[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 137 (Thursday, July 16, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43195-43203]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13203]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MB Docket Nos. 20-145; FCC 20-73; FRS 16851]


Promoting Broadcast Internet Innovation Through ATSC 3.0

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on the extent 
to which we should clarify or modify our existing rules in order to 
further promote the deployment by television broadcasters of new, 
innovative ancillary and supplementary services, which we refer to as 
``Broadcast Internet,'' as part of the transition to ATSC 3.0. We first 
seek comment generally on potential uses of the new technological 
capability from ATSC 3.0 and any existing regulatory barriers to 
deployment. We then consider specifically whether any changes or 
clarifications are needed to the ancillary and supplementary service 
fee rules and the rules defining derogation of service and analogous 
services. A Declaratory Ruling relating to the broadcast ancillary and 
supplementary service rules is published elsewhere in this issue of the 
Federal Register.

DATES: Comments due on or before August 17, 2020; reply comments due on 
or before August 31, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket 
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by 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. Commercial overnight mail 
(other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be 
sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.U.S. Postal 
Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 
445 12th Street, SW, Washington DC 20554. 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information on this 
proceeding, contact John Cobb, [email protected] of the Policy 
Division, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2120.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), MB Docket Nos. 20-145; FCC 20-73, 
adopted and released on June 9, 2020. A summary of the Declaratory 
Ruling adopted concurrently relating to the broadcast ancillary and 
supplementary service rules is published elsewhere in this issue of the 
Federal Register. The full text of this document is available for 
public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC 
Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street 
SW, CY-A257, Washington, DC, 20554. The full text of this document will 
also be available via ECFS (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents 
will be available electronically in ASCII, Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) 
The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. To 
request these documents in accessible formats (computer diskettes, 
large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an email to 
[email protected] or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Synopsis

    The United States is transitioning to a new era of connectivity. 
From innovative 5G offerings to high-capacity fixed services and an 
entirely new generation of low-earth orbit satellites, providers from 
previously distinct sectors are competing like never before to offer 
high-speed internet services through a mix of different technologies. 
The Commission has been executing on a plan to identify and remove the 
overhang of unnecessary government regulations that might otherwise 
hold back the introduction and growth of new competitive offerings. We 
want the marketplace--not outdated rules--to determine whether new 
services and technologies will succeed. Broadcasters, as well as a 
range of other entities, now have the potential to use broadcast 
spectrum to enter the converged market for connectivity in ways not 
possible only a few short years ago.
    With this item, we take important steps to further unlock the 
potential of broadcast spectrum, empower innovation, and create 
significant value for broadcasters and the American public alike by 
removing the uncertainty cast by legacy regulations. More than twenty 
years ago, during the transition from analog to digital broadcast 
television, the Commission adopted rules allowing digital television 
(DTV) licensees to provide ancillary or supplementary services on their 
excess spectrum capacity and authorized licensees to enter into leases 
with other entities that would provide such services. Flash forward to 
today, and the conversion of digital television from the first-
generation technologies associated with the ATSC 1.0 standard to the 
next-generation of ancillary services that will be enabled by ATSC 3.0 
is now underway. This new technology promises to expand the universe of 
potential uses of broadcast spectrum capacity for new and innovative 
services beyond traditional over-the-air video in ways that will 
complement the nation's burgeoning 5G network and usher in a new wave 
of innovation and opportunity. These new offerings over broadcast 
spectrum can be referred to collectively as ``Broadcast Internet'' 
services to distinguish them from traditional over-the-air video 
services. Broadcasters will not only be able to better serve the 
information and entertainment needs of their communities, but they will 
have the

[[Page 43196]]

opportunity to play a part in addressing the digital divide and 
supporting the proliferation of new, IP-based consumer applications or 
voluntarily entering into arrangements to allow others to invest in 
achieving those goals. We undertake this proceeding to ensure that our 
rules help to foster the introduction of new services and the efficient 
use of spectrum.
    In the NPRM, we seek comment on the extent to which we should 
clarify or modify our existing rules in order to further promote the 
deployment of Broadcast Internet services as part of the transition to 
ATSC 3.0. As when the ancillary services rules were first adopted, the 
Commission seeks to promote and preserve free, universally available, 
local broadcast television by providing a clear regulatory landscape 
that permits licensees the flexibility to succeed in a competitive 
market and incentivizes the most efficient use of prime spectrum. And 
given that the existing rules were adopted over twenty years ago, we 
believe it is appropriate at this time to reassess them in the context 
of the newest advanced broadcast television technology. To that end, in 
the NPRM we first seek comment generally on potential uses of the new 
technological capability from ATSC 3.0 and any existing regulatory 
barriers to deployment. We then consider specifically whether any 
changes or clarifications are needed to the ancillary and supplementary 
service fee rules and the rules defining derogation of service and 
analogous services. In so doing, we seek to encourage the robust usage 
of broadcast television spectrum capacity for the provision of 
Broadcast Internet services consistent with statutory directives.
    Background. Commission Regulations Applicable to Ancillary and 
Supplementary Services. Pursuant to section 336 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act), Congress established the 
framework for licensing DTV spectrum to television broadcasters and 
permitted them to offer ancillary and supplementary services consistent 
with the public interest. Congress recognized that the transition from 
analog to digital broadcast technology would enable DTV licensees to 
provide new and innovative services, including various forms of data 
services, over their additional spectrum capacity and wanted to provide 
licensees with the flexibility necessary to utilize fully that new 
potential. Accordingly, section 336 directed the Commission to adopt 
regulations that would allow DTV licensees to make use of excess 
spectrum capacity, so long as the ancillary or supplementary services 
carried on DTV capacity do not derogate any advanced television 
services (i.e., free over-the-air broadcast service) that the 
Commission may require. Such ancillary or supplemental services are 
also subject to any Commission regulations that are applicable to 
analogous services. The statute also directed the Commission to impose 
a fee on ancillary or supplementary services for which the DTV licensee 
charges a subscription fee or receives compensation from a third party 
other than commercial advertisements used to support non-subscription 
broadcasting.
    The Commission adopted the initial rules governing the provision of 
ancillary or supplementary broadcast services in 1997 as part of the 
DTV Fifth Report and Order. Consistent with the Act, the rules obligate 
DTV licensees to ``transmit at least one over-the-air video program 
signal at no direct charge to viewers on the DTV channel.'' This means 
that regardless of whatever other services a broadcaster may provide 
over its spectrum, it must continue to provide one free stream of 
programming to viewers. As long as DTV licensees satisfy that 
obligation, the rules permit them to ``offer services of any nature, 
consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, on an 
ancillary or supplementary basis'' provided the services do not 
derogate the licensee's obligation to provide one free stream of 
programming to viewers and are subject to any regulations on services 
analogous to the ancillary or supplementary service. These rules 
reflect the Commission's intent to promote the public interest by 
maximizing ``broadcasters' flexibility to provide a digital service to 
meet the audience's needs and desires.''
    The Commission initiated a separate proceeding to determine how 
best to assess and collect the statutorily required fee for ancillary 
or supplementary services. The statute directed the Commission to adopt 
a fee structure that would ``recover for the public a portion of the 
value of the public spectrum resource made available for such 
commercial use, and . . . avoid unjust enrichment through the method 
employed to permit such uses of that resources.'' It also specifically 
instructed the Commission to set the fee at a value that, ``to the 
extent feasible, equals but does not exceed (over the term of the 
license) the amount that would have been recovered had such services 
been licensed pursuant to the provisions of section 309(j) of [the Act] 
and the Commission's regulations thereunder.'' Ultimately, the 
Commission determined that a fee based on a percentage of the gross 
revenues generated by feeable ancillary or supplementary services was 
the best option to satisfy the statutory directive and achieve the goal 
of incentivizing innovation to maximize spectrum efficiency. The 
Commission set the fee at five percent of gross revenues received from 
any feeable ancillary or supplementary services.
    Subsequently, the Commission clarified the ancillary or 
supplementary service rules as applied to noncommercial educational 
(NCE) television licensees. The Commission concluded that Sec.  73.621 
of the rules, which requires public NCE stations to provide a nonprofit 
and noncommercial broadcast service, would apply to the provision of 
ancillary or supplementary services by NCE licensees. However, the 
Commission also decided to allow NCE licensees to offer subscription 
services on their excess capacity and to advertise on ancillary or 
supplementary services that do not constitute broadcasting. Finally, 
the Commission concluded that section 336(e) of the Act does not exempt 
NCE licensees ``from the requirement to pay fees on revenues generated 
by the remunerative use of their excess digital capacity, even when 
those revenues are used to support their mission-related activities.''
    Pursuant to section 336(e)(4) of the Act, the Commission originally 
adopted rules requiring all DTV licensees and permittees annually to 
file a form (currently Form 2100, Schedule G), reporting information 
about their use of the DTV bitstream to provide feeable ancillary and 
supplementary services. In 2017, as a part of the Modernization of 
Media Regulation Initiative, the Commission revised these filing 
requirements. The Commission concluded that requiring every DTV 
licensee to file the form was an unnecessary regulatory burden, as very 
few licensees offered any feeable service, and instead changed the 
rules to require only those licensees who had provided feeable 
ancillary or supplementary services during the applicable reporting 
period to file the form. As the Commission observed, at that time only 
a fraction of all television broadcast stations provided feeable 
ancillary or supplementary services despite expectations in the wake of 
the digital transition.
    Next Generation Broadcast Standard (ATSC 3.0). ATSC 3.0 is the 
``Next Generation'' broadcast television (Next Gen TV) transmission 
standard developed by the Advanced Television Systems Committee as the 
world's first IP-based broadcast transmission platform, which ``merges 
the capabilities of over-the-air broadcasting

[[Page 43197]]

with the broadband viewing and information delivery methods of the 
internet, using the same 6 MHz channels presently allocated for DTV 
service.'' As stated in the Next Gen TV Report and Order, the ATSC 3.0 
standard will allow broadcasters to ``offer exciting and innovative 
services,'' including superior reception, mobile viewing capabilities, 
enhanced public safety capabilities (such as advanced emergency 
alerting capable of waking up sleeping devices to warn consumers of 
imminent emergencies), enhanced accessibility features, localized and/
or personalized content, interactive educational children's content, 
and other enhanced features. In 2017, the Commission authorized 
broadcasters to begin the transition to ATSC 3.0 voluntarily and 
established standards to minimize the impact on, and costs to, 
consumers and other industry stakeholders. The Media Bureau began 
accepting applications for Next Gen TV licenses on May 28, 2019. 
Earlier this year, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking seeking comment on proposed changes to the rules governing 
the use of distributed transmission systems (DTS) by broadcast 
television stations. Proponents of the changes assert that they will 
facilitate the use of new and innovative technologies that will improve 
traditional broadcast service and mobile reception of broadcast 
signals, as well as allow the more efficient use of broadcast spectrum, 
which they claim would enable broadcasters to exploit more fully the 
new capabilities resulting from ATSC 3.0.
    ATSC 3.0 provides greater spectral capacity than the current 
digital broadcast television standard, allowing broadcasters to 
innovate, improve service, and use their spectrum more efficiently. 
Although today many broadcasters are focused solely on deploying 
traditional broadcast television services using the ATSC 3.0 standard, 
some broadcasters and third-party groups are looking to the future and 
examining ways broadcasters can become part of the 5G ecosystem and 
provide myriad other services using the enhanced capabilities of ATSC 
3.0 technologies. Specifically, these groups hope to utilize television 
spectrum to provide non-traditional broadcast video services such as 
video-on-demand or subscription video services and new, innovative non-
broadcast services in such areas as the automotive industry, 
agriculture, distance learning, telehealth, public safety, utility 
automation, and the ``Internet of Things'' (IoT). Providing a 
regulatory environment to enable a thriving secondary market is key to 
unlocking the potential for such Broadcast Internet services via ATSC 
3.0.
    Discussion. With this NPRM, we seek comment on any rule changes 
that would create even more certainty and promote greater investment in 
innovative Broadcast Internet services. We therefore seek comment on 
three topics related to the provision of ancillary or supplementary 
services by broadcast television licensees, either on their own or in 
conjunction with a third party, to aid the Commission in determining 
whether and how to modify or clarify its rules to promote the 
deployment of Broadcast Internet services that can complement the 5G 
network as a part of the transition to ATSC 3.0. First, we seek comment 
on a number of general matters concerning the potential uses and 
applications of excess broadcast spectrum capacity resulting from the 
transition to ATSC 3.0. Second, we seek comment on whether the amount 
and method of calculating the ancillary services fee should be 
reconsidered given the new potential uses of excess spectrum capacity. 
Finally, we ask whether the Commission should clarify the rules 
prohibiting derogation of broadcast service and defining an analogous 
service.
    General Matters. As an initial matter, we invite comment on the 
types of Broadcast Internet services that are likely to be provided in 
the future using the ATSC 3.0 standard. Recently, television 
broadcasters have indicated that they will use their spectrum to 
provide innovative services in such areas as automotive transportation, 
agriculture, distance learning, telehealth, public safety, utility 
automation, and IoT devices. Given the wide and likely expanding range 
of services that could rely on Broadcast Internet spectrum, are there 
rule changes we should consider to help promote such services? In 
addition, we invite comment on when television broadcasters anticipate 
such services might be introduced into the marketplace. Further, to 
what extent will Broadcast Internet services be utilized as a 
complement to our nation's 5G network? Are Broadcast Internet services 
likely to be offered in urban areas of the country as well as in rural 
and underserved areas?
    We seek comment generally on the steps the Commission should take 
to promote innovation, experimentation, and greater use of broadcast 
television spectrum to provide ancillary and supplementary services. In 
addition to today's declaratory ruling, are there additional steps we 
should take, in light of changes to the marketplace, that could 
encourage or facilitate the ability of broadcast licensees to enter 
into partnerships or leasing arrangements for the provision of 
ancillary and supplementary services that would allow them or others to 
utilize broadcast spectrum more efficiently and to its fullest extent? 
For example, are there steps the Commission could take to help 
facilitate dynamic spectrum management agreements or to provide 
regulatory certainty for prospective lessees, specifically? Should we 
consider revisions to our broadcast licensing rules to allow for 
partnerships or leasing arrangements beyond those that are the subject 
of clarification in today's declaratory ruling (e.g., leases more 
closely resembling those used by wireless licensees)? To this end, are 
there any rules applicable to mobile or fixed wireless services that 
could be considered useful models for the purposes of encouraging 
Broadcast Internet services? In addition, what regulatory, technical, 
or other barriers exist that might impede the introduction of Broadcast 
Internet services? For example, do the existing technical rules 
regarding ancillary and supplemental services restrict the types of 
services that could be offered, either by a station directly or in 
partnership with a third party? To the extent such barriers exist, what 
steps, if any, should the Commission take to eliminate them?
    We seek comment more specifically on whether there are any 
potential regulatory limitations on the ability of public television 
stations to provide Broadcast Internet services. For example, section 
399B of the Communications Act permits public stations to provide 
facilities and services in exchange for remuneration provided those 
uses do not interfere with the stations' provision of public 
telecommunications services. Section 399B, however, does not permit 
public broadcast stations to make their facilities ``available to any 
person for the broadcasting of any advertisement.'' In 2001, however, 
the Commission concluded that the section 399B ban on advertising 
applies to all broadcast programming streams provided by NCE licensees 
but does not apply to ancillary or supplementary services on their DTV 
channels, such as subscription services or data transmission services, 
to the extent that such services do not constitute ``broadcasting.'' We 
tentatively conclude that the Commission's 2001 determination regarding 
section 399B permits NCE

[[Page 43198]]

broadcasters to offer Broadcast Internet services. We seek comment on 
the kinds of Broadcast Internet services NCE licensees are likely to 
provide. How are these stations planning to take advantage of the 
opportunities afforded by the transition from ATSC 1.0 to ATSC 3.0? Are 
there any regulatory or other impediments to the provision of ancillary 
and supplementary services by NCE stations?
    We also seek comment on the provision of Broadcast Internet 
services by low power (LPTV) television stations. Are LPTV broadcasters 
likely to offer Broadcast Internet services? If so, what kinds of 
services are these broadcasters likely to provide? Do LPTV stations 
face unique challenges in the provision of Broadcast Internet services 
and, if so, what are they? If such challenges exist, what steps, if 
any, should the Commission take to facilitate the provision of such 
services by LPTV stations?
    Ancillary and Supplementary Service Fee. As noted above, the 1996 
Act requires broadcasters to pay a fee to the U.S. Treasury to the 
extent they use their DTV spectrum to provide ancillary or 
supplementary services ``(A) for which the payment of a subscription 
fee is required in order to receive such services, or (B) for which the 
licensee directly or indirectly receives compensation from a third 
party in return from transmitting material furnished by such a third 
party (other than commercial advertisements used to support 
broadcasting for which a subscription fee is not required).'' Below we 
seek comment on whether we should clarify or modify the rules 
applicable to the provision of feeable ancillary and supplementary 
services, such as the amount and method of calculating the fee or the 
reporting requirements, given the new potential uses of spectrum 
capacity to provide ancillary and supplementary offerings through ATSC 
3.0 technologies, including innovative services that were not 
contemplated when the Commission first implemented the rules over two 
decades ago.
    At the outset, we note that, as discussed above, the Commission is 
subject to certain statutory mandates for determining the fee for 
ancillary and supplementary services carried on the public spectrum. 
Specifically, the ancillary and supplementary services fee must be 
designed to: (1) Recover for the public a portion of the value of the 
public spectrum resource made available for ancillary or supplemental 
use by broadcasters; (2) avoid unjust enrichment of broadcasters 
through the method used to permit digital use of the spectrum; and (3) 
recover for the public an amount that, to the extent feasible, equals 
but does not exceed (over the term of the license) the amount that 
would have been recovered had such services been licensed at auction. 
Also, the Commission is required by statute to adjust the ancillary and 
supplementary services fee ``from time to time'' in order to ensure 
that these requirements continue to be met.
    When the Commission last undertook an assessment of ancillary and 
supplementary service fees in 1998, it determined that it would assess 
fees on all revenue--both subscription and advertising revenue--from 
all ancillary and supplementary services for which viewers must pay 
subscription fees. In addition, as required by the 1996 Act, the 
Commission determined that fees must be assessed on ancillary and 
supplementary services for which the licensee directly or indirectly 
receives compensation from a third party in exchange for the 
transmission of material provided by the third party (other than for 
commercial advertisements used to support broadcasting for which a 
subscription fee is not required). The Commission noted that, pursuant 
to our rules, over-the-air video programming provided at no charge to 
viewers is not an ancillary or supplementary service. It reasoned, 
therefore, that this provision ``applies to ancillary or supplementary 
services, consisting of material that does not originate with the 
licensee and that the viewer can receive without payment of a fee.'' 
These services may include data, audio, ``or any other ancillary or 
supplementary services that may be established in the future.'' The 
Commission noted that it received very little comment on the types of 
non-subscription ancillary or supplementary services parties 
contemplated providing. Accordingly, it concluded that, in determining 
whether a non-subscription ancillary or supplementary service is 
feeable, ``until we gain more experience, we will simply be guided by 
the statutory criteria as questions arise.''
    Given the passage of time since the implementation of the ancillary 
and supplementary fee program over two decades ago and the 
technological developments since then that will enable the provision of 
new and innovative ancillary or supplementary services on the public 
spectrum, we seek comment on whether we should clarify or modify our 
rules for assessing fees on such services. In the ATSC 3.0 proceeding, 
some commenters suggested that a higher fee might be warranted to 
ensure compliance with the statutory directives in section 336(e)(2)(A) 
through (B), while others asserted that the fee should be reduced to 
ensure that it does not impede innovation by Next Gen TV broadcasters. 
In the Next Gen TV Report and Order, the Commission concluded that it 
would be premature to adjust the fee associated with ancillary services 
in part because it was not clear from the record in that proceeding 
which ATSC 3.0-based services and features would be ``ancillary 
services'' or which such services will be feeable.
    With the possibility of providing new, innovative ancillary and 
supplementary services that were not necessarily envisioned at the time 
the fee rules were established, is it appropriate at this time to 
adjust the fee associated with ancillary and supplementary services? 
Should we consider adjustments to either the basis of the fee or the 
percentage of the fee? Are there any circumstances under which it would 
be appropriate to set the fee at zero? What changes, if any, would 
ensure that the fee promotes the provision of innovative ancillary and 
supplementary services offered by ATSC 3.0 transmission while complying 
with statutory requirements (e.g., recovering some portion of the value 
of the spectrum for the public, preventing unjust enrichment, 
recovering for the public an amount that equals the amount that would 
have been recovered at auction)? And how, if at all, should we account 
for changes in the communications and media landscape? What would be 
the costs and benefits of adjusting the ancillary services fee? 
Commenters advocating in favor of modifying the fee should describe 
with specificity the kinds of ancillary services broadcasters are 
likely to offer in ATSC 3.0 and the benefits that would accrue from any 
proposed change in fee structure. Alternatively, is it still premature 
to change the fee rules now? Should we allow the ATSC 3.0 marketplace 
to develop further before considering changes?
    Are there any other issues we should consider with respect to the 
application of fees to the provision of ancillary or supplementary 
services during the transition to ATSC 3.0? For example, in order to 
promote the provision of new services, should we apply the fee only to 
gross revenues above a certain threshold? If so, should such a 
threshold apply only to certain classes of stations, such as NCE 
stations? Similarly, should the fees be capped during license term and, 
if so, at what level? Should we revisit the Commission's prior decision 
to adopt a fixed percentage rate as opposed to a variable percentage 
rate based upon the type of service provided? Should we consider 
granting exemptions for certain classes of service

[[Page 43199]]

from fees, such as telehealth, distance learning, public safety, or 
homeland security-related services, or services that promote access in 
rural areas? Would it be consistent with the statute to do so? Would 
such rule changes or exemptions be consistent with the Commission's 
statutory obligation to assess a fee that will recover some portion of 
the value of the spectrum for the public, prevent unjust enrichment, 
and approximate the revenue that would have been received through 
auction? We note that when the Commission initially implemented the 
program for assessing ancillary and supplementary fees, it observed 
that ``[a]n overly complex fee program could be difficult for licensees 
to calculate and for the Commission to enforce and could create 
uncertainty that might undermine a DTV licensee's efficient planning of 
what services it will provide.'' Does this concern regarding complexity 
weigh against any changes to the ancillary and supplementary fee that 
differentiate among types of services? We invite comment generally on 
these issues.
    We invite comment on how the ancillary and supplementary services 
fee should be calculated in instances where a broadcaster receives 
compensation from an unaffiliated third party, such as a spectrum 
lessee, in return for the airing of material provided by the third 
party. For example, the broadcaster could lease spectrum to a third 
party for a set fee or could agree to share in the proceeds generated 
by the service offered by the third party. We tentatively conclude 
that, in each instance, the fees should be calculated based on the 
gross revenue received by the broadcaster, without regard to the gross 
revenue of the spectrum lessee. Indeed, to hold otherwise could subject 
the broadcaster to a fee payment in excess of the actual gross revenue 
it received. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. To the 
extent the licensee and the lessee are affiliated (e.g., commonly owned 
or controlled), we believe that the gross revenues of the lessee should 
be attributed to the licensee for purposes of calculating the ancillary 
and supplementary services fee. Otherwise, the licensee (or its parent 
company) could create a subsidiary for the sole purpose of evading the 
fee while retaining all of the financial benefit of the arrangement. We 
seek comment on these issues. We also invite comment on whether the 
calculation of fees should include the value of any ``in-kind'' 
improvements made by an unaffiliated spectrum lessee to the licensee's 
facilities to facilitate the provision of services. While such facility 
improvements could reasonably be considered a form of indirect 
compensation that may otherwise be subject to the ancillary and 
supplementary services fee, we tentatively conclude that the value of 
such improvements should be excluded from the gross revenue 
calculation. The transition to ATSC 3.0 is voluntary and many stations 
may lack the funds and/or expertise to upgrade their transmission 
facilities. Excluding the value of in-kind improvements from the fee 
calculation may help promote faster adoption of ATSC 3.0 and greater 
use of spectrum for Broadcast Internet applications. Over time, this 
could result in greater fee collection as broadcasters derive greater 
gross revenues as a result of the facilities upgrade. We invite comment 
on these issues.
    Finally, we seek comment on whether we should consider any changes 
to the annual reporting requirement applicable to the provision of 
feeable ancillary or supplementary services. Currently, the 
Commission's rules require all commercial and noncommercial DTV 
licensees and permittees that provided feeable ancillary or 
supplementary services during the applicable 12-month period to report 
each December 1: (1) A brief description of the feeable ancillary or 
supplementary services provided; (2) gross revenues received from all 
feeable ancillary and supplementary services provided during the 
applicable period; and (3) the amount of bitstream used to provide 
feeable ancillary or supplementary services during the applicable 
period. Should the Commission make any changes to the information 
collected on the form or any other information collections related to 
the provision of ancillary and supplemental services?
    Derogation of Service and Analogous Services. The 1996 Act and 
specifically section 336 thereof allow broadcasters flexibility to 
provide ancillary and supplementary services. But in authorizing 
broadcast television stations to provide ancillary or supplementary 
services on their DTV channels, Congress required that the provision of 
such services: (1) Must avoid derogating any advanced television 
services that the Commission may require; and (2) must be subject to 
Commission regulations applicable to analogous services. In furtherance 
of this statutory requirement, the Commission adopted Sec.  73.624(c) 
of the rules, which permits broadcasters to offer ancillary and 
supplementary services so long as they ``do not derogate the DTV 
broadcast stations' obligations under paragraph (b) of this section.'' 
Section 73.624(b) of the rules, in turn, requires that each DTV 
broadcast licensee transmit at least one standard definition (SD) over-
the-air video program signal on its digital channel at no charge to 
viewers that is at least comparable in resolution to analog television 
programming. Accordingly, a station's service is not derogated so long 
as it continues to offer at least one free over-the-air SD video 
programming stream at least comparable in resolution to analog 
television programming pursuant to Sec.  73.624(b). Furthermore, 
broadcasters are permitted to provide ancillary or supplementary 
services on their broadcast spectrum that are analogous to other 
regulated services, but should they choose to do so, they are required 
to adhere to any rules specific to such type of service.
    While the Commission adopted broad rules in furtherance of these 
statutory requirements in 1997, it has not revisited these rules since 
affirming them on reconsideration in 1998. In particular, the 
Commission has not conducted a recent examination of how these 
restrictions should be applied in the context of changes in the media 
and communications landscape, or in light of the capabilities offered 
by the ATSC 3.0 transmission standard as compared to the ATSC 1.0 
standard. Accordingly, we seek comment below on whether the existing 
interpretation of what constitutes a derogation of service remains 
valid or whether any changes are warranted. Further, we seek comment on 
whether and, if so, how the Commission should provide greater clarity 
to broadcasters to determine when an offered service is ``analogous'' 
to a regulated service and thus would require compliance with parts of 
the Act and Commission rules beyond those governing broadcast services.
    Derogation of Service. As discussed above, section 336(b) of the 
Act requires that the Commission ``limit the broadcasting of ancillary 
or supplementary services . . . so as to avoid derogation of any 
advanced television services.'' We tentatively conclude that the 
determination of whether a broadcast station's signal has been 
derogated should continue to be evaluated by whether it provides at 
least one standard definition over-the-air video program signal at no 
direct charge to viewers that is at least comparable in resolution to 
analog television programming, as required by Sec.  73.624(b). We seek 
comment on this tentative conclusion. We also tentatively conclude that 
we should amend the wording of Sec.  73.624(b) to specifically define 
the precise resolution that is considered to be ``at least comparable 
in

[[Page 43200]]

resolution to analog television programming'' as 480i. We seek comment 
on this proposal. What resolution does the broadcast industry currently 
use for purposes of compliance with the Commission's existing ``at 
least comparable in resolution to analog television programming'' 
standard? We recognize that since adoption of these rules, broadcasters 
have begun providing a myriad of broadcast television programming 
offerings both in high definition (HD) and SD, often offering multiple 
streams (i.e., subchannels) of free, over-the-air, video programming. 
We seek comment on whether a broadcaster's replacement of an HD 
offering with an SD offering in order to deploy ancillary and 
supplementary services should be deemed a derogation of advanced 
television services under our rules. Are there any other modifications 
of the Commission's current derogation of service rule that we should 
consider in order to ensure that, as mandated by section 336 of the 
Act, broadcasters' ancillary and supplementary offerings are not being 
provided to the derogation of ``advanced television services'' (i.e., 
free over-the-air broadcast service)? How might any proposed rule 
modification, on balance, affect broadcasters' ability to deploy 
ancillary and supplementary services?
    Standard for Evaluating Analogous Services. As stated above, 
section 336(b) of the Act outlines the Commission's authority to permit 
the provision of ancillary or supplementary services by DTV licensees 
in order to ensure parity among regulated entities and prevent unjust 
enrichment. While the Commission's rules provide examples of the types 
of services that might be offered, there is no specific guidance on how 
licensees or the Commission should determine whether a non-broadcast 
service being offered by a DTV licensee is ``analogous'' to another 
regulated service and therefore subject to regulation under those 
rules. To date, the Commission has provided little guidance beyond that 
offered in the rule when it was initially adopted. At that time, the 
Commission referenced, and largely just extended, the prior approach 
applicable to the provision of ancillary and supplementary services by 
television station licensees broadcasting in analog.
    We seek comment on whether the Commission should provide additional 
guidance regarding the factors or other approaches it will use to 
determine whether an ancillary or supplementary service is sufficiently 
``analogous'' to another service. What are some examples of services 
that broadcasters may be looking to offer to consumers that could be 
deemed ``analogous'' to services currently regulated by the Commission? 
As a general matter, what information should the Commission consider 
when determining whether an ancillary or supplementary service being 
offered is analogous to another regulated service? Should we adopt a 
presumptive standard by which any service that has certain specific 
characteristics is deemed to be analogous to another Commission 
service? What characteristics would be indicative of a service that 
should be considered to meet such a presumptive standard? 
Alternatively, are there certain circumstances in which a broadcaster 
should be presumptively deemed not to be offering an analogous service? 
For example, what if the broadcaster or a third-party spectrum lessee 
is not offering the entire, end-to-end, service to the consumer or 
customer? What if the broadcast spectrum is only being used for 
wireless off-load for existing broadband providers (e.g., airing large 
bit-rate video programming), one-way data distribution services (e.g., 
consumer device software updates), or as part of spectrum that must be 
aggregated across more than one broadcaster in order to provide a 
viable service? Can an input to another service be regulated as an 
``analogous service''? Should any affirmative finding by the Commission 
be required? If so, what should be the process for obtaining such 
approval and what information should be provided by broadcasters to 
demonstrate that the presumptive standard has been met?
    Further, in the event that an ancillary or supplementary service is 
analogous to a service permitted elsewhere in the Commission's rules, 
but is only provided by a third party lessee or the television station 
for a very short period of time--on a discrete basis (e.g., only an 
hour per day) and/or on an aggregated basis (e.g., no more than 48 
hours collectively in a month or a year)--should the Commission's 
analogous services rule apply nonetheless? Stated differently, should 
an analogous service always be subject to the applicable analogous 
service's rules regardless of the circumstances, or should the 
Commission permit some flexibility or ``de minimis'' operation if the 
broadcaster or its third-party spectrum lessee only offers the service 
on a discrete or aggregated basis? Should we adopt a ``de minimis'' 
service threshold that exempts DTV licensees that provide analogous 
services from needing to apply for a license or authorization that may 
otherwise be required under the analogous services rules? Would this be 
consistent with the statute that seeks to ensure parity among service 
providers? If so, what would an appropriate ``de minimis'' service 
threshold be for such an exemption? Specifically, what would be the 
appropriate discrete and/or aggerated time limits? Would such 
flexibility benefit and promote broadcasters' efforts to offer 
Broadcast Internet services, and, if so, how? In order to promote the 
offering of ancillary and supplementary services, should the Commission 
consider waiving, on a case-by-case or other basis, certain regulations 
that would apply to analogous services? Are there certain rules that 
are applicable to other regulated service providers that may not be 
feasible for broadcasters to comply with?
    Are there other actions the Commission can take to provide 
broadcasters with greater guidance and clarity as to whether a service 
they are seeking to offer would be deemed an analogous service? Are 
there any other issues we should consider with regard to the analogous 
services provision in light of advancements in broadcasting and the 
capabilities of the ATSC 3.0 standard?
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This document may result in new or revised 
information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501 through 3520). If the 
Commission adopts any new or revised information collection 
requirement, the Commission will publish a notice in the Federal 
Register inviting the public to comment on the requirement, as required 
by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 
3501-3520). In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork 
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the 
Commission seeks specific comment on how it might ``further reduce the 
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer 
than 25 employees.''
    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. Ex parte presentations are permissible if 
disclosed in accordance with Commission rules, except during the 
Sunshine Agenda period when presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are 
generally prohibited. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a 
copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral 
presentation within two business days

[[Page 43201]]

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. Memoranda must 
contain a summary of the substance of the ex parte presentation and not 
merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two 
sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally 
required. 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 
section 1.1206(b) of the rules. In proceedings governed by section 
1.49(f) of the rules 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.
    Filing Requirements--Comments and Replies. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  
1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, 
interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before 
the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be 
filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). 
See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 
24121 (1998).
    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the 
internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
    Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an 
original and one copy of each filing. 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. Commercial 
overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and 
Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, 
MD 20701.U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554. 
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. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy. 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.
    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission 
has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) concerning the possible significant economic impact on small 
entities by the policies and rules 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 provided on the first page of the NPRM. 
The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
(SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be 
published in the Federal Register.
    Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules. With this item, we 
take important steps to help further unlock the potential of broadcast 
spectrum, empower innovation, and create significant value for 
broadcasters and the American public alike by removing the uncertainty 
cast by legacy regulations. More than twenty years ago, during the 
transition from analog to digital broadcast television, the Commission 
adopted rules allowing digital television (DTV) licensees to provide 
ancillary or supplementary services on their excess spectrum capacity 
and authorized licensees to enter into leases with other entities that 
would provide such services. Flash forward to today, and the conversion 
of digital television from the first-generation technologies associated 
with the ATSC 1.0 standard to the next-generation of ancillary services 
that will be enabled by ATSC 3.0 is now underway. This new technology 
promises to expand the universe of potential uses of broadcast spectrum 
capacity for new and innovative services beyond traditional over-the-
air video in ways that will complement the nation's burgeoning 5G 
network and usher in a new wave of innovation and opportunity. These 
new offerings over broadcast spectrum can be referred to collectively 
as ``Broadcast Internet'' services to distinguish them from traditional 
over-the-air video services. Broadcasters will not only be able to 
better serve the information and entertainment needs of their 
communities, but they will have the opportunity to play a part in 
addressing the digital divide and supporting the proliferation of new, 
IP-based consumer applications or voluntarily entering into 
arrangements to allow others to invest in achieving those goals. We 
undertake this proceeding to ensure that our rules help to foster the 
introduction of new services and the efficient use of spectrum.
    By this NPRM, we seek comment on the extent to which we should 
clarify or modify our existing rules in order to further promote the 
deployment of Broadcast Internet services as part of the transition to 
ATSC 3.0. As when the ancillary services rules were first adopted, the 
Commission seeks to promote and preserve free, universally available, 
local broadcast television by providing a clear regulatory landscape 
that permits licensees the flexibility to succeed in a competitive 
market and incentivizes the most efficient use of prime spectrum. And 
given that the existing rules were adopted over twenty years ago, we 
believe it is appropriate at this time to reassess them in the context 
of the newest advanced broadcast television technology.
    To that end, in this NPRM we first seek comment on potential uses 
of the new technological capability from ATSC 3.0 in such areas as the 
automotive industry, agriculture, distance learning, telehealth, public 
safety, utility automation, and the ``Internet of Things'' (IoT). We 
intend to identify and minimize any existing regulatory, technical, or 
other barriers that might

[[Page 43202]]

impede the introduction of these Broadcast Internet services. We then 
consider whether any changes or clarifications are needed to the 
ancillary and supplementary service fee rules and the rules defining 
derogation of service and analogous services. Specifically, we ask 
whether we should clarify or modify the rules applicable to the 
provision of feeable ancillary and supplementary services, such as the 
amount and method of calculating the fee or the reporting requirements, 
given the new potential uses of spectrum capacity to provide ancillary 
and supplementary offerings through ATSC 3.0 technologies, including 
innovative services that were not contemplated when the Commission 
first implemented the rules over two decades ago. With regard to the 
rules defining derogation of service we tentatively conclude that the 
determination of whether a broadcast station's signal has been 
derogated should continue to be evaluated by whether it provides at 
least one standard definition over-the-air video program signal at no 
direct charge to viewers, as required by the rules. Further, with 
regard to the rules defining analogous services, we seek comment on 
whether the Commission should provide additional guidance regarding the 
factors or other approaches it will use to determine whether an 
ancillary or supplementary service is sufficiently ``analogous to 
another service.'' We seek comment on any other rule changes we should 
consider to provide greater regulatory clarity to television 
broadcasters. In so doing, we seek to encourage the robust usage of 
broadcast television spectrum capacity for the provision of Broadcast 
Internet services consistent with statutory directives.
    Legal Basis. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 
1, 4(i), 4(j), 303(r), and 336 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), and 336.
    Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply. 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. 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. Below, we provide a description of such small 
entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, 
where feasible.
    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 2012 Economic Census reports 
that 751 firms in this category operated in that year. Of this number, 
656 had annual receipts of less than $25 million, 25 had annual 
receipts ranging from $25 million to $49,999,999, and 70 had annual 
receipts of $50 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.
    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 388. 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.
    We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern 
qualifies as ``small'' under the above definition, business (control) 
affiliations 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.
    There are also 387 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 1,892 LPTV stations and 3,621 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.
    Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements. It is our intent to promote and preserve free, 
universally available, local broadcast television by permitting 
licensees the freedom to succeed in a competitive market, as well as to 
incentivize the most efficient use of prime spectrum. We do not 
anticipate this NPRM leading to any new reporting, recordkeeping, or 
other compliance requirements. Rather, it should decrease already 
existing regulatory burdens on broadcast television licensees as the 
goal of this proceeding is to reduce regulatory uncertainty and 
eliminate outdated rules that could hinder the development of the new, 
innovative uses of broadcast spectrum that the ATSC 3.0 standard 
enables.
    However, we do seek comment on whether we should consider any 
changes to the annual reporting requirement applicable to the provision 
of feeable ancillary or supplementary services. Currently, the 
Commission's rules require all commercial and noncommercial DTV 
licensees and permittees that provided feeable ancillary or 
supplementary services during the applicable 12-month period to report 
each December 1: (1) A brief description of the feeable ancillary or 
supplementary services provided; (2) gross revenues received from all 
feeable ancillary and supplementary services provided during the 
applicable period; and (3) the amount of bitstream used to provide 
feeable ancillary or supplementary services during the applicable 
period. If after the record develops we determine that there is a need 
for any additional reporting requirements associated with the

[[Page 43203]]

provision of feeable ancillary or supplementary services, we will take 
all appropriate steps to minimize the burden on broadcast licensees.
    Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an 
agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered 
in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or 
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use 
of performance, rather than design, standard; and (4) an exemption from 
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
    Through this NPRM, the Commission seeks to minimize the regulatory 
burden associated with the provision of ancillary or supplementary 
services by broadcast television licensees, the majority of which are 
classified as small entities. The existing rules governing the 
provision of ancillary or supplementary broadcast services, found in 
Sec.  73.624, apply consistently to all broadcast licensees to ensure 
that the provision of new and innovative services does not result in a 
derogation of the free, universally available, local broadcast 
television service for which the license is granted. These minimum 
service standards must apply to all licensees, including small 
entities. The Declaratory Ruling we issue today removes regulatory 
uncertainty that could hinder the development of the new, innovative 
uses of broadcast spectrum that the ATSC 3.0 standard enables. 
Consistent with this action, any final rule the Commission adopts in 
response to this NPRM will reduce regulatory barriers in our existing 
regulations restricting broadcasters from using the full potential of 
ATSC 3.0 technologies and therefore should not result in any increased 
regulatory burden or negative economic impact for any broadcast 
licensees.
    Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rule. None.
    It is ordered that, pursuant to the authority found in sections 1, 
4(i), 4(j), 303(r), and 336 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 303(r), and 336, this Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking in MB Docket No. 20-145 is adopted. It is further 
ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, 
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking in MB Docket No. 20-145, including the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
Cecilia Sigmund,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-13203 Filed 7-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P