.0 signal to a partner
simulcast host station with a different transmitter location, some OTA
viewers may no longer be able to receive the station's 1.0 signal.
Among other obligations, the Commission requires the Next Gen TV
station to select a partner 1.0 simulcast host station that is assigned
to its same designated market area (DMA) and from which it will
continue to provide ATSC 1.0 simulcast service to its entire community
of license.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ A Next Gen TV broadcaster must file an application and
obtain Commission approval before a 1.0 simulcast channel or a 3.0
channel aired on a partner host station can go on the air, as well
as before an existing 1.0 station can convert to 3.0 operation or
back to 1.0 operation.
\9\ Because Class A TV stations do not have a community of
license, the Commission established a coverage requirement based on
contour overlap and mileage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. According to NAB, as ATSC 3.0 deployment has progressed,
broadcasters interested in transitioning to ATSC 3.0 while maintaining
their current programming streams have faced challenges finding partner
stations willing to host broadcasters' multicast streams through
private contractual agreements. Moreover, NAB states that Next Gen TV
broadcasters want to ``continue to serve audiences with multicast
streams,'' even though they are not required to do so. NAB contends,
however, that stations are hesitant to serve as hosts pursuant to
private arrangements due to concerns about regulatory liability and
whether such private multicast agreements are expressly permitted under
the Commission's ATSC 3.0 rules. Moreover, NAB observes that ``a purely
contractual approach [to ATSC 3.0 deployment sharing arrangements]
would exclude noncommercial stations from participating in sharing
arrangements to host commercial multicast streams'' under 47 U.S.C.
399B. In addition, NAB asserts that if broadcasters execute hosting
agreements for their multicast streams that are not reflected on the
license of the originating station, ``the Commission might not retain
enforcement authority'' over the originating station with respect to
that guest stream.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ The NAB asserts that these issues ``could create complex
contractual indemnification concerns that could complicate
deployment,'' particularly for NCE stations, ``some of which are
restricted or prohibited entirely from agreeing to
indemnification.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Because our existing rules do not address the licensing of
multicast streams, even with regard to the host that is airing a
station's primary stream, the Media Bureau implemented an interim
process by which a Next Gen TV broadcaster that has converted or is
seeking to convert its facility to 3.0 can seek special temporary
authority (STA) to air 1.0 multicast streams on a host station. Just as
under the current rules for primary guest streams, these STAs permit a
guest multicast stream to be treated as if it originated from the Next
Gen TV broadcaster's facility, as opposed to the host station's
facility, for purposes of the Commission's rules and the Communications
Act. The STAs granted to date are valid for six months but may be
renewed. This case-by-case process is resource-intensive for both the
Commission and broadcasters, and under this approach it is difficult
for both Commission staff and potential viewers to track where streams
are being hosted.
7. NAB Petition. In November 2020, NAB filed a Petition for
Declaratory Ruling and Petition for Rulemaking (Petition) seeking: \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ Although the Petition was structured as two requests, we
divided the two requests into three parts for purposes of our
discussion below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Clarification or a rulemaking to allow a Next Gen TV
broadcaster to license its simulcast multicast stream(s) either
together with its primary stream on the primary simulcast host or on
different simulcast host(s); \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ By ``simulcast multicast stream,'' we refer to a multicast
stream that is aired by a Next Gen TV station, in substantially
similar fashion, in both 1.0 and 3.0 formats throughout the
mandatory local simulcasting period. That is, we mean either (1) a
1.0 multicast guest stream aired on a host that is a simulcast of a
3.0 multicast stream aired by the Next Gen TV station, or (2) a 3.0
multicast stream aired on a host that is being simulcast by a 1.0
multicast stream aired by the Next Gen TV station. For example, in
this situation, Station A converts to 3.0 and arranges with Station
B (remaining in 1.0) to host Station A's primary stream and one
multicast stream in 1.0; Petitioner wants the multicast stream, like
the primary stream, to be licensed to Station A, the originator of
the streams. In addition, if Station A arranges with Station C (not
the primary host) to host a second multicast stream in 1.0, that
multicast stream would also be licensed to Station A. In these
examples, Station A would itself be broadcasting both multicast
streams in 3.0. Likewise, if a station remained in 1.0, it would be
allowed to license its 3.0 multicast streams aired either by the
primary host or a secondary host. In these situations, the multicast
channels are being simulcast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) A rulemaking to allow a Next Gen TV broadcaster to license its
``non-simulcast'' 1.0 multicast stream(s) (i.e., multicast stream(s)
aired only in 1.0 format and not in 3.0 format) either together with
its primary stream on its primary 1.0 host or on different 1.0
simulcast host(s); \13\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ For example, using Stations A, B, and C from the prior
example, Station A (the 3.0 host) only has enough capacity to air
its primary channel, Station B's primary channel, and Station C's
primary channel in 3.0, but wants to continue to provide its
multicast channels in 1.0 during the transition. In this situation,
Stations B and C would each be hosting a multicast stream licensed
to Station A, but neither multicast stream would be simulcast. Thus,
by ``non-simulcast 1.0 multicast stream,'' we refer to a multicast
stream that was originated by a Next Gen TV station and aired in 1.0
format either on its own channel or a 1.0 host's channel, but that
has no ``substantially similar'' stream being aired in 3.0 format by
the originating station, whether on its own channel or on a 3.0
host's channel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) A rulemaking to allow a Next Gen TV broadcaster to license its
``non-simulcast'' 3.0 multicast stream(s) (i.e.,

[[Page 70796]]

multicast stream(s) aired only in 3.0 format and not in 1.0 format)
either together with its primary stream on its primary 3.0 host or on
different 3.0 host(s).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ This request apparently is being made looking forward to a
later stage in the transition when more stations have transitioned
to 3.0 and the number of 1.0 ``lighthouses'' is more limited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NAB requests that the regulatory treatment of multicast streams
mirror the existing licensing framework for primary streams. Moreover,
NAB asserts that its requested rule changes would not create any new
cable or satellite carriage rights for multicast streams, which are not
entitled to mandatory carriage. NAB later filed an ex parte expanding
on its proposal by suggesting specific revisions to the Commission's
ATSC 3.0 rules that would implement the changes and clarifications
requested in its Petition.
8. The Media Bureau placed the Petition on Public Notice and
received comments and reply comments from 12 parties, including 10
broadcast station groups and associations (including NAB) and two MVPD
associations.\15\ As discussed more fully below, all of the broadcast
station groups and associations support the Petition's proposals. The
two MVPD associations that commented generally do not oppose a
rulemaking, but express particular concerns about the effect on the
local television marketplaces of permitting Next Gen TV stations to
license multicast streams that are not being simulcast on host stations
and, in particular, of permitting those stations to license such
multicast streams on multiple hosts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ Commenters include: American Television Alliance (ATVA),
America's Public Television Stations (APTS) & Public Broadcasting
Service (PBS) (collectively, ``PTV''), Cox Media Group (Cox), Graham
Media Group, Inc. (Graham), Gray Television Inc. (Gray), Meredith
Corporation (Meredith), National Translator Association (NTA), Pearl
TV (Pearl), and the E.W. Scripps Company (Scripps). Reply comments
were filed by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), NCTA--
The internet & Television Association (NCTA), Scripps, and TEGNA
Inc. (TEGNA). The comment cycle ended January 25, 2021. We note that
NAB did not submit its proposed rule until April 9, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

9. We propose to adopt rules to address the first two licensing
scenarios set forth by NAB (as described above), so as to preserve, to
the extent possible, consumer access to multicast programming in 1.0
format during the ATSC 3.0 transition without the need for new
equipment. First, we therefore tentatively conclude that Next Gen TV
stations may license one or more simulcast multicast streams on a host
station or stations, whether that guest stream is the 3.0 broadcast or
the 1.0 simulcast (``simulcast'' multicast streams). Second, we propose
that Next Gen TV stations which are broadcasting in 3.0 on their own
channels may license one or more multicast streams aired only in 1.0
format on a host station or stations even if they are not simulcasting
that stream in 3.0 (``non-simulcast'' 1.0 multicast streams),
consistent with any limits as discussed below.\16\ To permit the
licensing of multicast streams on a host, we propose that each of the
originating station's multicast streams will be licensed as a temporary
channel in the same manner as its primary stream on the primary host.
That is, each of the originating station's guest multicast streams
aired on a host will be considered to be an additional, separately
authorized channel under the originating station's single, unified
license. As to the third of NAB's scenarios, in which a Next Gen TV
station broadcasting in 1.0 on its own channel might seek to license
multicast streams aired only in 3.0 format on a 3.0 host or hosts
(``non-simulcast'' 3.0 multicast streams),\17\ we decline at this time
to seek comment on what appears to be a purely hypothetical scenario.
In addition to these scenarios, we explore another licensing scenario
that has come to our attention from industry. Specifically, we seek
comment on whether our rules should permit an originating station to
rely on simulcasting its primary stream on two separate partner
stations in order to minimize service loss from its transition to 3.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ Under our proposal, Next Gen TV stations would not be
required to license their multicast stream(s), but if they choose to
do so, they would be required to comply with the rules we ultimately
adopt through this rulemaking proceeding. As noted above, we do not
preclude Next Gen TV broadcasters from pursuing private contractual
arrangements with partner stations, but note that host stations will
be legally responsible for multicast streams aired on their channels
in such situations. Stations entering into such arrangements may
also choose to air their multicast stream(s) on one or more hosts.
\17\ By ``non-simulcast 3.0 multicast stream,'' we refer to a
multicast stream that was originated by a Next Gen TV station and
aired in 3.0 format either on its own channel or a 3.0 host's
channel, but that has no ``substantially similar'' stream being
aired in 1.0 format by the originating station, whether on its own
channel or on a 1.0 host's channel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. After considering these various licensing arrangements, we next
explore the policy concerns raised in the record with respect to these
arrangements, including whether there is a need, as some commenters
suggest, to limit the ability of stations to aggregate spectrum or
programming streams through the licensing of programming streams on
multiple partner hosts. Finally, we tentatively conclude that we should
apply certain ATSC 3.0 transition rules that currently apply only to
primary simulcast streams to both simulcast and non-simulcast licensed
multicast streams aired on host stations, as NAB has proposed,\18\ with
certain exceptions as detailed below, and tentatively conclude that any
rules adopted pursuant to this FNPRM should apply until the Commission
eliminates the mandatory local simulcasting requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ The rules at issue are those found in Sec. Sec. 73.3801,
73.6029, and 74.782 (each entitled ``Television Simulcasting'').
These include simulcast arrangements and agreements (47 CFR
73.3801(a) and (e), 73.6029(a) and (e), 74.782(a) and (f)); the
simulcasting requirement (47 CFR 73.3801(b), 73.6029(b), 74.782(b));
contour, DMA, and community of license coverage requirements (47 CFR
73.3801(d) and (f)(5)-(6), 73.6029(d) and (f)(5)-(6), 74.782(e) and
(g)(5)-(6)); MVPD notice requirements (47 CFR 73.3801(h),
73.6029(h), 74.782(i)); consumer education provisions (47 CFR
73.3801(g), 73.6029(g), 74.782(h)); and licensing procedures (47 CFR
73.3801(f)(2), 73.6029(f)(2), 74.782(g)(2)). We do not propose to
extend these requirements to private contractual arrangements, many
of which may already be in place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. We seek to craft rules that will protect current OTA viewers by
facilitating and encouraging Next Gen TV stations to preserve 1.0
multicast streams during the transition while also creating an
environment that does not stifle innovative new services that may be
offered to OTA viewers through the deployment of ATSC 3.0 service.
Pursuant to the current ATSC 3.0 rules, Next Gen TV stations are not
required to simulcast their multicast streams but may choose to air
them pursuant to private contractual arrangements.\19\ NAB explains
that some host stations may be reluctant, however, to accept legal
responsibility when airing another station's multicast stream(s), even
if they can obtain indemnification from such station through a private
contractual agreement. Further, many Next Gen Broadcasters cannot
simulcast all of their multicast streams because of capacity and other
practical constraints. The licensed multicast stream approach proposed
herein seeks to address these

[[Page 70797]]

concerns by providing the industry with regulatory certainty about the
legal treatment of multicast streams and facilitating their airing on
multiple stations. A licensed multicast approach would not only make
clear that the originating station (and not the host station) is
responsible for regulatory compliance regarding the multicast stream
being aired on a host station but also give the Commission clear
enforcement authority over the originating station in the event of a
rule violation on the hosted multicast programming stream. In addition,
this approach seeks to facilitate noncommercial educational (NCE)
stations' 3.0 deployment by allowing them to serve as hosts to
commercial stations' multicast streams without violating the
prohibition on broadcasting advertisements over spectrum dedicated to
noncommercial use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ For example, commonly owned stations would not appear to
face the same challenges in formulating hosting arrangements or
determining ultimate responsibility for broadcast programming, and
such stations may choose to forego multicast licensing altogether.
Nonetheless, we encourage Next Gen TV stations to license their
multicast streams aired on a commonly owned host station, in order
to aid the Commission and the public in understanding the progress
of the transition. In order to facilitate such licensing
arrangements, we tentatively conclude that commonly owned stations
should not be required to enter into written agreements, either for
the hosting of primary or multicast streams. This is consistent with
how the Bureau announced it would handle the hosting of primary
streams on commonly owned stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Simulcast Multicast Streams

12. We tentatively conclude that to address NAB's first scenario, a
Next Gen TV station may license one or more of its multicast streams,
hosted by one or more partner stations, in situations where the Next
Gen TV station is airing such multicast stream in ``substantially
similar'' fashion \20\ in both 1.0 and 3.0 formats.\21\ This would
include situations in which a multicast stream is aired together with
the Next Gen TV station's primary stream on the primary host, as well
as situations in which a multicast stream is aired on a host different
from the primary host. In either case, we tentatively conclude that the
Next Gen station must air one of the simulcast multicast streams--
either the 1.0 or 3.0.on its own (non-host) channel. No commenter
opposes this prong of NAB's proposal or raises any concerns about
permitting the licensing of simulcast multicast streams. We also
tentatively conclude that any multicast streams treated as
``simulcasts'' of each other under this section must be ``substantially
similar.'' Although these rules, like the ATSC 3.0 transition rules
generally, do not increase the amount of spectrum available to
television broadcasters in a market, we tentatively conclude that this
proposal may help address specific Next Gen TV stations' capacity
constraints by facilitating the participation of stations uncomfortable
with a purely contractual approach and making the participation of NCE
stations legally permissible. We seek comment on these tentative
conclusions. Is there any reason to treat ``simulcast'' multicast
streams differently than ``simulcast'' primary streams in this regard?
As discussed below, like local simulcasting arrangements for primary
streams, hosting arrangements for multicast streams are temporary ones
made to facilitate the station's transition to 3.0 service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ As with primary streams, ``substantially similar'' means
that the programming must be the same, except for programming
features that are based on the enhanced capabilities of ATSC 3.0,
including targeted advertisements and promotions for upcoming
programs. Such enhanced content or features that cannot reasonably
be provided in ATSC 1.0 format include: ``hyper-localized'' content
(e.g., geo-targeted weather, targeted emergency alerts, and hyper-
local news), programming features or improvements created for the
3.0 service (e.g., emergency alert ``wake up'' ability and
interactive programming features), enhanced formats made possible by
3.0 technology (e.g., 4K or HDR), and any personalization of
programming performed by the viewer and at the viewer's discretion.
\21\ Although NAB's Petition alternatively asks us to clarify
through a declaratory ruling that our ``existing rules permit a
station transmitting in ATSC 3.0 to partner with one or more other
stations that would host the first station's simulcast ATSC 1.0
multicast streams to preserve existing service in the market,'' we
believe a rulemaking is more appropriate for addressing the issue of
licensing of simulcast multicast streams. When adopting its initial
rules, the Commission did not address the issue of multicast
licensing. Instead, by default, multicast arrangements were left to
private contractual arrangements and more recently to the STA
process. During the pendency of this proceeding, we will maintain
the status quo and permit the Bureau to continue to process STA
requests and 3.0 license applications in the same manner it has to
date. Any STA or 3.0 license application granted previously or
during the course of this proceeding containing such multicast
arrangements shall not prejudice the outcome of this proceeding, and
any such STA or 3.0 license application will be subject to the
outcome of this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

13. We agree with NAB that the adoption of such a licensing process
will help preserve existing service in the market by recognizing what
CMG calls the ``multi-party simulcasting model that has evolved'' as a
result of limited spectrum.\22\ Moreover, we believe that facilitating
the licensing of simulcast multicast channels best meets our dual goals
of facilitating the transition to 3.0 and protecting current 1.0
viewers.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ For example, a Next Gen TV station's primary stream host
may not have sufficient capacity to also air all of the Next Gen TV
station's multicast streams, either because it is using that
capacity for its own programming or to host the streams of other
stations. In such a case, this proposal would permit the Next Gen TV
station to seek an additional partner or partners with available
capacity who can serve as hosts to its different-service multicast
streams.
\23\ As discussed below, however, we seek comment on any
necessary restrictions on the licensing of multicast streams aired
by multiple hosts, in order to limit the amount of spectrum or
programming any one Next Gen TV licensee may aggregate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Non-Simulcast 1.0 Multicast Streams

14. We tentatively conclude that to address the second scenario set
forth by NAB, a Next Gen TV station that is broadcasting in 3.0 on its
own channel may license one or more 1.0 multicast streams aired on a
1.0 host or hosts, even when it is not simulcasting that multicast
stream in a 3.0 format.\24\ We seek comment on this tentative
conclusion, including our conclusion that we should limit this proposal
to those Next Gen TV stations broadcasting in 3.0 on their own
channels. Although NAB suggests such a hypothetical, we are unaware of
any station broadcasting in 1.0 on its own channel that has sought 1.0
hosts for its multicast programming, so see no reason to provide such
flexibility in these proposed rules. Perhaps more fundamentally, it is
unclear that providing such flexibility is necessary either to
facilitate the transition to 3.0 or to protect current 1.0 viewers.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ Any ``non-simulcast'' multicast streams licensed pursuant
to rules proposed in this section would not be required to comply
with 47 CFR 73.3801(b), 73.6029(b), and 74.782(b) (the
``Simulcasting Requirement'').
\25\ As discussed below, we also seek comment on our tentative
conclusion regarding the duration of such a requirement, and on
whether restrictions on the licensing of multicast streams aired by
multiple hosts are needed in order to limit the amount of spectrum
any one Next Gen TV licensee may aggregate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

15. We tentatively find that, as NAB contends, allowing multicast
licensing for non-simulcast 1.0 multicast streams would benefit
consumers by preserving viewer access to 1.0 multicast streams in
situations where broadcasters that have transitioned to 3.0 on their
own channels lack capacity to air their multicast streams on their 3.0
facilities. We recognize that, at this early stage of the transition,
ATSC 3.0 capacity will be limited. During the initial roll-out of 3.0
service, we expect markets will generally start with one or two ATSC
3.0 ``lighthouse'' stations, leaving capacity on 3.0 lighthouse
stations mostly--if not entirely--for Next Gen TV station's primary
streams.\26\ We agree with broadcasters that denying them this
flexibility would likely lead them to stop broadcasting some 1.0
multicast streams altogether. We therefore tentatively find that, by
extending our multicast licensing approach to non-simulcast 1.0
multicast streams, we would not only encourage Next Gen TV broadcasters
to preserve the multicast streams viewers watch today, but also
facilitate their transition to 3.0 by making it easier for them to

[[Page 70798]]

continue serving their existing viewers even while 3.0 spectrum is
limited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ For example, a Next Gen TV station broadcasting in 3.0 on
its own channel may not have sufficient capacity to also air all of
its own multicast streams in 3.0, most likely because it is using
that capacity to host the primary 3.0 streams of partner stations.
In such a case, this proposal would permit the Next Gen TV station
to seek a partner or partners with available capacity in 1.0 who can
air 1.0 versions of its multicast streams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

16. We seek comment about whether licensing non-simulcast 1.0
multicast streams raises specific concerns.\27\ We observe that, unlike
simulcast streams, non-simulcast 1.0 multicast streams aired on a host
would not be tied to a specific programming stream aired by the
originating station. We also observe that non-simulcast 1.0 multicast
licensing is only necessary while 3.0 capacity is limited, because with
sufficient 3.0 capacity a station could simulcast its multicast
streams. Should we limit the licensing of non-simulcast 1.0 multicast
streams only to situations where 3.0 capacity is demonstrably limited
because of the hosting of partner streams or otherwise restrict the
licensing of non-simulcast streams? Why or why not?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ ATVA and NCTA raise policy questions and concerns about
non-simulcast multicast streams in particular. We address some of
those issues below to the extent that they are potentially relevant
to all situations involving multiple hosts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

17. We seek comment on ATVA's assertion that, under the non-
simulcast licensing proposal, a Next Gen TV station could air a single
SD primary stream on its 3.0 signal and provide data services on its
remaining 3.0 spectrum, while licensing host spectrum to air its 1.0
primary and multicast streams. To our knowledge, no situation like this
has arisen to date, even though dozens of 3.0 transitions have begun
with programming streams carried by partner hosts (in the case of
primary streams) and private contractual partners. While we consider
this situation unlikely early in the transition because of 3.0 capacity
constraints, we seek comment on this understanding and acknowledge that
this could occur as the transition progresses.\28\ However, given that
3.0 broadcasters will be seeking to attract viewers, we note that they
have touted offering primary streams in HD, if not UHD format, as a key
selling point for the 3.0 service. Moreover, as discussed more below,
our grant of authority for Next Gen TV broadcasters to license host
spectrum is temporary. Finally, we seek comment on NCTA's request that
we consider ``enhanced transparency and disclosure requirements'' for
ATSC 3.0 host partner arrangements, particularly those involving non-
simulcast streams. What would such requirements entail, what benefits
would they provide, and what costs would they impose? We seek comment
on these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ We note that the Commission has indicated its intention to
address in a future proceeding how much spectral capacity a
broadcast television station (commercial or NCE) must use after the
ATSC 3.0 transition period for the provision of its free over-the-
air television service. Nonetheless, we observe that today no
station is required to air more than one SD stream of programming,
and most choose to air more programming, and/or programming at
higher resolutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Non-Simulcast 3.0 Multicast Streams

18. We decline to seek comment on the third prong of NAB's
proposal, which would allow a Next Gen TV station that continues to
broadcast in 1.0 on its own channel to license 3.0 multicast streams
aired on a host station even when it is not simulcasting those
multicast streams in a 1.0 format. NAB itself concedes that the issue
of non-simulcast 3.0 multicast streams is likely to arise only in the
later stages of the transition. Significantly, we also note that, of
the 35 STA requests the Bureau has reviewed to date, none has asked us
to license a non-simulcast 3.0 multicast stream. We thus conclude that
seeking comment on NAB's third scenario at this time would be
premature.

D. Use of Multicast Streams To Minimize 1.0 Service Loss

19. We tentatively conclude that, under certain circumstances, a
Next Gen TV station may simulcast its primary stream programming both
on its primary stream host and on a multicast stream carried by a
different partner station in order to minimize the impact of service
loss that would result if it were only able to air its primary stream
on a single host.\29\ We expect this situation will arise only when an
applicant intends to broadcast in 3.0 on its own channel and is unable
to find a partner 1.0 host that could, on its own, provide coverage of
its primary stream to 95 percent of the applicant's 1.0 service area.
In such cases, the application will be reviewed under the non-expedited
processing standard.\30\ Applicants whose applications are reviewed
under the non-expedited processing standard are required to minimize
the impact of the expected service loss, but the Commission did not
require a specific method for doing so. The Bureau recently considered
an STA application which found that airing a simulcast of the
originating station's primary stream on two different hosts was ``an
acceptable method for mitigating ATSC 1.0 service loss under the non-
expedited processing standard.'' \31\ Significantly, the Bureau noted
that the two hosts in question were NCEs, and found that ``permitting
NCE stations to participate in the ATSC 3.0 rollout arrangements in
this manner is critical to the success of the transition.'' The Bureau
therefore granted an STA request to authorize the multicast streams,
including the stream with the primary programming. We tentatively
conclude that similarly situated applicants \32\ seeking to rely on one
licensed multicast stream carrying primary programming to minimize the
impact of service loss may have their applications considered through
the non-expedited application process instead of through an STA. We
also tentatively conclude that any approval of such an approach would
require that the licensed multicast stream airing the primary
programming be a ``substantially similar'' simulcast of the Next Gen TV
station's primary stream. We also tentatively conclude that, if such
application is granted, we will consider the 1.0 host station of the
multicast stream to be licensed in the same manner as the primary
stream host. Providing a license will permit NCE stations to host
commercial primary multicast streams in a manner that is consistent
with 47 U.S.C. 399B. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ We note that such a stream would be considered a
``simulcast multicast stream'' under any rules adopted in this
proceeding and would count toward any limit on aggregate spectrum or
programming ultimately established in this proceeding.
\30\ In the Next Gen TV Report and Order, the Commission
established a presumption that it would favor grant of an
application demonstrating that the station would provide ATSC 1.0
simulcast service to at least 95 percent of the predicted population
within the station's original noise limited service contour (NLSC)
and afford ``expedited processing'' to such applications. A Next Gen
TV applicant whose ATSC 1.0 simulcast signal will not satisfy this
95 percent threshold (``non-expedited applicant'') will be
considered on a case-by-case basis and must provide the showing set
forth in the Next Gen TV Report and Order.
\31\ Although the Bureau called the stream a ``supplemental
primary ATSC 1.0 simulcast stream,'' the stream can be viewed as a
multicast stream simulcasting the station's primary programming.
Recognizing this ensures that there is no confusion that the second
stream is merely a multicast stream and not a second ``primary''
stream. We seek comment on this point. We note that the Bureau
``emphasize[d] that the supplemental primary stream [had] no
carriage rights.'' Our treatment of this stream as a multicast
stream would similarly afford it with no carriage rights.
\32\ For the purposes of this tentative conclusion, we consider
similarly situated originating stations to be NCEs, or commercial
stations working with NCE partner hosts, transitioning their own
channel to 3.0, who are unable to find a partner 1.0 host that
could, on its own, provide coverage of its primary stream to 95
percent of the applicant's 1.0 service area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

20. We also seek comment on whether we should consider this
approach to be an acceptable method for mitigating ATSC 1.0 service
loss for any other types or groups of applicants. We recognize that
each programming stream devoted to simulcasting a primary stream is one
fewer that could be devoted to multicast programming,

[[Page 70799]]

potentially reducing the diversity of programming available to viewers
in order to ensure the widest availability of the most popular
programming. We also note that a station airing its primary stream
programming on two hosts could be reaching many viewers previously
outside its 1.0 footprint, irrespective of whether it successfully
provides service to 95 percent of that original area. How should we
weigh such tradeoffs when reviewing non-expedited applications seeking
to rely on this method of reducing service loss? We seek comment on the
appropriate scope of this flexibility.

E. Policy Issues Related to Multicast Licensing

21. While we consider each of the specific licensing proposals
above, in this section, we seek comment on potential policy-related
issues stemming from the increased flexibility that we propose in this
proceeding. While our proposals for licensing simulcast multicast
streams and non-simulcast 1.0 multicast streams would allow Next Gen TV
stations to license multicast programming streams on one or more hosts
in their local markets, we seek comment on whether this flexibility
should be circumscribed. Specifically, we seek comment on how we can
ensure that individual stations do not use this transition period
flexibility to aggregate programming or broadcast spectrum on multiple
stations in a market in a manner that would not otherwise be possible
or permitted absent the proposed rule changes. We also seek comment on
whether to extend the waiver of the ownership rules, which currently
applies only to primary stream hosting partnerships, to multicast
stream hosting partnerships.
22. Programming Aggregation. As ATVA points out, permitting the
types of licensing arrangements set forth in NAB's petition could have
the unintended consequence of permitting Next Gen TV stations to
aggregate broadcast programming in a way they may not do today. We seek
comment on these concerns, and whether our final rules should be
tailored to address them while allowing broadcasters to ``continue to
serve audiences with multicast streams.'' For instance, ATVA contends
that NAB's proposal would ``provide yet another loophole permitting [a
station] to assemble `big four' duopolies, triopolies, and even
quadropolies without triggering ownership rules and without needing to
seek FCC approval.'' Under our current ownership rules, an entity may
only own two full power stations in a market, only one of which may be
a ``top-four'' station. As described in the 2018 Quadrennial Review
proceeding, however, broadcasters sometimes aggregate multiple top-four
network affiliations in a market on a single station by placing newly
acquired affiliated programming on one or more multicast streams. These
licensees are not currently required to seek Commission approval to do
so and are able to maintain compliance with the Local TV Ownership
Rule, which limits ownership of multiple stations in a single market,
rather than multiple streams of programming in a market. Recognizing
this trend, as well as commenters' concerns about its increasing
prevalence as a means to work around the letter and spirit of the Local
TV Ownership Rule, the Commission has sought comment on the practice of
dual affiliation using multicasting and ``whether and how the
Commission should evaluate multicast streams for purposes of the Local
Television Ownership Rule.'' The proposals at issue in this FNPRM
appear to be primarily motivated by a desire to adopt new technologies
in a rapidly changing video programming market, and any rules adopted
would be temporary. Nonetheless, we recognize that they could
contribute to or even exacerbate the trend discussed above. Would it be
appropriate to restrict these program aggregation practices for Next
Gen TV stations relying on partner hosts during the 3.0 transition
regardless of how we address the application of the TV duopoly rule in
the context of the Quadrennial Review proceeding?
23. ATVA notes that the proposal in this proceeding would open the
door to broadcasters' airing newly acquired programming not just on
their own multicast streams carried on their own channels--the issue
directly raised in the 2018 Quadrennial Review proceeding--but on their
own multicast streams carried by host stations as well. Such a scenario
would potentially expand what ATVA characterizes as an existing
``loophole'' in the Local TV Rule. Should the Commission be concerned
about allowing such flexibility, and if so are there ways that the
approach contemplated in this FNPRM could be modified to avoid
expanding this ``loophole'' while at the same time giving broadcasters
sufficient flexibility to ``preserve existing multicast service to
viewers'' during the transition from 1.0 to 3.0? For instance, to what
extent are efforts to address the issues raised by ATVA more properly
addressed in another proceeding, such as the 2018 Quadrennial Review
proceeding where, as noted above, the Commission has sought comment on
issues related to multicasting? In what ways are the issues ATVA raises
here different than the issues raised in the 2018 Quadrennial Review
proceeding? We seek comment on whether, and if so how, these concerns
should be addressed in the context of this proceeding. Should we
condition the grant of a multicast license on the outcome of the 2018
Quadrennial Review proceeding?
24. In response to ATVA's concerns, NAB offers a proposal for
``limiting the potential scope of hosting arrangements.'' Specifically,
NAB proposes that: ``In arranging for the hosting of its programming,
no individual broadcaster shall partner with other stations to host, in
the aggregate, more programming than such station could broadcast on
its own facilities based on the then-current state of the art for
television broadcasting as evidenced by other television stations then
operating with the same standard.'' We believe that an effective rule
addressing ATVA's concerns would need to be objective, simple for
stakeholders to understand and apply, and amenable to enforcement.
While we question whether NAB's proposal meets these standards, we seek
comment on NAB's proposed approach. For example, what is meant by ``the
then-current state of the art''? How would such a standard work? Who
would decide what is the ``state of the art''? How would an interested
party and/or the Commission determine whether a given broadcaster is in
compliance with this rule? We seek comment on NAB's proposal, including
suggestions regarding how NAB's terminology in the proposal could or
should be construed, or ways in which it could be made workable or
enforceable in practice. The record contains no alternative proposals
that might address these concerns, beyond the cable commenters'
suggestion that we consider a flat prohibition on the licensing of
hosted non-simulcast streams. We therefore seek comment on potential
alternatives to NAB's proposal that might better address concerns
related to the aggregation of programming, should we adopt our
licensing proposals.
25. Either in addition to or in lieu of action in the 2018
Quadrennial Review or another proceeding, should the Commission limit
the number of programming streams generally--or non-simulcast
programming streams in particular--that an originating station can air
on host stations as commenters suggest? Alternatively, should the
Commission limit the number of hosts that any one broadcaster can use
to air

[[Page 70800]]

primary and multicast streams? If so, would limiting the number of
hosts to two give broadcasters sufficient flexibility to serve their
existing viewers during the transition, while also limiting their
ability to aggregate programming or broadcast spectrum on multiple
stations in a manner that would not otherwise be possible or permitted
absent the proposed rule changes? If the Commission does adopt final
multicast licensing rules that circumscribe the approach NAB originally
sought, should the Commission also establish a waiver process pursuant
to which parties could seek additional flexibility by demonstrating
that it is consistent with the goals of this proceeding?
26. Spectrum Aggregation. We also seek comment on how to ensure
that a Next Gen TV broadcaster does not use the interim flexibility
proposed in this FNPRM to aggregate spectrum beyond that which is
legally permissible today. A single station may generally use no more
than 6 MHz under its license (and stations channel sharing due to
successful participation in the reverse auction use less). As discussed
above, today one entity can effectively control no more than two full
power stations in a market.\33\ In addition to its concerns about
aggregation of programming, ATVA expresses concern that the proposal in
NAB's Petition could result in a Next Gen TV station being authorized
to operate on three or more different channels, potentially using
``many times its assigned'' amount of spectrum to air more programming
than it otherwise could. The group asserts that this would reduce
viewpoint diversity by encouraging stations to lease spectrum in order
to host other stations' streams, rather than providing programming of
their own. While calling the idea ``wholly speculative and
extraordinarily unlikely in practice,'' NAB suggests that its proposal
to limit the scope of hosting arrangements (described above) would
address this concern. Should the Commission be concerned about the
impact of the proposals above on spectrum aggregation in a market and
in particular the ramifications for viewpoint diversity, competition,
or localism? If so, we anticipate that any rule the Commission adopts
to address this situation will also address any concerns about
programming aggregation. That is, we expect that, to the extent we must
address both of these potential scenarios, they can be addressed by the
same rule. We seek comment on these assumptions. If we were to adopt
such a rule, would NAB's proposed rule be effective for this purpose?
\34\ We also invite comment on other ways in which we could ensure that
a station does not aggregate spectrum beyond that which it is allowed
pursuant to a single license and that a broadcaster does not aggregate
control of spectrum in a market beyond that which it is allowed under
the Local Television Ownership Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ A single entity, therefore, may effectively control no more
than 12 megahertz of full power spectrum in a given market.
\34\ For example, would the NAB proposal's cap on
``programming'' also address concerns about ``spectrum''?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

27. Ownership Rules Exemption. On a related issue, we seek comment
on whether to extend the temporary ``waiver'' of the Commission's local
broadcast ownership rules, which currently applies to primary stream
hosting partnerships, to multicast stream hosting partnerships. That
is, if we adopt the approach contemplated in this FNPRM or another
proposal that would grant similar flexibility, should we also grant
temporary relief from our broadcast ownership rules broadly to stations
involved in multicast hosting relationships in order to provide clarity
for such stations and other stakeholders, or would it be sufficient for
us to limit any relief granted to those portions of our ownership rules
that define attributable relationships? In the 2017 Next Gen TV First
Report and Order, we found that, ``[g]iven that the local simulcasting
requirement . . . is temporary, [the Commission] will not apply the
broadcast ownership rules in any situation where airing an ATSC 3.0
signal or an ATSC 1.0 simulcast on a temporary host station's facility
would result in a potential violation of those rules.'' In adopting
this exemption, the Commission emphasized its temporary nature and that
it was granted to facilitate the transition to ATSC 3.0. In addition,
that previously adopted exemption is tied to a requirement to simulcast
programming aired by the originating station itself, limiting the scope
of the exemption and potential effects on the competitive dynamics of
the marketplace. By contrast, the licensed multicast stream hosting
rules proposed today would permit a Next Gen TV broadcaster to air
programming on another station without airing a simulcast of that
programming on its own station, or even having previously aired that
network or stream of programming. Is this a significant enough
difference to warrant a different approach? Or do the temporary nature
of the exemption and the desire to facilitate the 3.0 transition make
the situations similar enough to warrant the same approach? We seek
comment on the similarities of and differences between these
situations, and whether a temporary exemption from the media ownership
rules in whole or in part is appropriate in the multicast licensing
context.
28. Instead of broadly exempting licensed multicast streams from
the Commission's ownership rules, should we alternatively find in this
proceeding that the hosting of a Next Gen TV station's multicast stream
standing alone--either simulcast or non-simulcast--simply does not give
rise to an attributable interest in the host for the originating
station and vice versa? Should we likewise find that the hosted
multicast stream is considered part of the originating station for
purposes of our ownership rules such that any action taken in the 2018
Quadrennial Review proceeding that impacts a station's use of its own
multicast streams would also apply to multicast streams that the
station arranges to air on a host station? We seek comment on these
issues.
29. Finally, we seek comment on the practical impacts if we adopt
the proposals in sections III.A, B, and D of this proceeding but
decline to extend to multicasting hosting relationships a temporary
exemption from either the ownership rules broadly or, more narrowly,
the associated portion of those rules that governs attribution. To what
extent, if any, would the absence of an exemption from the ownership
rules or the associated attribution rules for multicast hosting
arrangements inhibit broadcasters from providing multicast programming
during the transition? If an exemption from the ownership rules or the
associated attribution rules or both is not extended to multicast
hosting relationships, how would, or how should, these relationships be
considered or counted for purposes of applying our ownership and
attribution rules, including the prohibition on ownership of two top-
four rated stations in a market?

F. Rules Applicable to Multicast Streams Aired on a Host Station

30. Finally, we tentatively conclude that we should apply certain
ATSC 3.0 transition rules that currently apply only to primary
simulcast streams to both simulcast and non-simulcast licensed
multicast streams aired on host stations, as NAB has proposed,\35\ with

[[Page 70801]]

certain exceptions as detailed below. In particular, we propose an
exception to the predicted population threshold required for expedited
processing of the licensing applications as it relates to multicast
license applications but keep the requirement in place for determining
an originating station's compliance with our children's television Core
Programming requirements. We propose to revise our rules and Form 2100,
which is used by stations seeking to implement or modify sharing
arrangements, accordingly. We also note that, as NAB recognizes in its
proposal, nothing we do in proposing multicast licensing rules would
change the carriage rights of multicast streams, which are not entitled
to mandatory carriage by MVPDs.\36\ We seek comment on these proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ The rules at issue are those found in 47 CFR 73.3801,
73.6029, and 74.782 (each entitled ``Television Simulcasting'').
These include simulcast arrangements and agreements (47 CFR
73.3801(a) and (e), 73.6029(a) and (e), 74.782(a) and (f)); the
simulcasting requirement (47 CFR 73.3801(b), 73.6029(b), 74.782(b));
contour, DMA, and community of license coverage requirements (47 CFR
73.3801(d) and (f)(5)-(6), 73.6029(d) and (f)(5)-(6), 74.782(e) and
(g)(5)-(6)); MVPD notice requirements (47 CFR 73.3801(h),
73.6029(h), 74.782(i)); consumer education provisions (47 CFR
73.3801(g), 73.6029(g), 74.782(h)); and licensing procedures (47 CFR
73.3801(f)(2), 73.6029(f)(2), 74.782(g)(2)).
\36\ We emphasize that multicast streams have no mandatory
carriage rights on cable or satellite and our proposals herein will
not convey any new carriage rights to Next Gen TV stations licensing
their multicast streams on a host.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

31. Generally, the ATSC 3.0 transition rules that currently apply
only to primary simulcast streams are intended to protect consumers
from losing access to the 1.0 television programming they currently
watch and avoiding consumer disruption during the transition to ATSC
3.0. Our intention is therefore to ensure that primary and multicast
streams licensed to be aired by a partner host station are treated the
same, to the greatest extent possible. While multicast programming
typically has much lower viewership than primary streams, such
viewership is not insignificant and is important to those viewers
watching it today.\37\ Moreover, multicast streams add to the diversity
of programming available to viewers in the market. We recognize,
however, that no broadcaster is required to provide multicast streams
and that Next Gen TV stations are not required to preserve or simulcast
their existing multicast streams when they transition to ATSC 3.0
service.\38\ Thus, we must balance the goal of preserving maximum
availability of multicast streams with the reality that broadcasters
could simply decline to air multicast streams if our rules are too
burdensome. We seek comment on how to balance these goals in adopting
licensing rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ We estimate that at least 70 broadcast television stations
air Big-4 network programming (i.e., ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC) on a
multicast stream, based on staff review of May 2021 Nielsen ratings
and the BIA Kelsey Media Access Pro database as of August 5, 2021,
but seek comment on this estimate. In addition, other popular
network programming on multicast streams includes, for example: MeTV
(0.89 avg rating), ION (0.42 avg rating), CW (0.4 avg rating), GRIT
(0.37 avg rating), Telemundo (0.35 avg rating), and Heroes & Icons
(HI) (0.32 avg rating) (Average ratings data based on staff review
of May 2021 Nielsen ratings. For each network, the average rating is
computed using the network's ratings in DMAs where the network was
aired on a multicast stream.).
\38\ The Commission recognized the capacity constraints
broadcasters will face during their transition to ATSC 3.0 service
when they are sharing facilities in order to air both a 1.0 and 3.0
channel. The Commission also observed that ``[t]he provision of
multicast channels is discretionary'' and so ``decline[d] to adopt
rules requiring broadcasters who currently air such channels to
continue to do so.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

32. Coverage rules. We propose to apply the DMA and community of
license coverage requirements to all multicast streams that are
licensed to be aired on a host station that is not the primary
host.\39\ We tentatively conclude that a station seeking to license
multicast streams aired on a host station will continue to qualify for
expedited processing if its primary stream aired on a partner 1.0 host
can provide coverage to 95 percent of the predicted population served
by the applicant's pre-transition 1.0 signal. Even if its licensed
multicast streams will be aired by a different a host station, they
will not be required to meet this predicted population threshold
requirement to qualify for expedited processing, as long as they comply
with the DMA and community of license coverage requirements. However,
we also propose that a Next Gen TV broadcaster should note in its
application the predicted percentage of population within the noise-
limited service contour (NLSC) served by the station's original 1.0
signal that will be served by each multicast stream host in order to
provide transparency to the public and interested parties. Finally, we
propose that in order for such a multicast stream to count toward the
originating station's children's television Core Programming
requirement, the multicast stream must either be carried on the same
host as the originating station's primary stream, or on a host that
serves at least 95 percent of the predicted population served by the
applicant's pre-transition 1.0 signal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ For 1.0 simulcasts aired on a host channel, a Next Gen TV
station's ATSC 1.0 simulcast signal must continue to cover the
station's entire community of license and the host station must be
assigned to the same Designated Market Area (DMA) as the originating
station. For 3.0 signals aired on a host channel, only the DMA
requirement applies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

33. Given that one of the primary goals of granting licensing
flexibility is to preserve 1.0 multicast service, we tentatively
conclude that we must preserve such service for the station's DMA and
community of license when a Commission license is being issued. We note
that this is more restrictive than NAB's proposed rule, which would
require only that a multicast host be in the same DMA as the
originating station. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion,
including whether some other minimum coverage or other standard would
be more appropriate. We tentatively agree with NAB, however, that we
should not otherwise require a multicast stream to cover a specific
amount of the originating station's 1.0 NLSC in order for a license
application to receive favorable treatment and expedited
processing.\40\ We seek comment on whether this approach will provide
broadcasters with enough flexibility to find hosts for their multicast
streams, while still ensuring that the preservation of 1.0 service is
focused on the stations' communities of license. We also seek comment,
however, on whether this approach would adequately conform to the
expectations of viewers outside a station's community of license.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ To qualify for expedited processing and receive more
favorable treatment, the Next Gen TV station must provide ATSC 1.0
service to at least 95 percent of the predicted population within
the NLSC of its original ATSC 1.0 facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

34. We further tentatively conclude that, to be counted toward Core
Programming for purposes of our children's television rules,
programming on a multicast stream must either be carried on the same
host as the originating station's primary stream, or on a host that
serves at least 95 percent of the predicted population served by the
applicant's pre-transition 1.0 signal.\41\ We observe that if we allow
multicast streams to serve substantially fewer viewers than the primary
stream, it would seem to be inappropriate to allow a station to rely on
such multicast streams to comply with its Core Programming
requirements.\42\ As in the expedited processing context, we believe
this 95 percent threshold will balance the need to ensure the continued
provision of service to viewers against the need to allow

[[Page 70802]]

broadcasters sufficient flexibility to locate and select a simulcast
partner. Application of this threshold is intended to preserve the
maximum amount of ATSC 1.0 programming to the greatest number of
viewers while facilitating the deployment of ATSC 3.0 and new
innovative broadcast services. We seek comment on these tentative
conclusions and on whether this approach will preserve existing
viewership while providing broadcasters a reasonable amount of
flexibility during the transition. Alternatively, we seek comment on
any alternative minimum coverage requirement or other standard to
achieve the stated goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ We tentatively conclude that this coverage requirement can
be met by relying on up to two hosted simulcast multicast streams.
\42\ We note that in 2019, the Commission permitted television
broadcast stations to air up to 13 hours per quarter of regularly
scheduled weekly programming on a multicast stream. The Commission
found, however, that it was ``premature at [the] time to decide how
to apply children's programming rules to stations that broadcast in
ATSC 3.0 and shift some of their Core Programming to a multicast
stream that may not be simulcast in ATSC 1.0.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

35. Licensing. We propose to apply our licensing process for
primary simulcast streams to guest multicast streams aired on a host
station.\43\ Thus, an originating station's multicast streams aired as
guest streams on a host will be licensed as additional temporary
channels of the originating broadcaster. That is, each of the
originating station's guest multicast streams aired on a host would be
considered an additional, separate channel under the originating
station's single, unified license.\44\ We seek comment on this
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ The 2017 Next Gen TV First Report and Order authorized a
Next Gen TV station to obtain a separate authorization for its
primary stream (1.0 or 3.0) aired on a partner host station. Under
these proposed rules, a Next Gen TV station could seek to obtain
separate authorizations for each host station used to air any
programming stream, and would no longer be limited to the two
authorizations contemplated in the Next Gen TV First Report and
Order.
\44\ The guest stream aired on a partner host station will be
considered part of the guest station's license and may not be
separately assigned to a third party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

36. Form 2100. We propose to modify our Next Gen TV license
application form (FCC Form 2100) to accommodate multicast licensing and
any other changes adopted in the final order to this proceeding. We
seek comment on what information we should collect in this regard,
including what information we could collect to provide more
transparency about Next Gen TV broadcasters' hosting arrangements. For
example, based on our proposals above, we might collect the following
information for each programming stream (primary and multicast) that
the applicant would license on a host station: (1) Each guest stream's
channel number (RF and virtual) as aired on the host (i.e., channel
10.2, 10.3 etc.); (2) resolution (i.e., HD or SD); (3) network
programming affiliation (if any); and (4) whether the stream will be
simulcast. If we adopt any limits on spectrum or programming
aggregation, we also seek comment on what information we would require
in order to implement such limits. We might also, for example, collect
the following information in order to identify each partner host
station used by the applicant: (1) Host's call sign and facility
identification number; (2) host's DMA; and (3) the predicted percentage
of population within the noise limited service contour served by the
station's original ATSC 1.0 signal that will be served by the host,
including identifying areas of service loss by providing a contour
overlap map. We seek comment on whether the information discussed in
this paragraph would be useful to the Commission and the public as well
as the burden on broadcasters if required to provide this information.
We seek comment on whether additional information not discussed in this
paragraph should be collected. To avoid administratively expensive and
time-consuming changes to the form for a temporary licensing process,
and expedite the availability of the revised form, we propose to
collect much of this information through one or more required exhibits.
We seek comment on this proposed approach. Finally, we seek comment on
how to make this information accessible to the public and interested
parties.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\45\ We note that a Next Gen TV station's ATSC 3.0 license
application (Form 2100) is available through the Commission's
Licensing and Management System (LMS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

37. Timing. As set forth above, we tentatively conclude that any
rules adopted pursuant to this FNPRM should apply until and unless the
Commission eliminates the mandatory local simulcasting requirement.\46\
As we have made clear, and again emphasize, these arrangements are
intended to be temporary, but continue to be necessary, given the
standard is not backward-compatible with existing TV sets or
receivers.\47\ We find it to be most sensible to apply these rules for
the same duration as the ATSC 3.0 rules applicable to primary streams
because they are intended to achieve the same purposes, which are to
preserve existing 1.0 viewership while giving broadcasters the
flexibility to transition 3.0. We seek comment on this tentative
conclusion. We also seek particular comment on whether to sunset the
``substantially similar'' requirement for simulcast multicast streams
on the same schedule as the primary stream simulcast requirement,
currently scheduled to sunset on July 17, 2023.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ Although there is no expiration date for the local
simulcasting requirement, the Commission has stated that it
``intends that the local simulcasting requirement be temporary'' and
will consider in a future proceeding when it would be appropriate to
eliminate the requirement.
\47\ ATVA expresses concern about the potential for a Next Gen
TV broadcaster to exercise ``permanent'' control over the spectrum
of multiple competitors in its market. We believe ATVA's concerns
are overstated given the transitional nature of the proposed rules.
\48\ The ``substantially similar'' sunset is scheduled for
review in 2022 as part of the Commission's broader review of the
transition and the state of the Next Gen TV marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

38. Alternative or additional proposals. Finally, we seek comment
on any other ways not previously considered in which modification of
our rules would not only help facilitate the 3.0 transition but also
preserve existing ATSC 1.0 service to viewers.
39. Digital Equity and Inclusion. Finally, the Commission, as part
of its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all,\49\
including people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live
in rural or Tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically
underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty
or inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations
\50\ and benefits (if any) that may be associated with the proposals
and issues discussed herein. Specifically, we seek comment on how our
proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity,
inclusion, and accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission's
relevant legal authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\49\ Section 1 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended
provides that the FCC ``regulat[es] interstate and foreign commerce
in communication by wire and radio so as to make [such service]
available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United
States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color,
religion, national origin, or sex.'' 47 U.S.C. 151.
\50\ The term ``equity'' is used here consistent with Executive
Order 13985 as the consistent and systematic fair, just, and
impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who
belong to underserved communities that have been denied such
treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American
persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of
color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities;
persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely
affected by persistent poverty or inequality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Procedural Matters

40. Initial RFA Analysis. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act of 1980 (RFA),\51\ the Commission has prepared an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA). The IRFA is below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\51\ 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, was amended by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

41. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. This document
contains proposed information collection requirements. The Commission,
as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites
the general

[[Page 70803]]

public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the
information collection requirements contained in this document, as
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).\52\ Public and
agency comments are due February 11, 2022. Comments should address: (a)
Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including
whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy
of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on the respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology; and (e) way to further reduce the information
collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief
Act of 2002,\53\ the Commission will seek specific comment on how it
might ``further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\52\ The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-
13, 109 Stat 163 (1995) (codified in Chapter 35 of title 44 U.S.C.).
\53\ The Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002 (SBPRA),
Public Law 107-198, 116 Stat. 729 (2002) (codified in Chapter 35 of
title 44 U.S.C.). See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

42. Comments should be sent to <a href="http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>.
Find this particular information collection by selecting ``Currently
under 60-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search
function. Your comment must be submitted into <a href="http://www.reginfo.gov">www.reginfo.gov</a> per the
above instructions for it to be considered. In addition to submitting
in <a href="http://www.reginfo.gov">www.reginfo.gov</a> also send a copy of your comment on the proposed
information collection to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#20707261604643430e474f56">[email&#160;protected]</a>
and to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3c7f5d485445126b555050555d514f7c5a5f5f125b534a">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Include in the comments the OMB control
number.
43. To view or obtain a copy of this information collection request
(ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to this OMB/GSA web page: <a href="http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>, (2) look for the section of the web
page called ``Currently Under Review,'' (3) click on the downward-
pointing arrow in the ``Select Agency'' box below the ``Currently Under
Review'' heading, (4) select ``Federal Communications Commission'' from
the list of agencies presented in the ``Select Agency'' box, (5) click
the ``Submit'' button to the right of the ``Select Agency'' box, and
(6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for
the OMB control number of this ICR as shown in the Supplementary
Information section below (or its title if there is no OMB control
number) and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC
submission to OMB will be displayed.
44. OMB Control Number: 3060-1254.
Title: Next Gen TV/ATSC 3.0 Local Simulcasting Rules; 47 CFR
73.3801 (full-power TV), 73.6029 (Class A TV), and 74.782 (low-power
TV) and FCC Form 2100 (Next Gen TV License Application).
Form No.: FCC Form 2100 (Next Gen TV License Application).
Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; not-for-profit
institutions; and/or state, local or tribal governments.
Number of Respondents: 1,222 respondents 11,260 responses.
Estimated Time per Response: 0.017 hours to 8 hours.
Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement;
Recordkeeping Requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.
Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in
Sections 1, 4, 7, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 325(b), 336, 338,
399b, 403, 614, and 615 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 157, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 325(b),
336, 338, 399b, 403, 534, and 535.
Total Annual Burden: 3,752 hours.
Total Annual Costs: $147,000.
Needs and Uses: The FNPRM proposes changes to its Next Gen TV rules
to allow Next Gen TV broadcasters to include within their license
certain of their non-primary video programming streams (multicast
streams) that are aired in a different service on ``host'' stations
during a transitional period, using the same licensing framework, and
to a large extent the same regulatory regime, established for the
simulcast of primary video programming streams on ``host'' station
facilities.
Statutory Authority: Sections 1, 4, 7, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309,
316, 319, 325(b), 336, 338, 399b, 403, 614, and 615 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 157, 301,
303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 325(b), 336, 338, 399b, 403, 534, and
535.
45. Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose. This proceeding shall be
treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the
Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must
file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any
oral presentation within two business days after the presentation
(unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex
parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
46. Filing Requirements--Comments and Replies. Pursuant to sections
1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,\54\ interested parties may
file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on
the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\54\ 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419.
\55\ Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

47. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended

[[Page 70804]]

(RFA),\56\ the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies proposed in
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Written public comments are
requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM
provided on the first page of the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy
of this entire NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).\57\ In addition,
the NPRM and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the
Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\56\ 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, was amended by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
\57\ 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rule Changes

48. In this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM),
we consider changes to our ATSC 3.0 (3.0 or Next Gen TV) rules to make
it easier for Next Gen TV broadcasters to continue to provide viewers
with existing programming that is offered on non-primary multicast
video programming streams (multicast streams) after these stations
begin ATSC 3.0 service. We propose to revise our rules to allow ATSC
3.0 broadcasters to treat as part of their license certain multicast
streams that are aired as a ``guest'' signal on a partner ``host''
station during the mandatory local simulcasting period, using the same
licensing framework, and to a large extent the same regulatory regime,
established for the simulcast of primary video programming streams on
``host'' station facilities.\58\ We therefore tentatively conclude that
we should permit Next Gen TV stations to license one or more simulcast
multicast streams on a host station or stations, whether that guest
stream is the 3.0 broadcast or the ATSC 1.0 (1.0) simulcast. Second, we
propose, with limitations, that Next Gen TV stations which are
broadcasting in 3.0 on their own channel may license one or more
multicast stream aired only in 1.0 format on a host station or stations
even if they are not simulcasting that stream in 3.0. Third, we seek
comment on whether our rules should permit an originating station to
rely on simulcasting its primary stream on two separate host stations
in order to minimize service loss caused by its transition to 3.0. In
addition, we seek comment on certain policy concerns raised regarding
these new potential licensing arrangements and tentatively conclude to
apply certain ATSC 3.0 transition rules currently in place for primary
streams to both simulcast and non-simulcast licensed multicast streams
aired on host stations, with certain exceptions. Under this proposal
for multicast licensing, the Commission would authorize a Next Gen TV
station to either (1) include its multicast streams under its
authorization on the primary host's channel; or (2) obtain a separate
authorization for any 1.0 or 3.0 multicast stream(s) aired on a host's
channel that is not the primary host's channel. We propose to amend our
Next Gen TV local simulcasting rules to accommodate multicast
licensing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\58\ A ``host'' station is one whose facilities are being used
to transmit programming originated by another station (``guest'') as
part of a local simulcasting arrangement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

49. We seek to craft rules that will protect current OTA viewers by
facilitating and encouraging Next Gen TV stations to preserve 1.0
multicast streams during the transition while also creating an
environment that does not stifle innovative new services that may be
offered to OTA viewers through the deployment of ATSC 3.0 service.
Pursuant to the current ATSC 3.0 rules, Next Gen TV stations are not
required to simulcast their multicast streams but may choose to air
them pursuant to private contractual arrangements. NAB explains that
some host stations may be reluctant, however, to accept legal
responsibility when airing another station's multicast stream(s), even
if they can obtain indemnification from such station through a private
contractual agreement. Further, many Next Gen Broadcasters cannot
simulcast all of their multicast streams because of capacity and other
practical constraints. The licensed multicast stream approach proposed
herein would address these concerns by providing the industry with
regulatory certainty about the legal treatment of multicast streams and
facilitating their carriage on multiple stations. A licensed multicast
approach would not only make clear that the originating station (and
not the host station) is responsible for regulatory compliance
regarding the multicast stream being aired on a host station but also
give the Commission clear enforcement authority over the originating
station in the event of a rule violation on the hosted multicast
programming stream. In addition, this approach would facilitate
noncommercial educational (NCE) stations' 3.0 deployment by allowing
them to serve as hosts to commercial stations' multicast streams
without violating the prohibition on broadcasting advertisements over
spectrum dedicated to noncommercial use.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\59\ 47 U.S.C. 399B (prohibiting noncommercial stations from
making their ``facilities available to any person for the
broadcasting of any advertisement'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Legal Basis

50. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 4, 7,
301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 325(b), 336, 338, 399b, 403, 534,
and 535 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,
154, 157, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 325(b), 336, 338, 399b, 403,
534, and 535.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

51. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.\60\ The RFA generally
defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the
terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business''
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the
Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
SBA.\61\ The rules proposed herein will directly affect small
television and radio broadcast stations. Below, we provide a
description of these small entities, as well as an estimate of the
number of such small entities, where feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\60\ 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
\61\ 15 U.S.C. 632(a)(1). Application of the statutory criteria
of dominance in its field of operation and independence are
sometimes difficult to apply in the context of broadcast television.
Accordingly, the Commission's statistical account of television
stations may be over-inclusive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

52. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau
defines this industry as ``establishments primarily engaged in
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired communications
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony

[[Page 70805]]

services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video
programming distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By
exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution
services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are
included in this industry.'' The SBA has developed a small business
size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of
all such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for
2017 shows that there were 3,054 firms that operated that year. Of this
total, 2,964 operated with fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under this
size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered
small.
53. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission
has developed its own small business size standards for the purpose of
cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a ``small cable
company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide.
Industry data indicate that there are currently 1,096 active cable
companies in the United States. Of this total, all but five cable
companies (or ``operators'') nationwide are small under the 400,000-
subscriber size standard. In addition, under the Commission's rate
regulation rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000
or fewer subscribers. Current Commission records show 4,600 cable
systems nationwide. Of this total, 3,900 cable systems have fewer than
15,000 subscribers, and 700 systems have 15,000 or more subscribers,
based on the same records. Thus, under this standard as well, we
estimate that most cable systems are small entities.
54. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The
Communications Act also contains a size standard for small cable system
operators, which is ``an operator that, directly or through an
affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all
subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity
or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed
$250,000,000.'' There are approximately 46,006,823 cable video
subscribers in the United States today. Accordingly, an operator
serving fewer than 460,068 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator
if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of
all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Based
on available data, we find that all but five incumbent cable operators
are small entities under this size standard. We note that the
Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable
system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual
revenues exceed $250 million. Although it seems certain that some of
these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross
annual revenues exceed $250 million, we are unable at this time to
estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators
that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the
Communications Act.
55. Direct Broadcast Satellite (``DBS'') Service. DBS Service is a
nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and
audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic ``dish'' antenna
at the subscriber's location. DBS is now included in SBA's economic
census category ``Wired Telecommunications Carriers.'' The Wired
Telecommunications Carriers industry is defined in paragraph 6, supra.
By exception, establishments providing satellite television
distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they
operate are included in this industry. The SBA determines that a
wireline business is small if it has fewer than 1,500 employees. Census
data for 2017 indicate that 3,054 wireline firms were operational
during that year. Of that number, 2,964 operated with fewer than 250
employees. Based on that data, we conclude that the majority of
wireline firms are small under the applicable standard. However, based
on data developed internally by the FCC, currently only two entities
provide DBS service, which requires a great deal of capital for
operation: DIRECTV and DISH Network. Accordingly, we must conclude that
internally developed FCC data are persuasive that in general DBS
service is provided only by large firms.
56. Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems, also known
as Private Cable Operators (PCOs). SMATV systems or PCOs are video
distribution facilities that use closed transmission paths without
using any public right-of-way. They acquire video programming and
distribute it via terrestrial wiring in urban and suburban multiple
dwelling units such as apartments and condominiums, and commercial
multiple tenant units such as hotels and office buildings. SMATV
systems or PCOs are now included in the SBA's broad economic census
category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which was developed for
small wireline businesses. The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all
such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2017
shows that there were 3,054 firms that operated that year. Of this
total, 2,964 operated with fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under this
size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered
small.
57. Home Satellite Dish (HSD) Service. HSD or the large dish
segment of the satellite industry is the original satellite-to-home
service offered to consumers, and involves the home reception of
signals transmitted by satellites operating generally in the C-band
frequency. Unlike DBS, which uses small dishes, HSD antennas are
between four and eight feet in diameter and can receive a wide range of
unscrambled (free) programming and scrambled programming purchased from
program packagers that are licensed to facilitate subscribers' receipt
of video programming. Because HSD provides subscription services, HSD
falls within the SBA-recognized definition of Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for
Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such companies
having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2017 shows that there
were 3,054 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 2,964 operated
with fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under this size standard, the
majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.
58. Open Video Services. The open video system (OVS) framework was
established in 1996, and is one of four statutorily recognized options
for the provision of video programming services by local exchange
carriers. The OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution
of video programming other than through cable systems. Because OVS
operators provide subscription services, OVS falls within the SBA small
business size standard covering cable services, which is Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA has developed a small business
size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of
all such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for
2017 shows that there were 3,054 firms that operated that year. Of this
total, 2,964 operated with fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under this
size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered
small. In addition, we note that the Commission has certified some OVS
operators, with some now providing service. Broadband service providers
(BSPs) are currently the only significant holders of OVS certifications
or local OVS franchises. The Commission does not have financial or
employment information regarding the entities

[[Page 70806]]

authorized to provide OVS, some of which may not yet be operational.
Thus, again, at least some of the OVS operators may qualify as small
entities.
59. Wireless Cable Systems--Broadband Radio Service and Educational
Broadband Service. Wireless cable systems use the Broadband Radio
Service (BRS) \62\ and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) \63\ to
transmit video programming to subscribers. In connection with the 1996
BRS auction, the Commission established a small business size standard
as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of no more than $40
million in the previous three calendar years. The BRS auctions resulted
in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493
Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the
definition of a small business. BRS also includes licensees of stations
authorized prior to the auction. At this time, we estimate that of the
61 small business BRS auction winners, 48 remain small business
licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA
authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent BRS licensees
that are considered small entities. After adding the number of small
business auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees not
already counted, we find that there are currently approximately 440 BRS
licensees that are defined as small businesses under either the SBA or
the Commission's rules. In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86,
the sale of 78 licenses in the BRS areas. The Commission offered three
levels of bidding credits: (i) A bidder with attributed average annual
gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million
for the preceding three years (small business) received a 15 percent
discount on its winning bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed average
annual gross revenues that exceed $3 million and do not exceed $15
million for the preceding three years (very small business) received a
25 percent discount on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder with
attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million
for the preceding three years (entrepreneur) received a 35 percent
discount on its winning bid. Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale
of 61 licenses. Of the 10 winning bidders, two bidders that claimed
small business status won four licenses; one bidder that claimed very
small business status won three licenses; and two bidders that claimed
entrepreneur status won six licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\62\ BRS was previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution
Service (MDS) and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service
(MMDS).
\63\ EBS was previously referred to as the Instructional
Television Fixed Service (ITFS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

60. In addition, the SBA's placement of Cable Television
Distribution Services in the category of Wired Telecommunications
Carriers is applicable to cable-based Educational Broadcasting
Services. Since 2007, these services have been defined within the broad
economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which
was developed for small wireline businesses. This category is defined
in paragraph 6, supra. The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all
such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2017
shows that there were 3,054 firms that operated that year. Of this
total, 2,964 operated with fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under this
size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered
small. In addition to Census data, the Commission's internal records
indicate that as of August 2021, there are 2,451 active EBS licenses.
The Commission estimates that of these 2,451 licenses, the majority are
held by non-profit educational institutions and school districts, which
are by statute defined as small businesses.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\64\ The term ``small entity'' within SBREFA applies to small
organizations (non-profits) and to small governmental jurisdictions
(cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, and
special districts with populations of less than 50,000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

61. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) and Small Incumbent
Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent
local exchange services. ILECs and small ILECs are included in the
SBA's economic census category, Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The
SBA has developed a small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such companies
having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2017 shows that there
were 3,054 firms that operated that year. Of this total, 2,964 operated
with fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under this size standard, the
majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.
62. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Competitive Access
Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local
Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a
small business size standard specifically for these service providers.
These entities are included in the SBA's economic census category,
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which
consists of all such companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census
data for 2017 shows that there were 3,054 firms that operated that
year. Of this total, 2,964 operated with fewer than 250 employees.
Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms in this industry
can be considered small.
63. Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category
``comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images
together with sound.'' These establishments operate television
broadcast studios and facilities for the programming and transmission
of programs to the public. These establishments also produce or
transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television
stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a
predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own studio,
from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA has
created the following small business size standard for such businesses:
Those having $41.5 million or less in annual receipts. The 2017
Economic Census reports that 744 firms in this category operated in
that year. Of this number, 657 had annual receipts of less than $25
million, 48 had annual receipts ranging from $25 million to
$99,999,999, and 39 had annual receipts of $100 million or more. Based
on this data we therefore estimate that the majority of commercial
television broadcasters are small entities under the applicable SBA
size standard.
64. Additionally, the Commission has estimated the number of
licensed commercial television stations to be 1,374. Of this total,
1,282 stations (or 94.2%) had revenues of $41.5 million or less in
2018, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media
Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on April 15, 2019, and therefore
these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In
addition, the Commission estimates the number of licensed noncommercial
educational (NCE) television stations to be 384. The Commission does
not compile and does not have access to information on the revenue of
NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many such stations
would qualify as small entities.
65. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern
qualifies as ``small'' under the above definition, business (control)

[[Page 70807]]

affiliations \65\ must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely
overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our
action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not
include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition,
another element of the definition of ``small business'' requires that
an entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at
this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish
whether a specific television broadcast station is dominant in its
field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to
which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the
definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly
over-inclusive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\65\ ``[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one
concern controls or has the power to control the other or a third
party or parties controls or has the power to control both.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

66. There are also 386 Class A stations. Given the nature of these
services, the Commission presumes that all of these stations qualify as
small entities under the applicable SBA size standard. In addition,
there are 1,985 LPTV stations and 3,306 TV translator stations. Given
the nature of these services as secondary and in some cases purely a
``fill-in'' service, we will presume that all of these entities qualify
as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements

67. The FNPRM proposes to authorize Next Gen TV broadcasters to air
their multicast streams as guest signals on host stations during the
mandatory local simulcasting period. We propose to apply our MVPD
notice rules in place for primary streams to multicast streams that are
currently carried by an MVPD and which will be relocated to a host
station or terminated as a result of the station's transition. MVPD
carriage of such multicast signals would be determined through
retransmission consent negotiations, as there is no mandatory carriage
for multicast streams. In addition, we propose to apply our on-air
consumer notice rules for 1.0 primary simulcast streams relocated to a
host station or terminated as a result of the station's transition.
Under this proposal, a Next Gen TV station that relocates its 1.0
multicast stream to a host station or terminates such multicast stream
as a result of the station's transition to ATSC 3.0 must air daily PSAs
or crawls every day for 30 days prior to the date that the stations
will relocate or terminate the 1.0 multicast stream.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities and
Significant Alternatives Considered

68. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1)
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities.
69. These proposals would not impose a negative economic impact on
any small entities involved because they provide increased flexibility
to broadcasters without imposing additional obligations. Indeed, by
expanding the ability of broadcasters to place licensed streams on
additional host partners, our proposals may allow small broadcast
entities transitioning to ATSC 3.0 to experience positive economic
impacts through partnerships with unaffiliated third parties. NCE
television stations in particular, both large and small, will
experience positive benefits from the proposals in this item, which
could improve their ability to participate in the transition to Next
Gen TV. In addition, we expect the proposed multicast licensing
approach to minimize administrative burdens for all broadcasters,
including small broadcasters. The proposed rules would streamline the
current process whereby broadcasters request special temporary
authority on a case-by-case basis.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule.

70. None.

VI. Ordering Clauses

71. It is ordered, pursuant to the authority found in sections 1,
4, 7, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 325(b), 336, 338, 399b, 403,
534, and 535 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
151, 154, 157, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 325(b), 336, 338,
399b, 403, 534, and 535, this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is
hereby adopted and notice is hereby given of the proposals and
tentative conclusions described in this Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking.
72. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 73 and 74

Communications equipment, Television.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rules

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 73 and 74 as
follows:

PART 73--RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334,
336, 339.

0
2. Section 73.3801 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(5) and adding
paragraph (i) to read as follows:

Sec. 73.3801 Full Power television simulcasting during the ATSC 3.0
(Next Gen TV) transition.

[[Page 70808]]

(1) 1.0 Multicast Streams. A Next Gen TV station may license its
guest ATSC 1.0 multicast stream(s) aired on one or more ATSC 1.0 hosts
pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section. Non-simulcast streams are
not required to comply with paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) 3.0 Multicast Streams. A Next Gen TV station may license its
guest ATSC 3.0 multicast stream(s) aired on one or more ATSC 3.0 hosts
pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section.
(3) Next Gen TV stations may rely on a multicast stream they are
airing via a host partner to comply with the Commission's children's
television programming requirement in Sec. 73.671 of this Part. Such a
stream must either be carried on the same host as the Next Gen TV
station's primary stream, or on a host that serves at least 95 percent
of the predicted population served by the applicant's pre-transition
1.0 signal.
0
3. Section 73.6029 is amended by revising paragraph (f)(5) and adding
paragraph (i) to read as follows:

Sec. 73.6029 Class A television simulcasting during the ATSC 3.0
(Next Gen TV) transition.

* * * * *
(f) * * *
(5) Expedited processing. An application filed in accordance with
the streamlined process in paragraph (f)(3) of this section will
receive expedited processing provided, for stations requesting to air
an ATSC 1.0 primary signal on the facilities of a host station, that
station will provide ATSC 1.0 service to at least 95 percent of the
predicted population within the noise limited service contour of its
original ATSC 1.0 facility.
* * * * *
(i) Multicast Streams. A Next Gen TV station is not required to
license, under paragraph (f) of this section, a ``guest'' multicast
stream that it originates and which is aired on a host station. If it
chooses to do so, it and each of its licensed guest multicast streams
must comply with the requirements of this section (including those
otherwise applicable only to primary streams), except for paragraph
(f)(5) and as otherwise provided in this paragraph. For purposes of
this section, a ``multicast'' stream refers to a video programming
stream other than the primary video programming stream.
(1) 1.0 Multicast Streams. A Next Gen TV station may license its
guest ATSC 1.0 multicast stream(s) aired on one or more ATSC 1.0 hosts
pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section. Non-simulcast streams are
not required to comply with paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) 3.0 Multicast Streams. A Next Gen TV station may license its
guest ATSC 3.0 multicast stream(s) aired on one or more ATSC 3.0 hosts
pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section.
(3) Next Gen TV stations may rely on a multicast stream they are
airing via a host partner to comply with the Commission's children's
television programming requirement in Sec. 73.671 of this part. Such a
stream must either be carried on the same host as the Next Gen TV
station's primary stream, or on a host that serves at least 95 percent
of the predicted population served by the applicant's pre-transition
1.0 signal.

PART 74--EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST AND OTHER
PROGRAM DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES

0
4. 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.

0
5. Section 74.782 is amended by revising paragraph (g)(5) and adding
paragraph (j) to read as follows:

Sec. 74.782 Low power television and TV translator simulcasting
during the ATSC 3.0 (Next Gen TV) transition.

* * * * *
(g) * * *
(5) Expedited processing. An application filed in accordance with
the streamlined process in paragraph (f)(3) of this section will
receive expedited processing provided, for stations requesting to air
an ATSC 1.0 primary signal on the facilities of a host station, that
station will provide ATSC 1.0 service to at least 95 percent of the
predicted population within the noise limited service contour of its
original ATSC 1.0 facility.
* * * * *
(j) Multicast Streams. A Next Gen TV station is not required to
license, under paragraph (f) of this section, a ``guest'' multicast
stream that it originates and which is aired on a host station. If it
chooses to do so, it and each of its licensed guest multicast streams
must comply with the requirements of this section (including those
otherwise applicable only to primary streams), except for paragraph
(f)(5) and as otherwise provided in this paragraph. For purposes of
this section, a ``multicast'' stream refers to a video programming
stream other than the primary video programming stream.
(1) 1.0 Multicast Streams. A Next Gen TV station may license its
guest ATSC 1.0 multicast stream(s) aired on one or more ATSC 1.0 hosts
pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section. Non-simulcast streams are
not required to comply with paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) 3.0 Multicast Streams. A Next Gen TV station may license its
guest ATSC 3.0 multicast stream(s) aired on one or more ATSC 3.0 hosts
pursuant to paragraph (f) of this section.
(3) Next Gen TV stations may rely on a multicast stream they are
airing via a host partner to comply with the Commission's children's
television programming requirement in Sec. 73.671 of this part. Such a
stream must either be carried on the same host as the Next Gen TV
station's primary stream, or on a host that serves at least 95 percent
of the predicted population served by the applicant's pre-transition
1.0 signal.

[FR Doc. 2021-26375 Filed 12-10-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on December 13, 2021.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.