[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 135 (Monday, July 17, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45347-45369]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14408]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 73 and 74

[GN Docket No. 16-142; FCC 23-53; FR ID 152588]


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

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) makes changes to its 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 television 
technology. In the first part of this Order, the Commission establishes 
a licensing regime for Next Gen TV stations' multicast streams that are 
aired on host stations during the transition period. In the second part 
of this Order, the Commission retains the substantially similar rule 
and the requirement to comply with the ATSC A/322 standard.

DATES: Effective August 16, 2023, except for Sec. Sec.  73.3801(f) and 
(i), 73.6029(f) and (i), and 74.782(g) and (j) which contain 
information collection requirements that are not effective until 
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Commission 
will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the 
effective date for these sections. In addition, effective August 16, 
2023, the stay on 47 CFR 73.682(f)(2)(iii) is lifted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, contact 
Evan Baranoff, [email protected], of the Media Bureau, Policy 
Division, (202) 418-7142. 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 [email protected] or contact Cathy Williams at 
(202) 418-2918.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Third 
Report and Order, in GN Docket No. 16-142; FCC 23-53, adopted on June 
20, 2023 and released on June 23, 2023. The full text of this document 
is available electronically via the FCC's website at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-53A1.pdf or via the FCC's 
Electronic Comment Filing

[[Page 45348]]

System (ECFS) website at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs (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 [email protected] 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 Third Report and Order in the Next Generation Broadcast 
Television (ATSC 3.0 or Next Gen TV) docket, we make 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 television technology. These changes are based on the 
records collected in response to both the Next Gen TV Multicast 
Licensing FNPRM, 86 FR 70793 (Dec. 13, 2021), and the Sunsets FNPRM, 87 
FR 40464 (Jul 7, 2022). We generally adopt our proposal in the Next Gen 
TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM to allow a Next Gen TV station \1\ to seek 
modification of its license \2\ to include certain of its non-primary 
video programming streams (multicast streams) \3\ that are aired on 
``host'' stations \4\ during a transitional period. In adopting this 
proposal, we follow 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\ We also 
extend the sunsets of, and thus retain in effect until at least July 
17, 2027, the substantially similar rule for simulcast streams and the 
requirement to comply with the ATSC A/322 standard on primary 3.0 
streams.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 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 Report and Order, 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 as a guest on a host facility.
    \2\ While in this document we may refer to the licensing of 
multicast streams, we clarify that we are establishing a process to 
license a guest Next Gen TV station capacity on a host's channel for 
the purpose of airing one or more guest multicast streams. 
Consistent with the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, each 
portion of a host channel that is being licensed by a guest station 
to air one or more programming streams will be separately authorized 
channels under the originating (guest) broadcaster's single, unified 
license.
    \3\ For purposes of this Report and Order, ``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 (i.e., ``guest'') 
as part of a local simulcasting arrangement.
    \5\ We note that our 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 (guest) station.
    \6\ The Commission will initiate a review approximately one year 
before these rules are set to expire to seek comment on whether they 
should be extended based on marketplace conditions at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Given that Next Gen TV stations must, without any additional 
allocation of spectrum, continue 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 during this limited 
transition period. Specifically, this Report and Order 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 simultaneously to facilitate broadcasters' 
voluntary transition to ATSC 3.0, which can provide consumers with the 
benefit of new and innovative services, while protecting the vast 
majority of over-the-air TV viewers who continue to rely on 1.0 
equipment.
    3. In the accompanying Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(RAND FNPRM), published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 
Register, we seek to further our understanding of the current 
marketplace for ATSC 3.0 Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and the 
ability of third parties to develop products that rely upon them. We 
also seek comment on the impact on consumers if the Commission were to 
adopt, or not adopt, rules to require essential patent holders in 3.0 
technology to commit to licensing them on reasonable and non-
discriminatory (RAND) terms.

II. Background

    4. 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.\7\ The Commission 
required that broadcasters voluntarily deploying ATSC 3.0 service must, 
with very limited exceptions,\8\ continue to air at least their primary 
streams using the current-generation TV 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Next Gen TV is the newest broadcast TV transmission 
standard, developed by the Advanced Television Systems Committee 
(ATSC), which promises to enable broadcasters to deliver an array of 
new video and non-video services and enhanced content features to 
consumers. ATSC 3.0 merges the capabilities of over-the-air (OTA) 
broadcasting with the broadband viewing and information delivery 
methods of the internet, using the same 6 MHz channels presently 
allocated for TV service. As 3.0 proponents have previously 
explained to the Commission, the greater spectral capacity of the 
new standard and its internet-Protocol delivery component will allow 
broadcasters to provide consumers with a higher quality television 
viewing experience, such as ultra-high-definition (UHD) picture 
resolutions and immersive audio. It also has the potential to enable 
broadcasters to reach viewers on both home and mobile screens. In 
addition, ATSC 3.0 will allow broadcasters to offer enhanced public 
safety capabilities, such as geo-targeting of emergency alerts to 
tailor information to particular communities and emergency alerting 
capable of waking up sleeping devices to warn consumers of imminent 
emergencies, as well as greater accessibility options, localized 
content, and interactive educational children's content.
    \8\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. 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, 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 
consumer equipment marketplace adopts televisions and converter devices 
compatible with the new 3.0 transmission standard. This is necessary in 
order to avoid forcing viewers to acquire expensive new equipment 
immediately 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

[[Page 45349]]

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.\9\ 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. Substantially 
similar ``means that the programming must be the same except for 
advertisements, promotions for upcoming programs, and programming 
features that are based on the enhanced capabilities of ATSC 3.0.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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. In June 2022, the Commission initiated a 
proceeding to consider the state of the transition and the Next Gen 
TV marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. 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.\10\ 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.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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.
    \11\ Because Class A TV stations do not have a community of 
license, the Commission established a coverage requirement based on 
contour overlap and mileage. Some stations may not be formally 
assigned by Nielsen to DMAs. As stated in the Next Gen TV First 
Report and Order, ``we will consider stations that are not assigned 
to a DMA by Nielsen to be assigned to the DMA in which they are 
located.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Multicast Licensing

    7. According to the National Association of Broadcasters (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 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-related 
sharing arrangements] would exclude noncommercial stations from 
participating in sharing arrangements to host commercial multicast 
streams'' under section 399B of the of the Communications Act. 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.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Because our existing rules do not address a guest station's 
licensing of a host station's spectrum to air multicast streams, even 
with regard to the host that is airing the guest 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, 
in addition to making it difficult for potential viewers to track where 
streams are being hosted.
    9. In November 2020, NAB filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling 
and Petition for Rulemaking (Petition) asking the Commission to allow 
Next Gen TV stations to seek modification of their licenses to include 
certain of their multicast streams that are aired in a different 
service on host stations during the period of transition to 3.0. In 
response to the NAB Petition, we adopted the Next Gen TV Multicast 
Licensing FNPRM,\13\ which:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Comments were due February 11, 2022 and reply comments were 
due March 14, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Proposed to license a Next Gen TV broadcaster's simulcast 
multicast stream(s) either together with its primary stream on the 
primary simulcast host or on different simulcast host(s). A ``simulcast 
multicast stream'' in the context of this proceeding is a multicast 
stream that is aired by a Next Gen TV station, in substantially similar 
fashion,\14\ in both 1.0 and 3.0 formats throughout the mandatory local 
simulcasting period.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ As with primary streams, ``substantially similar'' 
multicast streams must have the same programming, 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.
    \15\ 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 guest stream 
aired on a host that is a simulcast of 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 for 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 for 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Proposed to license a Next Gen TV broadcaster's ``non-
simulcast'' 1.0 multicast stream(s) either together with its primary 
stream on its primary 1.0 host or on different 1.0 simulcast host(s). A 
``non-simulcast 1.0 multicast stream'' in the context of this 
proceeding is a multicast stream that is

[[Page 45350]]

aired only in 1.0 format and not in 3.0 format.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Declined to consider NAB's proposal to license a Next Gen 
TV broadcaster's ``non-simulcast'' 3.0 multicast stream(s) either 
together with its primary stream on its primary 3.0 host or on 
different 3.0 host(s). A ``non-simulcast 3.0 multicast stream'' in the 
context of this proceeding is a multicast stream that is aired only in 
3.0 format and not in 1.0 format.
     Proposed to allow, under certain circumstances, a Next Gen 
TV station to 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.

    The Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM also considered whether 
to limit the amount of host capacity that may be used by a given Next 
Gen TV station, and, in particular, sought comment on NAB's proposal 
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.'' In response to the Next Gen TV 
Multicast Licensing FNPRM, we received comments, reply comments, and ex 
parte communications from 15 different parties, including 10 broadcast 
station groups and associations (including NAB) and two multichannel 
video programming distributor (MVPD) associations.

B. Sunsets

    10. ``Substantially Similar'' Rule. In the First Next Gen TV Report 
and Order, 83 FR 4998 (Feb. 2, 2018), the Commission adopted a 
requirement that the programming aired on a Next Gen TV station's ATSC 
1.0 simulcast channel be ``substantially similar'' to that of the 
primary video programming stream on the ATSC 3.0 channel.\17\ This 
means that the programming must be the same, except for programming 
features that are based on the enhanced capabilities of ATSC 3.0 and 
promotions for upcoming programs. In adopting this approach, the 
Commission found it ``will help ensure that viewers do not lose access 
to the broadcast programming they receive today, while still providing 
flexibility for broadcasters to innovate and experiment with new, 
innovative programming features using Next Gen TV technology.'' The 
Commission decided, however, that the substantially similar requirement 
would expire on July 17, 2023, unless the Commission takes action to 
extend it.\18\ In this regard, the Commission concluded that, while 
``this [substantially similar] requirement is necessary in the early 
stages of ATSC 3.0 deployment, it could unnecessarily impede Next Gen 
TV programming innovations as the deployment of ATSC 3.0 progresses.'' 
The Commission further stated that it ``intend[ed] to monitor the ATSC 
3.0 marketplace,'' and would ``extend the substantially similar 
requirement if necessary.'' The substantially similar rule took effect 
on July 17, 2018, and is set to expire on July 17, 2023, unless 
extended by the Commission.\19\ The Commission affirmed this decision 
in 2020, but stated that, approximately one year before the requirement 
is set to expire, it would seek comment on whether the rule should be 
extended based on marketplace conditions at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ We refer to this as the substantially similar rule. The 
substantially similar rule is independent of the requirement for 
Next Gen TV broadcasters to simulcast in 1.0 format, a requirement 
that does not have a sunset date.
    \18\ We emphasize that the underlying requirement that a Next 
Gen TV station must simulcast in 1.0 format does not have a sunset 
date. In addition, none of the other aspects of the local 
simulcasting rules are set to expire, including those governing 
simulcast arrangements and agreements; DMA and community of license 
coverage; and MVPD notices and consumer education.
    \19\ The local simulcasting rules, sections 73.3801, 73.6029, 
and 74.782, took effect on July 17, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Requirement to comply with the ATSC A/322 standard. In 
authorizing use of the Next Gen TV broadcast transmission standard, the 
Commission in the First Next Gen TV Report and Order required 
compliance with only two parts of the ATSC 3.0 suite of standards: (1) 
ATSC A/321:2016 ``System Discovery & Signaling'' (A/321),\20\ which is 
the standard used to communicate the RF signal type that the ATSC 3.0 
signal will use; and (2) A/322:2016 ``Physical Layer Protocol'' (A/
322),\21\ which is the standard that defines the waveforms that ATSC 
3.0 signals may take.\22\ In requiring compliance with A/322, the 
Commission observed that ``device manufacturers and MVPDs may not be 
able to reliably predict what signal modulation a broadcaster is using 
unless broadcasters are required to follow A/322,'' at least with 
respect to their required primary programming stream. The Commission 
explained that ``[t]his uncertainty could cause manufacturers to 
inadvertently build equipment that cannot receive Next Gen TV 
broadcasts or could render MVPDs unable to receive and retransmit the 
signals of Next Gen TV stations. These outcomes would harm consumers.'' 
The Commission, however, decided that it was not appropriate at the 
time ``to require broadcasters to adhere to A/322 indefinitely,'' 
explaining that ``the ATSC 3.0 standard could evolve, and stagnant 
Commission rules could prevent broadcasters from taking advantage of 
that evolution.'' The Commission thus determined that the requirement 
to comply with the A/322 standard would expire on March 6, 2023, absent 
Commission action to extend it. In establishing a sunset for A/322 
compliance, the Commission sought to ``balance [its] goals of 
protecting consumers while promoting innovation.'' \23\ The Commission 
affirmed this decision in 2020, but stated that, approximately one year 
before the requirement is set to expire, it would seek comment on 
whether the rule should be extended based on marketplace conditions at 
that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See ATSC A/321:2016 ``System Discovery & Signaling'' 
(2016), https://www.atsc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/A321-2016-System-Discovery-and-Signaling.pdf.
    \21\ See ATSC A/322:2016 ``Physical Layer Protocol'' (2016), 
https://atsc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/A322-2016-Physical-Layer-Protocol.pdf.
    \22\ These two standards were incorporated by reference into the 
Commission's rules. The Commission applied the A/322 standard only 
to a Next Gen TV station's primary, free, OTA video programming 
stream.
    \23\ On March 6, 2023, the Commission temporarily extended this 
requirement pending further Commission action on the sunset.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. In June 2022, we adopted a Third Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (Sunsets FNPRM) in the Next Gen TV docket considering and 
seeking comment on the state of the Next Gen TV transition and on the 
scheduled sunsets of the substantially similar rule and the requirement 
to comply with the ATSC A/322 standard. In response to the Sunsets 
FNPRM, the Commission received comments and reply comments from 32 
different parties.

[[Page 45351]]

III. Discussion

    13. In this Order, we largely adopt the rules proposed in the Next 
Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, establishing a licensing regime for 
Next Gen TV stations' multicast streams that are aired on host stations 
during the transition period. The rules we adopt facilitate and 
encourage Next Gen TV stations to preserve consumer access to multicast 
programming in 1.0 format during the voluntary ATSC 3.0 transition. 
They will provide the industry with regulatory certainty about the 
legal treatment of licensed multicast streams; clarify that the 
originating station (and not the host station) is responsible for 
regulatory compliance regarding a multicast stream being aired on a 
host station; give the Commission clear enforcement authority over the 
originating station in the event of a rule violation on the hosted 
multicast programming stream; and facilitate NCE stations' 3.0 
deployment by allowing them to serve as hosts to commercial stations' 
multicast streams. We recognize that allowing Next Gen TV stations to 
seek modification of their licenses to include capacity on multiple 
host stations represents a notable departure from our present licensing 
regime. We also recognize that every such departure in aid of the 
voluntary NextGen TV transition, however minor it may appear, results 
in potential consumer harm and expense. For example, each time a stream 
is hosted on a different facility with a different noise-limited 
service contour (NLSC), some current viewers may lose a signal on which 
they may have come to rely, for the entire uncertain duration of the 
transition. By the same token, some viewers who were not previously in 
the coverage area may receive the signal for the first time. These 
viewers may come to rely on a signal that may be permanently lost at 
the end of the transition. Even in the case where a hosted stream 
covers the entire NLSC of the originating station, each time a change 
is made every single viewer must rescan each of their televisions and 
other receive devices to continue to receive that signal. In 
considering proposals like those in this proceeding, we therefore must 
weigh these inescapable harms, along with others unique to specific 
proposals, against the benefits that permitting additional flexibility 
in our licensing procedures may provide. In the case of the rules and 
flexibility adopted in this Order, we find that departing from our 
licensing regime is appropriate because it is limited to the temporary 
broadcast transition to 3.0 and to specific situations for which there 
is a clear need. Where we have declined to adopt the flexibility sought 
by broadcasters, it is because the record does not demonstrate that the 
needs and benefits outweigh the harms.
    14. First, we conclude that Next Gen TV stations may seek 
modification of their licenses to include one or more simulcast 
multicast streams on a host station or stations, whether that guest 
stream is a 1.0 or 3.0 simulcast (``simulcast'' multicast streams). 
Second, we conclude that Next Gen TV stations that are broadcasting in 
3.0 on their own channels may seek modification of their licenses to 
include 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). To permit the 
licensing of multicast streams on a host, each of the originating 
station's guest multicast streams will be licensed as a temporary 
channel in the same manner as its primary stream is licensed 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. Third, we decline to address 
comments asking us to allow the licensing of 3.0 non-simulcast 
multicast streams (aired as guest streams on a 3.0 host station, as 
opposed to aired on a 3.0 station's own facility) because we 
specifically did not seek comment on this issue. Fourth, we limit the 
number of 1.0 guest streams that may be included in the license of a 
single Next Gen TV station to those which it would have the capacity to 
transmit over its own facility in 1.0. Fifth we allow, in certain 
circumstances, a Next Gen TV station to 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 1.0 primary service loss that would result if originating station 
were only able to air its primary stream on a single host. Sixth, we 
extend the ``ownership waiver'' that applies in the primary stream 
context to ensure that hosted multicast streams do not implicate our 
broadcaster attribution rules, while reiterating that any changes in 
our rules governing multicast streams, including any changes adopted in 
the ongoing ownership proceeding, will apply equally to hosted 
multicast streams. Seventh, we decline to license same service (or 
``lateral'') hosting arrangements. Eighth, we conclude that we will 
generally apply the same ATSC 3.0 transition rules to licensed 
multicast streams as we do to primary simulcast streams. Ninth, we 
conclude that our multicast licensing rules will apply until the 
Commission eliminates the mandatory local simulcasting requirement. 
Finally, we extend the sunset dates for the substantially similar rule 
for simulcast streams and the requirement to comply with the ATSC A/322 
standard on primary 3.0 streams.

A. Simulcast Multicast Streams

    15. We adopt our unopposed tentative conclusion to allow a Next Gen 
TV broadcaster to seek modification of its license to include its 
simulcast multicast stream(s), whether they are hosted together with 
its primary stream on the primary simulcast host or on different 
simulcast host(s). That is, a Next Gen TV station may seek modification 
of its license to include one or more of its multicast streams, hosted 
by one or more partner stations, whenever the Next Gen TV station is 
airing that multicast stream in ``substantially similar'' fashion in 
both 1.0 and 3.0 formats and otherwise complying with the capacity, 
coverage, and other requirements discussed below. Broadcasters support 
this proposal,\24\ and no commenter raised any concerns about 
permitting the licensing of simulcast multicast streams. We adopt our 
tentative conclusion that any ``simulcast'' multicast streams must be 
``substantially similar'' as that term is

[[Page 45352]]

defined in our rules and will apply this requirement for as long as it 
applies to primary simulcasts. In order to be considered a 
``simulcast,'' a 1.0 multicast stream must be paired, one to one, with 
an identified 3.0 multicast stream.\25\ We find that permitting the 
licensing of simulcast multicast streams best meets our dual goals of 
facilitating the transition to 3.0 and protecting current 1.0 viewers 
for the reasons discussed above, including by allowing NCE stations to 
host commercial multicast streams without violating section 399B. We 
again emphasize, however, that 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. Any service temporarily provided by such a multicast stream 
beyond the station's NLSC is incidental and may not be considered for 
securing any rights or benefits, now or in the future.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ As explained in the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 
the Commission did not address the issue of multicast licensing when 
adopting its initial rules. Instead, by default, multicast 
arrangements were left to private contractual arrangements and more 
recently to the STA process. We thus reject ONE Media's 
characterization of our existing rules. We clarify that the existing 
rules (relating to a Next Gen TV station's primary stream aired on a 
host) authorize only the use of the amount of capacity on a host's 
channel that is necessary for airing the guest's primary stream. The 
Commission did not previously authorize a guest station's use of 
host capacity for airing anything other than the guest's primary 
stream. We further clarify that we are authorizing a guest station 
to use host capacity only for the specific purpose of airing 
specific programming streams, each of which must be identified in 
the license application. We also thus reject ONE Media's position 
that ``a guest station can use its capacity on the licensed host 
channel(s) for whatever programming or data services it wants.'' To 
be clear, guest stations (1.0 or 3.0) may never license host 
capacity for ancillary or supplemental services (also called 
Broadcast Internet services), although we note they may lease excess 
capacity from a host for such purposes through a private contractual 
arrangement. Moreover, guest stations on a 3.0 host, of course, may 
air 3.0 features even if separately provided from the programming 
stream (e.g., advanced emergency alerts), as such features are not 
ancillary or supplemental services but rather enhanced programming 
features.
    \25\ Multicast streams serving to deliver a primary stream's 
signal in order to minimize 1.0 primary stream service loss are the 
sole exception to this requirement.
    \26\ At the conclusion of the transition, each Next Gen TV 
station will resume service exclusively from its own facility, 
serving its existing NLSC. Because any service beyond this area will 
be temporary, such service will not be considered by the Commission 
in other contexts (e.g., must carry demands, market modifications, 
petitions for rulemaking to change a community of license, etc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Non-Simulcast 1.0 Multicast Streams

    16. We also adopt our tentative conclusion and will allow a Next 
Gen TV broadcaster to seek modification of its license to include its 
1.0 non-simulcast multicast streams, whether they are hosted together 
with its primary stream on the primary simulcast host or on different 
simulcast host(s).\27\ That is, a Next Gen TV station broadcasting in 
3.0 on its own channel may seek modification of its license to include 
one or more 1.0 multicast streams aired on a 1.0 host or hosts, even 
when it is not simulcasting that multicast stream on a paired stream in 
a 3.0 format, so long as it is otherwise complying with the capacity, 
coverage, and other requirements discussed below.\28\ Broadcaster 
commenters support allowing the licensing of 1.0 non-simulcast 
multicast streams,\29\ while MVPD commenters do not oppose such 
licensing, provided it is subject to reasonable limitations.\30\ Like 
the licensing of 1.0 simulcast multicast streams, we find that 
permitting the licensing of 1.0 non-simulcast multicast streams will 
help preserve existing service and will achieve the goals discussed 
above, including by allowing NCE stations to host commercial multicast 
streams without violating section 399B.\31\ We agree with broadcasters 
that allowing multicast licensing for 1.0 non-simulcast multicast 
streams will benefit consumers by preserving viewer access to 1.0 
multicast streams, particularly 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. As observed in the 
Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 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 stations' 
primary streams. We agree with broadcasters that denying them this 
flexibility would likely lead them to stop broadcasting some 1.0 
multicast streams altogether. We therefore find that, by extending our 
multicast licensing approach to non-simulcast 1.0 multicast streams, we 
will 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 continue serving 
their existing viewers even while 3.0 spectrum is limited. While we 
expect that capacity constraints will be the primary reason for this 
relief, given the strong public interest in facilitating broadcasters' 
preservation of the best possible 1.0 service during the transition 
period, and our limit on the amount of host capacity that may be 
licensed, we see no reason to require broadcasters to demonstrate 3.0 
capacity constraints in order to license 1.0 non-simulcast multicast 
streams.\32\ Finally, we again emphasize that hosting arrangements for 
multicast streams are temporary ones made to facilitate the transition 
to 3.0 service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ BitPath asked that we permit the licensing of multicast 
streams on different hosts with identical programming when necessary 
in order to preserve service. We do not adopt a specific rule 
addressing such streams, but we note that all guest multicast 
streams must serve the originating station's community of license, 
and each of a station's hosted streams will be considered when 
determining its compliance with the limitations on host capacity. In 
order to provide flexibility to preserve existing multicast streams, 
we also decline to restrict the number of 1.0 hosts with which a 
station may partner, so long as it does not exceed its licensed 
capacity and complies with the coverage requirements discussed below 
for each of its streams.
    \28\ Non-simulcast 1.0 multicast streams licensed pursuant to 
our rules are not required to comply with 47 CFR 73.3801(b), 
73.6029(b), and 74.782(b) (the ``Simulcasting Requirement'').
    \29\ Broadcaster commenters uniformly and enthusiastically 
support the licensing of non-simulcast streams and, to the extent 
the Commission adopts any limits, they support NAB's proposed host 
capacity limit.
    \30\ MVPDs do not oppose the licensing of non-simulcast streams, 
provided there are reasonable limits on the number and types of 
multicast streams a Next Gen TV station may license on a host 
station.
    \31\ Section 399B of the Communications Act provides that ``[n]o 
public broadcast station may make its facilities available to any 
person for the broadcasting of any advertisement.'' 47 U.S.C. 
399B(b)(2). Under a private arrangement, an NCE station would be 
prohibited from hosting the simulcast programming of a commercial 
station because the stream would be aired on the ``facilities'' of 
the NCE licensee. However, under a licensed approach, the 
``facilities'' are no longer exclusively the facilities of the NCE 
station, as each station has a right to use the facilities pursuant 
to its separate license and contractual rights. A commercial stream 
aired on a partner NCE station will be separately licensed and 
authorized to use the host's channel, therefore permitting an NCE 
station to serve as a host to a commercial stream.
    \32\ We thus reject NCTA's suggestion that we require a 
broadcaster to demonstrate 3.0 capacity constraints as a 
prerequisite to receiving authorization for non-simulcast 1.0 
streams. We find that concerns regarding the need for limits on any 
one broadcaster's use of spectrum will be adequately addressed by 
the capacity constraints that we adopt below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Non-Simulcast 3.0 Multicast Streams

    17. Our current rules do not provide for the licensing of 3.0 non-
simulcast multicast streams aired as guest streams on a 3.0 host 
station.\33\ In the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, we 
specifically declined to seek comment on NAB's proposal asking us to 
allow a Next Gen TV station (that continues to broadcast in 1.0 on its 
own channel) to seek modification of its license to include 3.0 
multicast (guest) streams aired on a 3.0 host station, even if it is 
not simulcasting those multicast streams in a 1.0 format. Thus, we do 
not address the comments we nevertheless received on this issue. We 
note, however, that under our existing rules, a Next Gen TV station may 
air 3.0 non-simulcast multicast streams on its own 3.0 facility. This 
is because, under our existing rules, a Next Gen TV broadcaster does 
not have to simulcast its multicast streams in 1.0 and does not need 
separate license authorization to air its own multicast streams on its 
own 3.0 facility.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Because at this time our rules do not allow Next Gen TV 
stations to license host capacity for 3.0 non-simulcast multicast 
streams, we do not address the issue of a 3.0 host capacity limit.
    \34\ Consequently, a Next Gen TV station that converts its own 
facility to 3.0 could air a ``demo'' multicast stream without 
simulcasting such stream in 1.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Limits on Licensing of Host Capacity

    18. In response to our request for comment on ensuring that a Next 
Gen TV broadcaster does not use the interim flexibility proposed in 
this FNPRM to aggregate capacity beyond that which is

[[Page 45353]]

legally permissible today, we find that it is appropriate to limit a 
Next Gen TV station's 1.0 host capacity to that which it could deploy 
on its own 1.0 channel and adopt a modified version of NAB's proposal 
in order to effectuate this limit.\35\ Specifically, a Next Gen TV 
station that has converted its own facility to 3.0 must not license 
more capacity on partner host stations, in the aggregate, than the 
station could use if it were still operating its own facility in 1.0. A 
Next Gen TV station must demonstrate compliance with this rule in its 
license application and may do so by either: (1) showing that it is 
seeking hosting only for streams it was broadcasting on its own 1.0 
facility prior to its transition to 3.0; or (2) by providing an example 
of another 1.0 station that is carrying or has carried the same or a 
similar programming lineup to that which it seeks to provide on host 
stations and at the same resolutions. To enable the Commission and 
other interested parties to evaluate compliance with the host capacity 
limit, a Next Gen TV station applicant will be required to provide 
information regarding each of its licensed streams. Stations may also 
be asked to submit additional information to the Commission upon 
request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ We also sought comment on a specific NAB proposal to 
address this concern, limiting the scope of hosting arrangements by 
requiring that ``[i]n 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.'' Even at the time of 
proposing this language, however, NAB noted that it did not consider 
such a limitation necessary. We note that one 6 MHz channel provides 
a station with approximately 19.4 Mbps of capacity. Although the 
FNPRM referred to ``spectrum aggregation,'' we agree with NAB that 
this concern is more accurately described as capacity aggregation 
and that this concept, and our implementation of NAB's proposal, 
also encompasses many of the concerns discussed in the FNPRM about 
``programming aggregation.'' As noted in the Ownership Issues 
section, some concerns about ``programming aggregation'' are better 
addressed in the quadrennial proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. We agree with commenters asserting that a reasonable limit on 
the amount of host capacity that may be licensed by an individual Next 
Gen TV (guest) station is appropriate. As these commenters suggest, 
this is needed in order to ensure that no station abuses the 
flexibility permitted by 1.0 non-simulcast multicasting to aggregate 
capacity beyond that which is physically possible or legally 
permissible when broadcasting from a single facility. We believe this 
is necessary because it is not our intention to upend the entire 
structure of broadcast television licenses for this transition period, 
and we are conscious of the consumer confusion that may be 
inadvertently caused by the coverage changes inherent in a multiple-
host approach. We see no reason, as a matter of spectrum policy, to 
permit stations to use more capacity on hosts than they could on their 
own stations. Indeed, no commenter argues that a single station should 
have the ability to aggregate host capacity beyond that which it could 
use if it were still operating on its own facility in 1.0.\36\ 
Broadcaster commenters merely argue that the likelihood of such 
aggregation is small, asserting that there will be less total 1.0 
capacity in a given market when a station transitions and such capacity 
will only further diminish as more stations in the market transition. 
We believe it is appropriate for our rules to ensure this eventuality 
does not occur even if the likelihood is low, especially in light of 
the fact that reduced available capacity would only amplify any 
concerns about harms to competition and diversity of viewpoints if one 
station were to occupy more capacity through hosts than its license 
would otherwise permit. Accordingly, it is our intention that the 
capacity limitation operate hand in hand with our rule permitting 
licensing of 1.0 non-simulcast multicast streams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ We also reject APTS' proposal to exempt NCE stations from 
the host capacity limit. We find our rationale for establishing the 
host capacity limit applies to both commercial and NCE stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. We agree with NAB that any capacity restriction we adopt should 
limit stations to the capacity they could have used if they were still 
broadcasting in 1.0 on their own facilities, without restricting their 
ability to add or change programming streams during the transition. 
Accordingly, we decline to adopt alternative proposals to the extent 
they seek to address issues beyond that scope.\37\ To this end, we 
adopt the substance of NAB's proposal, modifying it only to require 
that stations demonstrate compliance by submitting a limited amount of 
specific information at the time of application, rather than in 
response to complaints. In the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, 
the Commission expressed concern about the specific language of NAB's 
proposal, stating that ``an effective rule . . . would need to be 
objective, simple for stakeholders to understand and apply, and 
amenable to enforcement.'' MVPD commenters agree with this concern and 
suggest an objective capacity limit based on a set number of streams, 
whether a generally applicable limit or one based on the number of 
streams the station provided prior to its transition to 3.0. Upon 
review of the record, we are persuaded that such alternatives would be 
overly restrictive and that the best metric will be the number and 
resolution of streams actually airing (or that previously actually 
aired) on specific 1.0 facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ For example, while our rule addresses NCTA's call for 
``meaningful and enforceable limits on the hosting of multicast 
streams,'' we believe the group's concerns about the impact on 
multicast signal carriage are better resolved in the context of 
private retransmission consent negotiations or, if appropriate, the 
carriage complaint process. Also, Edge Networks (Evoca) commented 
``[t]he Commission should address anticompetitive practices of 
broadcasters who use their control of content to restrict new market 
entry and video competition.'' Evoca has clarified, however, that 
its recommendations regarding retransmission consent in its initial 
comments were not intended to be proposals for rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. We agree with ATVA that ensuring compliance with capacity 
limits associated with a single 1.0 station does not require the 
Commission to engage in a technical bit-by-bit analysis of a 
broadcaster's service. Rather, we conclude that reviewing basic 
information about each proposed stream (particularly its network 
affiliation and resolution) and considering an appropriate capacity 
comparison (either the prior capacity of the station itself or the 
reference point of another 1.0 station with a similar lineup at the 
same resolutions and on the same type of facility (individual or 
shared)) will suffice to enable the Commission to ensure a particular 
broadcaster is not expanding its capacity beyond that which it could 
use pursuant to the Commission's traditional 1.0 licensing regime.\38\ 
We find that it is reasonable to require Next Gen TV station applicants 
to provide this information, which is largely consistent with the 
information currently required in the Legal STA process, and therefore 
reject NAB's proposal that Next Gen TV station applicants provide only 
a certification without further information at the time of application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ This approach also captures the ``state of the art,'' as 
contemplated by NAB's proposed rule language, by allowing stations 
to compare themselves to the most advanced peer stations both at the 
outset of 3.0 service and whenever they make changes to their 
lineup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. We reject NAB's contention that it would be more appropriate 
for the burden of discovering excessive use of capacity to be on MVPDs 
and that comparison information should be provided by stations only in 
response to complaints.\39\ As justification for this approach, NAB 
asserts that providing

[[Page 45354]]

the capacity information in the absence of a complaint would be a waste 
of both Commission and broadcaster resources. We disagree. This 
capacity information--asking whether the proposed lineup could fit 
within a 1.0 channel by comparing it to a similar one that has actually 
aired--is necessary to make an informed objection to a proposed use of 
host capacity. Further, we fail to see how providing this information 
requires materially more resources than NAB's certification proposal. 
Any ex ante certification of the type proposed by NAB would require the 
applicant to certify that it has a reasonable belief that all of the 
proposed streams could be simultaneously broadcast by the station on 
its own 1.0 facility if it had one. This reasonable belief presumably 
would need to be based upon the collection of the same information we 
are asking the broadcaster to provide. And we are persuaded by NAB that 
broadcasters will necessarily base such a belief on the actual 
experience of specific stations, rather than on any sort of detailed 
technical analysis. Therefore, requiring that stations preemptively 
share the same public information that would be the basis of their 
certification--that is, whether the same or a similar lineup has ever 
previously aired--is reasonable and would not ``waste'' broadcaster 
resources. Furthermore, we believe this requirement provides greater 
certainty to broadcasters than a complaint process, because the showing 
submitted will demonstrate compliance with the rule.\40\ Moreover, as 
discussed below, providing the required information about a station's 
operations during the transition period will provide much needed 
transparency for the public and stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Because we do not rely on claims of harm to cable companies 
in our decision, we do not address NAB's objections to those claims.
    \40\ We note that, while NAB identifies these as ``examples'' of 
ways to demonstrate compliance, neither they nor any other commenter 
have proposed any other way for a station to demonstrate ``that it 
could successfully transmit all hosted programming on a single ATSC 
1.0 facility.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Use of Multicast Streams To Minimize 1.0 Primary Stream Service Loss

    23. We adopt rules providing that, in 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 1.0 primary service 
loss that would result if an originating station were only able to air 
its primary stream on a single host.\41\ We also adopt our tentative 
conclusion that such streams will be considered a ``simulcast multicast 
stream'' and count toward the host capacity limit established herein. 
Accordingly, we adopt our tentative conclusion that a multicast stream 
that is a second (or additional) simulcast of a primary stream must be 
``substantially similar'' to the 3.0 primary stream.\42\ Broadcasters 
largely support this proposal,\43\ and no commenter objected to it.\44\ 
We agree with broadcasters that preserving 1.0 primary service is 
critically important during the transition period and that this relief 
supports that goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ While the Bureau will consider proposals that would use 
more than one multicast stream (airing primary programming), such 
proposals will require the public interest showing under the non-
expedited processing standard. We expect this situation will arise 
only when such streams are aired on low-power TV 1.0 hosts.
    \42\ Indeed, by definition as a second (or additional) simulcast 
of a 3.0 primary stream, we expect this stream will be identical to 
the simulcast of the primary stream (which, by rule, must be 
substantially similar to the 3.0 primary stream). See 47 CFR 
73.3801(b)(1), 73.6029(b)(1), 74.782(b)(1). In addition, we adopt 
our tentative conclusion that this multicast stream, like all hosted 
streams, will count toward the host capacity limit established in 
this Order.
    \43\ We note that ONE Media and ATBA contend that this proposal 
does not go far enough and that we should afford such an application 
expedited processing. We reject this proposal. Considering whether 
the use of a multicast stream to supplement the primary stream is 
appropriate requires consideration on a case-by-case basis. The non-
expedited process allows the Bureau to collect additional 
information that will be used to ensure the proposed use is in the 
public interest.
    \44\ Although the WNUV STA called this stream a ``supplemental 
primary ATSC 1.0 simulcast stream,'' we decline to use this term and 
emphasize that, contrary to the argument advanced by ONE Media, such 
a stream is a multicast stream and not an additional primary stream. 
As a multicast stream, this signal has no carriage rights. 
Furthermore, as noted above, any service provided by such a 
multicast stream beyond the station's NLSC is incidental and may not 
be considered for securing any rights or benefits, now or in the 
future. For example, we will reject a request by a broadcaster to 
modify its market to add communities based on the service of this 
multicast stream.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. We therefore affirm the earlier Bureau decision approving this 
method of mitigating 1.0 service loss and bring such streams within the 
transition licensing regime discussed herein without the need for case-
specific STAs.\45\ 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. 
Applications seeking to use a multicast stream to supplement the 
service provided by their primary stream will be considered by the 
Media Bureau under the process for non-expedited applications.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ As noted in that decision, 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.
    \46\ 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 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 following information: (1) whether there 
is another possible simulcast partner(s) in the market that would 
result in less 1.0 service loss to existing viewers and, if so, why 
the Next Gen TV broadcaster chose to partner with a station creating 
a larger service loss; (2) what steps, if any, the station plans to 
take to minimize the impact of the 1.0 service loss (e.g., providing 
ATSC 3.0 dongles, set-top boxes, or gateway devices to viewers in 
the loss area); and (3) the public interest benefits of the 
simulcast arrangement and a showing of why the station believes the 
benefit(s) of granting the application outweigh the harm(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. Contrary to our tentative conclusion in the Next Gen TV 
Multicast Licensing FNPRM, we do not limit this relief only to NCE 
stations or commercial stations airing multicast streams on NCE partner 
hosts.\47\ The Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM asked whether this 
approach would be an acceptable method for mitigating ATSC 1.0 service 
loss for any other types or groups of applicants. No commenter opposed 
extending this relief to other types or groups of applicants and we are 
persuaded by broadcasters' comments that other similarly situated 
stations may be able to show that their use of multicast streams to 
minimize service loss of the primary 1.0 stream is in the public 
interest.\48\ We therefore allow any Next Gen TV station to apply for 
this relief under the non-expedited process, but emphasize that all 
applicants must demonstrate why this relief is in the public interest 
and outweighs any potential harms. As discussed in the Next Gen TV 
Multicast Licensing FNPRM, we recognize that each programming stream 
devoted to

[[Page 45355]]

simulcasting a primary stream is one fewer that could be devoted to 
multicast programming, 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. Thus, the 
Bureau must consider whether the benefits of a given proposal outweigh 
any harms, including any impacts on localism, diversity of programming 
offerings, and/or viewer confusion. Finally, we emphasize that service 
temporarily provided by a multicast stream that is used as a second 
simulcast of a primary stream will not give rise to any rights for the 
broadcaster or impose any obligations on MVPDs, and may not be 
considered for purposes of securing any rights or benefits, now or in 
the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ In proposing this approach, we supported the Bureau's prior 
decision, which 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,'' in large part because NCE stations 
make up over 20% of all full power broadcasters.
    \48\ Pearl contends that ``this [relief] is a particularly good 
solution for various scenarios, such as: small markets that are 
spectrum constrained; geographically large markets with a small 
population, like the Butte-Bozeman DMA in Montana; and markets where 
some broadcasters rely on a single full power station to serve the 
market and other broadcasters have multiple stations serving the 
same market, such as La Crosse-Eau Claire in Wisconsin or 
Birmingham, Alabama.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Ownership Issues

    26. Consistent with our decision with regard to hosted primary 
streams of NextGen TV stations, hosting multicast streams on a 
temporary host station's facility will not result in attribution under 
our broadcast ownership rules or for any other requirements related to 
television stations attribution (e.g., filing ownership reports). In 
the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, we asked whether the 
temporary nature of the exemption and our desire to minimize viewer 
disruption while facilitating the 3.0 transition made the hosting of 
multicast streams similar enough to the hosting of primary streams to 
warrant the same approach. We are persuaded by the record that they do. 
Broadcaster commenters support this approach, maintaining that the 
hosting of multicast streams would further the same objectives as 
primary stream hosting. Consistent with the need articulated by 
broadcasters, we emphasize that the new flexibility we grant herein is 
intended to serve the purpose of minimizing viewer disruption, and we 
find that the clear benefits of such an approach for viewers outweigh 
any potential for abuse under our ownership rules that some commenters 
have raised. This decision does not change the Commission's broadcast 
ownership rules in any substantive way and certainly does not alter the 
number of stations a broadcaster can own in a particular market. As 
discussed in the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, ATVA and others 
have raised concerns in the 2018 Quadrennial Review proceeding about 
the practical impact of the ownership rules in light of the growing 
practice of placing Big-four network programming on multicast streams. 
We find that those concerns are best addressed in the Quadrennial 
Review context, not least because any decision made in that proceeding 
with respect to Big-four network affiliations will apply to all 
licensed multicast streams, hosted or otherwise.

G. Same-Service (or ``Lateral'') Hosting

    27. We adopt our tentative conclusion declining at this time to 
license same service (or ``lateral'') hosting arrangements, though we 
are open to considering such arrangements in limited circumstances. 
Same-service (or ``lateral'') 1.0 hosting refers to a situation in 
which a Next Gen TV station still operating its own facility in 1.0 and 
serving as a 1.0 host for another Next Gen TV station that converted 
its facility to 3.0 seeks to relocate one or more of its own multicast 
streams to another 1.0 host station. We are not convinced that a 
general rule as proposed that would permit this practice is necessary 
to minimize viewer disruption during the transition. Even advocates for 
a rule concede that the hypothetical problems it could resolve would 
occur only rarely. Given the lack of any demonstrated need to allow 
such arrangements in all markets, we refrain from adopting a general 
rule at this time. Nonetheless, as discussed below, we will entertain 
requests for special temporary authority to permit 1.0 same-service 
hosting and may revisit this decision once we have more experience with 
situations in which such flexibility may be necessary to enable a 
market to transition.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ We recognize that most broadcasters strongly support 
lateral hosting, seeking maximum flexibility under our licensing 
regime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. BitPath and other commenters contemplate scenarios in which 
multiple Next Gen TV stations across a market would shift streams from 
station to station in order to facilitate their move toward 3.0. For 
example, broadcasters in the New York DMA (the New York City market) 
have argued that multiple stations engaging in same-service hosting is 
a business necessity in order to maximize the number of stations 
willing to transition simultaneously. On the current record, however, 
there is no evidence that same-service hosting is technically necessary 
to make any market's transition possible. Indeed, there has only been 
one instance in which a Next Gen TV broadcaster sought Commission 
approval to keep its facility in 1.0 while shifting some 1.0 
programming to a host. That station and that market, however, were 
ultimately able to begin the transition without any ``lateral'' 
hosting, and the station also retained enough capacity that it has 
since added yet another 1.0 stream to its lineup.
    29. Furthermore, there is potential for abuse in a lateral hosting 
scenario, particularly given the continuing uncertainty around the 
ultimate duration of the transition. For instance, preventing the 
aggregation of excess capacity in such a scenario would require a more 
complex capacity limitation rule than is supported by our record. This 
is particularly true given the need to consider not just programming 
but any ancillary and supplementary services being provided over a 
station's own facility. In the absence of such protections, a station 
relying on same-service hosts could potentially use significantly more 
capacity than is permitted under its license, even while complying with 
the capacity limit rule adopted today. The record simply does not 
demonstrate that creating such potential for confusion and abuse is 
justified by any countervailing need.
    30. We will, however, consider requests for special temporary 
authority in those rare circumstances in which relief may be necessary 
to ensure that a market can transition effectively. We expect that 
addressing any potential issues using this process will allow us to 
monitor the changing state of the market as the transition moves 
forward and to collect more information about any situations that arise 
in which there is a technical need for this type of ``lateral'' 
flexibility. Indeed, the STA process provided valuable, real-world 
information that helped inform our decisions in this item. Finally, 
broadcasters have argued in this proceeding that the appropriate 
measure of how much programming a 1.0 station is capable of airing is 
whether any 1.0 station is airing or has previously aired the same or a 
similar programming lineup at the same resolutions. We agree and we 
direct Media Bureau staff to review and process any potential STA 
requests (and the inherent potential of any such requests to expand 
broadcasters' capacity as described above) in light of this 
``historical'' approach, which we have adopted elsewhere in this Order 
to limit capacity in the multicast hosting context.\50\

[[Page 45356]]

Furthermore, as noted above, same-service hosting is limited to a host 
station's multicast stream (i.e., a host station's own primary stream 
is not eligible for lateral hosting). And while the Media Bureau will 
have flexibility to review the particular circumstances of each case, 
we expect that staff will consider the potential impact on over-the-air 
availability of programming that has significant viewership (e.g., the 
stream is ranked in the top 4 in the market or would cause viewers to 
lose their only source of noncommercial or major network programming) 
or specifically provides children's programming in the station's 
service area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Such requests must clearly identify any programming that 
would be discontinued in the absence of an STA and explain why there 
is no reasonable alternative to the requested reliance on a same-
service host and how viewer impacts will be minimized (e.g., is the 
same stream available to viewers in any loss area from another 
station in the same or adjacent market). STAs will be granted for a 
period of 180 days and must be subsequently renewed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    31. With respect to the other ATSC 3.0 transition rules, except as 
detailed in this Order, we will apply the same rules to simulcast and 
non-simulcast licensed multicast streams as we currently apply to 
primary simulcast streams, consistent with our tentative 
conclusions.\51\ These rules are intended to protect consumers from 
service disruption, especially the loss of access to the 1.0 television 
programming they currently watch, without restricting broadcasters' 
ability to choose to participate in the voluntary, market-driven 
transition to ATSC 3.0. We believe these proposals best 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ The rules at issue are those found in Sec. Sec.  73.3801, 
73.6029, and 74.782 of the Commission's rules (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)). No 
commenters specifically addressed these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. Coverage rules. As proposed in the Next Gen TV Multicast 
Licensing FNPRM, we will apply the DMA and community of license 
coverage requirements to all multicast streams but will not consider 
those streams when determining whether a station qualifies for 
expedited processing. Thus, 1.0 multicast streams aired on a host 
channel must continue to cover the guest station's entire community of 
license and the host station must be assigned to the same DMA as the 
originating station.\52\ For 3.0 multicast streams aired on a host 
channel, as with 3.0 primary streams aired on a host channel, only the 
DMA requirement applies.\53\ When determining whether a station seeking 
to transition is eligible for expedited processing, however, we will 
continue to ask only whether the primary stream will remain available 
in 1.0 to at least 95% of a station's current OTA audience.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ As proposed in the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM 
and noted below in the paragraphs discussing updates to Form 2100, 
Next Gen TV applications must note the predicted percentage of 
population within the station's NLSC that will be served by each 
multicast stream host.
    \53\ No commenter specifically addressed this proposal.
    \54\ 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 NLSC and afford ``expedited 
processing'' to such applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. Although commenters generally do not oppose this approach, some 
commenters support variations to it. A small number of broadcasters 
suggest that the rule should require only a host in the same DMA 
without a requirement regarding the community of license. They express 
concern that it will be challenging in the future for stations to find 
host partners that can fully cover their community of license. ATVA, on 
the other hand, contends that no station should receive expedited 
processing unless all of its multicast streams meet the 95% coverage 
threshold or if the station pledges to deliver signals to MVPDs. We 
reject these proposals. With respect to both of these concerns, we 
emphasize that retaining a station's 1.0 service to its community of 
license remains our priority under current marketplace conditions. We 
will review each application--including any unique characteristics of 
the market involved--as it arises.
    34. Finally, as proposed in the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing 
FNPRM, for children's programming on 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% of the predicted population served by the 
applicant's pre-transition 1.0 signal. Commenters do not oppose this 
proposal, although the Broadcasting Alliance proposed that we combine 
hosts of multiple ``copies'' of a multicast stream to determine whether 
that stream is reaching 95% of the relevant population. While we do not 
bar stations from airing identical content on multiple hosted multicast 
streams, we decline to adopt this alternative on the grounds that it 
would incentivize inefficient use of limited 1.0 capacity.
    35. Licensing. As proposed in the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing 
FNPRM, we will apply our licensing process for primary simulcast 
streams to guest multicast streams aired on a host station.\55\ No 
commenter opposes this proposal. Thus, upon grant of an application, 
each of an originating station's multicast streams aired as a guest 
stream on a host will be licensed as an additional temporary channel of 
the originating broadcaster. We also adopt our unopposed tentative 
conclusion that commonly owned stations are not required to enter into 
written agreements for the hosting of either primary or multicast 
streams, consistent with the process the Bureau uses for handling the 
hosting of primary streams on commonly owned stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Under these 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. Form 2100. We adopt the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM's 
proposal to modify our Next Gen TV license application form (FCC Form 
2100) to accommodate multicast licensing by collecting information 
similar to that already collected in the STA process.\56\ Broadcasters 
generally support a requirement to file the same information they 
currently provide when seeking to transition, though other commenters 
suggest the filing should be more extensive. NAB asserts that licensees 
should not have to file any information at all about multicast streams. 
We reject NAB's argument. We note that our 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. To the extent stations seek 
instead to modify their license to include multicast streams hosted by 
partner stations, both the Commission and the public need visibility 
into the basic terms of that hosting relationship. Such transparency 
will ensure compliance with our rules, particularly compliance with the 
host capacity limit (see section III.D, above.). We therefore

[[Page 45357]]

will require certain additional information as an addendum to Form 2100 
if stations seek to include hosted multicast streams within their 
license. We also clarify and slightly modify the requirements of our 
rules governing Form 2100 to reflect the possibility of reliance on 
multiple hosts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ We direct the Media Bureau to revise Form 2100 as needed to 
implement these changes, and to process applications filed using 
Form 2100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. Specifically, applicants must prepare an exhibit identifying 
each proposed hosted stream and provide the following information about 
each stream, as broadcast:
     the host station;
     channel number (RF and virtual);
     network affiliation (or type of programming if 
unaffiliated);
     resolution (e.g., 1080i, 720p, 480p, or 480i);
     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, with a contour overlay map 
identifying areas of service loss and, in the case of 1.0 streams, 
coverage of the originating station's community of license; and
     whether the stream will be simulcast, and if so, the 
``paired'' stream in the other service.

Finally, the exhibit must either state that the applicant will be 
airing the same programming that it is airing in 1.0 at the time of the 
application or identify the station that has aired or is airing the 
same or a similar programming lineup at the same resolutions on the 
same type of facility (individual or shared), as well as that station's 
lineup (with resolutions). This exhibit must be placed on the 
applicant's public website or in the applicant's online public 
inspection file if the station does not have a dedicated website,\57\ 
with a link provided in the application. This information is consistent 
both with that currently collected in STA applications and the approach 
identified in the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM.\58\ As with 
broadcast licenses generally, modifications to this license application 
or its accompanying exhibit (with respect to the primary or multicast 
streams) must be preceded by the filing and approval of a new 
application. Changes to the affiliation or content of a stream, or the 
elimination of a stream, however, do not implicate the concerns raised 
in this proceeding if they would not result in the use of additional 
capacity and if information about the change is easily available to the 
public. Therefore, in order to streamline this process for both 
broadcasters and the Commission, such changes may be implemented 
without prior Commission approval. They need only be reflected in a 
timely update to the exhibit that the applicant makes available on its 
public website or in the applicant's online public inspection file and 
in an email notice to the Chief of the Media Bureau's Video Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See https://publicfiles.fcc.gov/. If a station has neither 
a public website nor an online public inspection file, it will be 
considered in compliance with this requirement if it publishes the 
exhibit in a local newspaper identified in its application. Any 
changes to the exhibit will require publication of the revised 
exhibit.
    \58\ While the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM did not 
specifically mention identification of the ``pair'' of each 
simulcast stream (that is, the specific stream in the other service 
that is carrying substantially similar programming), we believe the 
need for this information logically arises from the question about 
whether a stream will be simulcast in situations where there is more 
than one simulcast stream.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    38. Timing. As proposed in the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing 
FNPRM, the rules adopted in this Order will apply until and unless the 
Commission eliminates the mandatory local simulcasting requirement. 
Commenters generally support this approach, which will preserve 
existing 1.0 viewership while giving broadcasters the flexibility to 
transition to 3.0. MVPD commenters support the proposed timing with 
respect to simulcast multicast streams, but propose that the rule 
permitting non-simulcast 1.0 multicast streams should sunset after five 
years. Broadcasters oppose this proposal, arguing it is contrary to the 
public interest. We agree that establishing a prescribed sunset for the 
non-simulcast multicast licensing rules adopted in this Order could 
lead to a sudden reduction in the availability of 1.0 programming, 
harming consumers. We therefore decline to adopt a sunset of the non-
simulcast multicast and will continue to encourage broadcasters to 
maximize their 1.0 service throughout the transition in order to 
minimize the disruption to consumers.

I. Substantially Similar Rule

    39. Based on the existing record, we retain the substantially 
similar rule at this time and extend the sunset date to July 17, 
2027.\59\ In the Sunsets FNRPM, we sought comment on whether we should 
retain the substantially similar rule or permit it to sunset in July, 
2023. After consideration of the state of the transition reflected in 
the record of this proceeding, we find this rule continues to be 
necessary at this time for the same reasons it was adopted, to protect 
consumers by ensuring that OTA viewers who rely on 1.0 are able to 
continue watching the same programming they watch today, as well as any 
new programming offerings on a broadcaster's primary channel that can 
be reasonably provided in 1.0 format.\60\ Based on the current record, 
we find that broadcasters' market incentives alone are insufficient to 
protect OTA viewers from potential loss of 1.0 service. Furthermore, we 
find that there has not yet been a sufficient shift in the marketplace 
that would justify elimination or modification of the substantially 
similar rule. Moreover, we see no evidence on the record that the 
substantially similar rule is currently impeding, or is likely in the 
near future to impede, the provision of innovative 3.0 features and 
content. The rule as it stands affords significant flexibility for 
broadcasters to innovate and experiment with new programming features 
using 3.0 technology because it does not require broadcasters to 
duplicate enhanced content or features that cannot reasonably be 
provided in the 1.0 format. Furthermore, broadcasters provide no reason 
why programming aired on the 3.0 primary stream that can reasonably be 
provided in 1.0 format should not be provided in such format. On the 
other hand, eliminating the substantially similar rule at this time, in 
light of the current state of the transition, poses a risk of harm to 
OTA viewers who rely on 1.0, particularly vulnerable consumers, who 
without the rule could be forced to either purchase new 3.0 equipment 
or lose access to stations' primary programming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ We note that the requirement to simulcast in 1.0 is 
intended to be temporary and will be eliminated when the transition 
to 3.0 is complete.
    \60\ The Commission has explained that it will not apply the 
substantially similar rule to certain enhanced capabilities that 
cannot reasonably be provided in ATSC 1.0 format. These capabilities 
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. While some of these 
capabilities may be theoretically possible within the ATSC 1.0 
framework, they are not currently part of the ATSC 1.0 standards, 
are unlikely to be included in current consumer equipment, and as 
such cannot reasonably be provided via ATSC 1.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40. The purpose of the substantially similar rule is to give effect 
to the underlying requirement to ``simulcast'' 3.0 programming in 1.0, 
protecting 1.0 viewers from losing access to a Next Gen TV station's 
programming when that station transitions its facility to 3.0. While 
the underlying simulcast requirement that a Next Gen TV broadcaster 
must continue to air a primary 1.0 signal (when deploying that signal 
in 3.0) ensures 1.0 viewers

[[Page 45358]]

continue to receive one free OTA TV signal during the transition, the 
substantially similar rule ensures that 1.0 viewers actually receive 
the same primary programming as that aired on the 3.0 channel, 
including new programming to the extent that such programming can 
reasonably be provided in 1.0 format. Thus, these rules work in tandem 
to ensure that viewers are protected during the transition period. As 
the Commission explained in the 2017 First Next Gen TV Report and 
Order, ``it is important not only to require that television 
broadcasters continue to broadcast in the current ATSC 1.0 standard 
while ATSC 3.0 is being deployed, but also that they continue to air in 
ATSC 1.0 format the programming that viewers most want and expect to 
receive. We seek to ensure that broadcasters air their most popular, 
widely-viewed programming on their 1.0 simulcast channels so that 
viewers are not forced to purchase 3.0 capable equipment simply to 
continue to receive this programming rather than because they find the 
ATSC 3.0 technology particularly attractive.''
    41. The record of this proceeding does not provide a basis for us 
to conclude that the substantially similar rule is no longer needed at 
this time for the same purposes it was originally adopted. Without the 
substantially similar rule, Next Gen TV broadcasters would be free to 
air the most desirable programming, including popular existing 
programming and new program offerings that could reasonably be provided 
in 1.0 format, only on their 3.0 primary programming stream. This could 
create two different tiers of free, OTA television service, which we 
find would not be in the public interest.\61\ We agree with NCTA and 
PK/OTI that this would ``plac[e] viewers at risk of losing access to 
popular programming should they be unwilling or unable to pay for this 
new [3.0] equipment.'' In particular, PL/OTI notes that lower-income 
consumers could be especially vulnerable. Furthermore, at this stage of 
the transition, we agree that many consumers may find there to be a 
lack of affordable 3.0 TV equipment.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ In recognition of the capacity constraints imposed by the 
transition, the Commission has already given broadcasters 
flexibility with respect to the resolution and coverage of 1.0 
primary streams, and the availability of 1.0 multicast streams. In 
contrast to these situations, 1.0 capacity constraints do not 
prevent the provision of substantially similar programming, 
particularly since Next Gen TV broadcasters are not required to 
simulcast programming that cannot reasonably be aired in 1.0 format. 
NAB contends the Commission's discussion of the potential 
development of two tiers of programming ignores that ``[t]here 
already are two tiers of programming service: pay and free.'' NAB 
asserts that ``the Commission does not require other actors in the 
communications marketplace, including those with which broadcasters 
compete, to intentionally slow the pace of innovation when they 
upgrade their technology to avoid creating different tiers of 
service.'' NAB further states that ``[b]roadcasters are the only 
entities the Commission regulates that are required to provide a 
free service.'' We remind broadcasters that, as trustees of the 
public airwaves, they are required by statute to serve the ``public 
interest, convenience, and necessity.'' 47 U.S.C. 309(k)(1). Next 
Gen TV stations may have only one primary programming stream, which 
they are required to simulcast in 1.0. Finally, we note that 
broadcasters are not the only regulatees with public interest 
obligations. For example, cable operators and satellite carriers are 
required to carry qualified broadcast stations that request 
mandatory carriage. 47 U.S.C. 338, 534, 535. Also, satellite 
carriers are required to reserve a percentage of channel capacity 
for noncommercial educational or informational programming, 47 
U.S.C. 335(b)(1); and cable operators are required to set aside 
channel capacity for commercial use by unaffiliated video 
programmers. 47 U.S.C. 532.
    \62\ The record indicates, as of August 8, 2022, there were 
approximately 120 models of television sets with 3.0 tuners 
available in the United States from four manufacturers, but these 
are mid- to high-end TV sets. According to Pearl, the lowest cost 
3.0 TV set is available to consumers at retail for $549.00. The 
lowest cost separate 3.0 receiver (gateway device) is available at 
retail for $199.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    42. We find that broadcasters' market incentives alone cannot be 
relied upon to ensure that all 1.0 viewers are able to continue to 
access stations' primary programming without incurring significant 
costs; this is particularly of concern with respect to vulnerable 
consumers who are often slow to adopt new technology.\63\ We recognize 
that broadcasters may have strong incentives to offer substantially 
similar simulcast programming early in the transition. Broadcasters 
contend that the market will protect all viewers, but as discussed 
below these assertions often come with qualifications and caveats. 
Broadcasters have willingly made significant investments in ATSC 3.0 
technology, claiming it is necessary to remain competitive in the video 
marketplace. Thus, while they do have incentives to provide their most 
popular programming to all of their viewers, they also have incentives 
to promote their ATSC 3.0 offerings. We recognize that broadcasters do 
incur some costs by offering programming in both 1.0 and 3.0 to ensure 
uninterrupted service to current OTA viewers. If the transition 
progresses and the number of OTA viewers who rely on 1.0 declines, 
broadcaster incentives to serve 1.0 viewers may weaken as the benefits 
shrink relative to those costs. These weakened incentives would be a 
direct result of the success of the transition as more and more OTA 
viewers migrate to 3.0. Some broadcasters state that they have every 
incentive to ``maximize'' viewership, but those arguments more 
correctly appear to focus on maximizing profits, which will not 
necessarily support the needs of OTA 1.0 viewers for the length of the 
transition, particularly when that audience is split between two 
different services.\64\ Broadcaster commenters acknowledge that even 
these incentives hold only ``while the vast majority of viewers 
continue to watch [1.0 signals].'' Given our decision herein to extend 
the sunset date, the Commission can consider the status of incentives 
based on the viewership at the time the requirement is set to expire. 
The current record demonstrates that the substantially similar element 
of the simulcast rule remains important to the transition at this time, 
in order to provide certainty to those who continue to rely on 1.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ We note that if it were true that broadcasters have no 
incentive to favor their 3.0 offerings, then our rule would simply 
codify broadcasters' commitment and would not impede any 
innovations.
    \64\ There is no evidence in the record regarding the financial 
impact on broadcasters of losing a declining number of 1.0 OTA 
viewers, particularly older and lower income viewers who may not be 
favored by advertisers. We also note that many broadcasters receive 
significant revenue from retransmission consent fees, which would 
not seem to be directly impacted by any loss in OTA viewership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    43. Furthermore, most broadcasters are not committing to make new 
programming available to all viewers. Indeed, many seem to indicate 
that, if the substantially similar rule were eliminated, they would 
provide new, 3.0-exclusive programming on their primary streams even if 
such programming could reasonably be provided in 1.0 format.\65\ We 
recognize that broadcasters are incurring costs by simulcasting and are 
eager to complete the transition to pursue higher OTA viewership and 
new revenue opportunities (via broadcast internet services) in the long 
term. Thus, it is not surprising that broadcasters are already 
contemplating ``trade-offs'' like the ``loss or degradation of 1.0 
programming'' in the near future absent regulatory requirements to the 
contrary. Given the above, and based on the current record, we are not 
convinced market incentives alone will protect viewers who rely on 1.0. 
Moreover, we remind broadcasters that, as trustees of the public 
airwaves, they have a statutory obligation to serve the public 
interest, even where market

[[Page 45359]]

incentives might temporarily push in a contrary direction.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ As discussed below, to the extent such 3.0 content cannot 
reasonably be provided in 1.0, broadcasters are free to provide such 
programming only in 3.0 under the current rule. However, if such 
content can reasonably be provided in 1.0, then it illustrates the 
benefits of the current rule for viewers.
    \66\ See 47 U.S.C. 309(a) (requiring the Commission to 
determine, in the case of applications for licenses, ``whether the 
public interest, convenience, and necessity will be served by 
granting such application''); 47 U.S.C. 307(b) (requiring the 
Commission to ``make such distribution of licenses, frequencies, 
hours of operation, and of power among the several States and 
communities as to provide a fair, efficient, and equitable 
distribution of radio service to each of the same'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    44. Furthermore, we find that the substantially similar rule is not 
presently impeding innovation in broadcast programming. Broadcasters 
assert that the rule is preventing them from innovating with 3.0 
content and features. However, nothing in the current record supports 
this.\67\ The current rule expressly allows broadcasters to innovate 
and experiment with new, innovative Next Gen TV programming features, 
including on their primary streams.\68\ Broadcasters identify only two 
specific examples of potential innovation hampered by the rule, neither 
of which withstands scrutiny. First, Pearl seems to suggest that the 
rule prevents broadcasters from airing
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Next Gen TV broadcasters do not have to duplicate enhanced 
content or features that cannot reasonably be provided in the 1.0 
format. As stated above, this includes: ``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.
    \68\ Stations broadcasting in 3.0 over their own facilities can 
experiment with innovative 3.0 multicast streams that are not 
subject to simulcast requirements.

    ``a `barker' or demo channel of 3.0 programming, showcasing the new 
technology and demonstrating how viewers can unlock the many advanced 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
features that ATSC 3.0 makes possible.''

We observe that a ``demo channel'' would presumably not be a station's 
primary stream.\69\ As for a multicast stream, we reiterate our 
clarification that any Next Gen TV station that converts its own 
facility to 3.0 (including a 3.0 host) could air a ``demo'' multicast 
stream, including content from its guest partners and other stations in 
the market, without simulcasting such a stream in 1.0.\70\ Second, 
Graham seems to suggest that the rule prevents broadcasters from airing 
``alternate interactive programming or expanded local programming'' 
only in 3.0. It is unclear what Graham means by ``expanded local 
programming'' as a unique 3.0 feature, but the substantially similar 
rule expressly permits ``hyper-local news'' and ``interactive program 
features.'' To the extent any ``expanded local programming'' provided 
on a primary stream could reasonably be provided in 1.0 format, we 
agree such programming must be simulcast in substantially similar 
fashion in 1.0 format to comply with the rule. However, to the extent 
programming can reasonably be provided in 1.0 format, we fail to see 
how such programming could be considered innovative programming reliant 
on the enhanced capabilities of 3.0 technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ We note, however, that ``demo'' programming aired on a 
primary stream would likely be covered by the rule's exception for 
``advertisements, promotions for upcoming programs, and programming 
features that are based on the enhanced capabilities of ATSC 3.0.''
    \70\ To the extent that 3.0 guests can show good cause why they 
need to license a ``demo'' channel on a host (rather than having the 
host air such demo channel), we will consider limited waiver 
requests to license such non-simulcast 3.0 multicast guest streams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    45. As a result of the current status of the transition reflected 
in the record, we conclude that the sunset of the substantially similar 
rule is unnecessary at this time. We note, however, that the pace of 
the transition has necessarily been impacted by the recent pandemic. As 
the transition continues and the consumer equipment market evolves, the 
impact of eliminating or modifying the substantially similar 
requirement may change. We therefore find that it would be appropriate 
to revisit this issue in the future once the transition has had more 
time to advance. Moreover, we anticipate that the Commission's recently 
announced ``Future of TV'' public-private initiative, which will be led 
by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), will provide 
additional information on the pace and nature of the transition. These 
insights, including any proposals discussed by partnership stakeholders 
in this initiative, can help inform any potential changes to the 
substantially similar requirement. Accordingly, we adopt a new sunset 
date of July 17, 2027. Given the ongoing transition, we believe at this 
time that this is an appropriate sunset period.\71\ This date will 
allow for the opportunity of material changes to the transition such 
that a subsequent review is warranted. Consistent with the previous 
sunset, the Commission will initiate a review approximately one year 
before the requirement is set to expire to seek comment on whether it 
should be extended based on marketplace conditions at that time. This 
balanced approach will provide 1.0 viewers with needed certainty while 
giving broadcasters an additional opportunity to demonstrate that the 
substantially similar requirement should be eliminated or modified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ While, at present, a small number of converter devices that 
work with the television sets in viewers' homes are available for 
purchase, we expect more will come to market in coming years and 
that the price should come down. For example, another 3.0-to-1.0 
set-top-box has recently been announced by ADTH, which would be the 
lowest priced converter device to date. According to ADTH, its 
``NEXTGEN TV Box'' is scheduled to ship in July 2023. It costs 
$119.99, but it is available for pre-order at the discounted price 
of $79.99 for a limited time. The Commission can consider the 
availability and cost of such devices in subsequent reviews of the 
substantially similar rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Requirement To Comply With the ATSC A/322 Standard

    46. Based on the existing record, we retain the A/322 requirement 
at this time and extend the sunset date to July 17, 2027. In the 
Sunsets FNPRM, we sought comment on whether we should retain the 
requirement that Next Gen TV broadcasters' primary video programming 
stream must comply with the ATSC A/322 standard and, if so, for how 
long. In response to the record, we find the A/322 requirement remains 
necessary to protect consumers and other stakeholders. We further find 
that the rule does not presently impede broadcasters' ability to 
innovate. As discussed below, the record shows that the standard itself 
provides broadcasters with significant flexibility, and the requirement 
to comply with the standard applies only to a broadcaster's primary 
programming streams. Consistent with the rule, broadcasters have ample 
opportunity to innovate with other broadcast streams, as well as with 
non-broadcast 3.0 services (also known as Broadcast Internet).
    47. We find that the A/322 requirement remains essential at this 
time for protecting both innovators and investors in the 3.0 space, 
allowing stakeholders to develop and purchase equipment with 
confidence. As Pearl TV notes, the rule gives ``key certainty'' to 
television receiver manufacturers, affording them the confidence to 
build Next Gen TV equipment and bring it to market knowing that it will 
reliably work with 3.0 signals now and in the future. It likewise 
protects consumer investments in 3.0 technology by ensuring that 3.0 TV 
sets and other 3.0 equipment they purchase are, and will remain, 
compatible with primary 3.0 signals. We agree with LG that 
``[c]onsumers have purchased ATSC 3.0-enabled equipment with the good 
faith expectation that it will be able to properly receive and decode 
an ATSC 3.0 signal not just at the time of purchase, but for years to 
come.'' For similar reasons, the rule will also benefit MVPDs as they 
begin to receive

[[Page 45360]]

and retransmit 3.0 broadcast signals to their subscribers. Indeed, 
broadcasters themselves benefit from the certainty the rule provides, 
by knowing that every viewer in their markets who purchases a 3.0 set 
will be able to receive their primary programming. Compliance with A/
322 may also help prevent harmful interference to and by broadcasters, 
which benefits every stakeholder and consumer. Given these benefits, 
almost all commenters support retention of the A/322 rule. We agree 
with LG that ``if a broadcaster used a standard other than A/322 for 
transmission of its primary broadcast stream, consumers would be unable 
to obtain the broadcaster's programming because support for that 
bespoke standard would not be incorporated into the consumers' 
devices.''
    48. Furthermore, the record does not demonstrate any current or 
likely harms arising from the rule at this time. The only commenter to 
oppose even an extension of the requirement, One Media, identifies no 
harms associated with this specific rule and makes no effort to grapple 
with its benefits. Instead, One Media contends that broadcasters should 
not have ``to keep coming back to seek government approval each time 
the standard changes'' and should not have ``standards codified into 
their services' rules'' but should instead simply be required to avoid 
interference. With respect to the first concern, the Commission has and 
will independently monitor the evolution of the ATSC 3.0 standard and 
will act to update our rules as necessary and appropriate, as we do in 
this Order. As for One Media's general objection to codified standards, 
adoption of A/322 into our rules will ensure that broadcasters are 
serving the public interest, for the reasons above.
    49. Ultimately, we find that the current record does not support 
sunsetting the A/322 standard at this time. The rule currently provides 
needed protection to consumers, while also affording significant 
flexibility to broadcasters. Nevertheless, we agree with commenters 
that urge the Commission to continue to monitor the marketplace and the 
standard as they develop.\72\ Accordingly, in order to align this 
review with that of the substantially similar requirement, we adopt a 
new sunset date of July 17, 2027. As noted above, the Commission will 
initiate a review approximately one year before the requirement is set 
to expire to seek comment on whether it should be extended based on 
marketplace conditions at that time. This balanced approach will 
provide needed certainty while also providing an additional opportunity 
to demonstrate that the A/322 standard should be eliminated or 
modified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ The Sunsets FNPRM sought comment on whether to update our 
rules to incorporate the 2021 version of the A/322 standard. 
Commenters on this issue support updating our rules, but pointed out 
that a more recent version of A/322 was published by ATSC in March 
2022. However, since the comment period closed, there have been two 
more updates to A/322, and we have not received any comments about 
this new version. Therefore, we decline to update our rules at this 
time and will seek comment on this issue in a future proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    50. Digital Equity and Inclusion. The Commission, as part of its 
continuing effort to advance digital equity for all,\73\ including 
people of color, people with disabilities, people 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 \74\ 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ 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.
    \74\ 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. See Exec. Order No. 
13985, 86 FR 7009, Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity and 
Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government 
(January 20, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Procedural Matters

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)

    51. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 
(RFA),\75\ as amended, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) was incorporated in the Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (FNPRM) and Third FNPRM in this proceeding. The Federal 
Communications Commission (Commission) sought written public comment on 
the proposals in the FNPRMs, including comment on the IRFAs. The 
Commission received no comments in response to either IRFA. This 
present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the 
RFA.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
    \76\ See 5 U.S.C. 604.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Third Report and Order
    52. In the first Next Gen TV Report and Order, 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. ATSC 3.0 is the new TV transmission standard developed by 
the Advanced Television Systems Committee as the world's first Internet 
Protocol (IP)-based broadcast transmission platform. The Commission 
determined in the Next Gen TV Report and Order that broadcasters that 
deploy ATSC 3.0 generally must continue to deliver current-generation 
digital television (DTV) service, using the ATSC 1.0 transmission 
standard, also called ``ATSC 1.0'' or ``1.0,'' to their viewers through 
local simulcasting. Specifically, the Commission required full power 
and Class A TV stations deploying ATSC 3.0 service to simulcast the 
primary video programming stream of their ATSC 3.0 channel in an ATSC 
1.0 format.
    53. The Commission determined in the Next Gen TV Report and Order 
that the local simulcasting requirement is crucial to the deployment of 
Next Gen TV service in order to minimize viewer disruption. The Next 
Gen TV standard is not backward-compatible with existing TV sets or 
receivers, which have only ATSC 1.0 and analog tuners. This means that 
consumers will not be able to view 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 
either forcing viewers to acquire new equipment or depriving them of 
television service. A TV station cannot, as a technical matter, 
broadcast in both 1.0 and 3.0 format from the same facility. Therefore, 
local simulcasting will be effectuated through voluntary partnerships 
that broadcasters that wish to provide Next Gen TV service must enter 
into with other broadcasters in their local markets. Next Gen TV 
broadcasters must partner with another

[[Page 45361]]

television station (i.e., a temporary ``host'' station) in their local 
market to either: (1) air an ATSC 3.0 channel at the temporary host's 
facility, while using their 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 their original facility 
to the ATSC 3.0 standard in order to provide a 3.0 channel.
    54. In this Third Report and Order, we adopt changes to our ATSC 
3.0 (3.0 or Next Gen TV) rules considered in both the Second FNPRM (or 
Multicast Licensing FNPRM) and Third FNPRM (or Sunsets FNPRM). In the 
first part of this Order, the Commission generally adopts the rules 
proposed in the Next Gen TV Multicast Licensing FNPRM, establishing a 
licensing regime for Next Gen TV stations' multicast streams that are 
aired on host stations during the transition period. These rules 
facilitate and encourage Next Gen TV stations to preserve consumer 
access to multicast programming in 1.0 format during the voluntary ATSC 
3.0 transition. They will provide the industry with regulatory 
certainty about the legal treatment of licensed multicast streams; 
clarify that the originating station (and not the host station) is 
responsible for regulatory compliance regarding a multicast stream 
being aired on a host station; give the Commission clear enforcement 
authority over the originating station in the event of a rule violation 
on the hosted multicast programming stream; and facilitate NCE 
stations' 3.0 deployment by allowing them to serve as hosts to 
commercial stations' multicast streams. The Commission recognizes that 
allowing Next Gen TV stations to seek modification of their license to 
include capacity on multiple host stations represents a significant 
departure from its present licensing regime. The Commission finds that 
doing so is appropriate because it is limited to the temporary 
broadcast transition to 3.0 and to specific situations for which there 
is a clear need.
    55. In the second part of this Order, the Commission retains the 
substantially similar rule and requirement to comply with the ATSC A/
322 standard until July 17, 2027. The substantially similar rule 
requires that the programming aired on a Next Gen TV station's ATSC 1.0 
simulcast channel be ``substantially similar'' to that of the primary 
video programming stream on the ATSC 3.0 channel.\77\ This means that 
the programming must be the same, except for programming features that 
are based on the enhanced capabilities of ATSC 3.0 and promotions for 
upcoming programs.\78\ In this Order, the Commission finds that this 
rule remains necessary to protect consumers by ensuring that over-the-
air (OTA) viewers who rely on 1.0 are able to continue watching the 
same programming they watch today, as well as any new programming 
offerings on a broadcaster's primary channel that can be reasonably 
provided in 1.0 format. The Commission finds that there has not yet 
been a sufficient shift in the marketplace that would justify 
elimination or modification of the substantially similar rule. The 
requirement to comply with the ATSC A/322 standard, which applies only 
to Next Gen TV broadcasters' primary video programming stream, provides 
certainty to consumers, television receiver manufacturers, and MVPDs 
that 3.0 TV sets or other 3.0 TV equipment will be able to receive all 
3.0 primary broadcast signals. In this Order, the Commission finds that 
this rule remains necessary at this time to protect consumers and other 
stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ The substantially similar rule is independent of the 
requirement for Next Gen TV broadcasters to simulcast in 1.0 format, 
a requirement that does not have a sunset date.
    \78\ Such enhanced content or features that cannot reasonably be 
provided in ATSC 1.0 format include: targeted advertisements, 
``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA
    56. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the 
rules and policies proposed in the IRFA of either the Second or Third 
FNPRM.
3. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration
    57. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended 
the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
(SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the 
proposed rules as a result of those comments.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ 5 U.S.C. 604(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    58. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the 
proposed rules in this proceeding.

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

    59. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the rules adopted herein.\80\ The RFA generally defines the 
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' \81\ In addition, the term ``small business'' has the 
same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small 
Business Act.\82\ 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.\83\ Below, we provide a description of such small entities, as 
well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, where 
feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
    \81\ Id. 601(6).
    \82\ Id. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of 
``small-business concern'' in 15 U.S.C. 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies 
``unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy 
of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for 
public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term 
which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes 
such definition(s) in the Federal Register.'' 5 U.S.C. 601(3).
    \83\ 15 U.S.C. 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    60. Television Broadcasting. This industry is comprised of 
``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 small business size standard 
for this industry classifies businesses having $41.5 million or less in 
annual receipts as small. 2017 U.S. Census Bureau data indicate that 
744 firms in this industry operated for the entire year. Of that 
number, 657 firms had revenue of less than $25,000,000.\84\ Based on 
this data we estimate that the majority of television broadcasters are 
small entities

[[Page 45362]]

under the SBA small business size standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a 
more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size 
standard. We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau 
glossary, the terms receipts and revenues are used interchangeably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    61. As of December 31, 2022, there were 1,375 licensed commercial 
television stations. Of this total, 1,282 stations (or 93.2%) had 
revenues of $41.5 million or less in 2021, according to Commission 
staff review of the BIAKelsey Media Access Pro Online Television 
Database (MAPro) on January 13, 2023, and therefore these licensees 
qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In addition, the 
Commission estimates as of December 31, 2022, there were 383 licensed 
noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations, 383 Class A TV 
stations, 1,912 LPTV stations and 3,122 TV translator stations. The 
Commission, however, does not compile and otherwise does not have 
access to financial information for these television broadcast stations 
that would permit it to determine how many of these stations qualify as 
small entities under the SBA small business size standard. 
Nevertheless, given the SBA's large annual receipts threshold for this 
industry and the nature of these television station licensees, we 
presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the 
above SBA small business size standard.
    62. 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 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. 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers are also referred to as wireline 
carriers or fixed local service providers.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ Fixed Local Service Providers include the following types 
of providers: Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs), Competitive 
Access Providers (CAPs) and Competitive Local Exchange Carriers 
(CLECs), Cable/Coax CLECs, Interconnected VOIP Providers, Non-
Interconnected VOIP Providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, 
Audio Bridge Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers. 
Local Resellers fall into another U.S. Census Bureau industry group 
and therefore data for these providers is not included in this 
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    63. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of 
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.\86\ 
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 5,183 providers 
that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,737 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a 
more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    64. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission 
has developed its own small business size standard 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. Based 
on industry data, there are about 420 cable companies in the U.S. Of 
these, only seven have more than 400,000 subscribers. In addition, 
under the Commission's rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system 
serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Based on industry data, there are 
about 4,139 cable systems (headends) in the U.S. Of these, about 639 
have more than 15,000 subscribers. Accordingly, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of cable companies and cable systems are 
small.
    65. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, contains a size standard for a 
``small cable operator,'' which is ``a cable operator that, directly or 
through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than one 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.'' For purposes of the Telecom Act Standard, the 
Commission determined that a cable system operator that serves fewer 
than 677,000 subscribers, either directly or through affiliates, will 
meet the definition of a small cable operator based on the cable 
subscriber count established in a 2001 Public Notice. Based on industry 
data, only six cable system operators have more than 677,000 
subscribers. Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
cable system operators are small under this size standard. We note 
however, that the Commission neither requests nor collects information 
on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose 
gross annual revenues exceed $250 million.\87\ Therefore, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-
case basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's 
finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable 
operator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    66. 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 included in the Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers industry which comprises 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 
telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a 
single technology or 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 
services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video 
programming distribution; and wired broadband internet services.\88\ By 
exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution 
services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are 
included in this industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Included in this industry are: broadband internet service 
providers (e.g., cable, DSL); local telephone carriers (wired); 
cable television distribution services; long-distance telephone 
carriers (wired); closed-circuit television (CCTV) services; VoIP 
service providers, using own operated wired telecommunications 
infrastructure; direct-to-home satellite system (DTH) services; 
telecommunications carriers (wired); satellite television 
distribution systems; and multichannel multipoint distribution 
services (MMDS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    67. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 3,054 
firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 
2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250

[[Page 45363]]

employees.\89\ Based on this data, the majority of firms in this 
industry can be considered small under the SBA small business size 
standard. According to Commission data however, only two entities 
provide DBS service--DIRECTV (owned by AT&T) and DISH Network, which 
require a great deal of capital for operation. DIRECTV and DISH Network 
both exceed the SBA size standard for classification as a small 
business. Therefore, we must conclude based on internally developed 
Commission data, in general DBS service is provided only by large 
firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a 
more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    68. 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 included in the Wired Telecommunications Carriers' 
industry which includes wireline telecommunications businesses. The SBA 
small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers 
classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry 
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,964 firms operated 
with fewer than 250 employees.\90\ Thus under the SBA size standard, 
the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a 
more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    69. 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 industry category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The 
SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers 
classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated for 
the entire year. Of this total, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 
250 employees.\91\ Thus, under the SBA size standard, the majority of 
firms in this industry can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a 
more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    70. Open Video Systems. 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. OVS operators 
provide subscription services and therefore fall within the SBA small 
business size standard for the cable services industry, which is 
``Wired Telecommunications Carriers.'' The SBA small business size 
standard for this industry classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of 
this total, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.\92\ 
Thus, under the SBA size standard the majority of firms in this 
industry can be considered small. Additionally, we note that the 
Commission has certified some OVS operators who are now providing 
service and 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 for the 
entities authorized to provide OVS however, the Commission believes 
some of the OVS operators may qualify as small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a 
more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    71. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. 
Broadband Radio Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint 
Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution 
Service (MMDS) systems, and ``wireless cable,'' \93\ transmit video 
programming to subscribers and provide two-way high speed data 
operations using the microwave frequencies of the Broadband Radio 
Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) (previously 
referred to as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)). 
Wireless cable operators that use spectrum in the BRS often 
supplemented with leased channels from the EBS, provide a competitive 
alternative to wired cable and other multichannel video programming 
distributors. Wireless cable programming to subscribers resembles cable 
television, but instead of coaxial cable, wireless cable uses microwave 
channels.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ The use of the term ``wireless cable'' does not imply that 
it constitutes cable television for statutory or regulatory 
purposes.
    \94\ Generally, a wireless cable system may be described as a 
microwave station transmitting on a combination of BRS and EBS 
channels to numerous receivers with antennas, such as single-family 
residences, apartment complexes, hotels, educational institutions, 
business entities and governmental offices. The range of the 
transmission depends upon the transmitter power, the type of 
receiving antenna and the existence of a line-of-sight path between 
the transmitter or signal booster and the receiving antenna.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    72. In light of the use of wireless frequencies by BRS and EBS 
services, the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard 
applicable to these services is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 
(except Satellite). The SBA small business size standard for this 
industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 
firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this 
number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees.\95\ Thus under 
the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of 
licensees in this industry can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a 
more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    73. According to Commission data as December 2021, there were 
approximately 5,869 active BRS and EBS licenses. The Commission's small 
business size standards with respect to BRS involves eligibility for 
bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for 
these services. For the auction of BRS licenses, the Commission adopted 
criteria for three groups of small businesses. A very small business is 
an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, 
has average annual gross revenues exceed $3 million and did not exceed 
$15 million for the preceding three years, a small business is an 
entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, 
has average gross revenues exceed $15 million and did not exceed $40 
million for the preceding three years, and an entrepreneur is an entity 
that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has 
average gross revenues not exceeding $3 million

[[Page 45364]]

for the preceding three years. Of the ten winning bidders for BRS 
licenses, two bidders claiming the small business status won 4 
licenses, one bidder claiming the very small business status won three 
licenses and two bidders claiming entrepreneur status won six licenses. 
One of the winning bidders claiming a small business status 
classification in the BRS license auction has an active licenses as of 
December 2021.
    74. The Commission's small business size standards for EBS define a 
small business as an entity that, together with its affiliates, its 
controlling interests and the affiliates of its controlling interests, 
has average gross revenues that are not more than $55 million for the 
preceding five (5) years, and a very small business is an entity that, 
together with its affiliates, its controlling interests and the 
affiliates of its controlling interests, has average gross revenues 
that are not more than $20 million for the preceding five (5) years. In 
frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission 
notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that 
qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not 
necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in 
service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    75. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard 
specifically for incumbent local exchange carriers. Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small 
business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of 
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.\96\ 
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 1,227 providers 
that reported they were incumbent local exchange service providers. Of 
these providers, the Commission estimates that 929 providers have 1,500 
or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size 
standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of incumbent local 
exchange carriers can be considered small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a 
more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    76. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small 
businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services. 
Providers of these services include several types of competitive local 
exchange service providers.\97\ Wired Telecommunications Carriers is 
the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA 
small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers 
classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in 
this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated 
with fewer than 250 employees.\98\ Additionally, based on Commission 
data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 
31, 2020, there were 3,956 providers that reported they were 
competitive local exchange service providers. Of these providers, the 
Commission estimates that 3,808 providers have 1,500 or fewer 
employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, 
most of these providers can be considered small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ Competitive Local Exchange Service Providers include the 
following types of providers: Competitive Access Providers (CAPs) 
and Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Cable/Coax CLECs, 
Interconnected VOIP Providers, Non-Interconnected VOIP Providers, 
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, Audio Bridge Service Providers, 
Local Resellers, and Other Local Service Providers.
    \98\ The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a 
more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    77. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications 
Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and 
wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable 
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile 
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment. The SBA small business size standard for this 
industry classifies businesses having 1,250 employees or less as small. 
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 656 firms in this 
industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 624 firms 
had fewer than 250 employees.\99\ Thus, under the SBA size standard, 
the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a 
more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    78. Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing. This industry 
comprises establishments primarily engaged in electronic audio and 
video equipment for home entertainment, motor vehicles, and public 
address and musical instrument amplification. Examples of products made 
by these establishments are video cassette recorders, televisions, 
stereo equipment, speaker systems, household-type video cameras, 
jukeboxes, and amplifiers for musical instruments and public address 
systems. The SBA small business size standard for this industry 
classifies firms with 750 employees or less as small. According to 2017 
U.S. Census Bureau data, 464 firms in this industry operated that year. 
Of this number, 399 firms operated with less than 250 employees.\100\ 
Based on this data and the associated SBA size standard, we conclude 
that the majority of firms in this industry are small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a 
more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size 
standard. We also note that the U.S. Census Bureau withheld 
publication of the number of firms that operated for the entire year 
and the number of firms that operated with 5 to 9 employees, to 
avoid disclosing data for individual companies (see Cell Notes for 
``Firms operated for the entire year'' and ``Firms operated for the 
entire year with 5 to 9 employees''). Therefore, the number of firms 
with employees that meet the SBA size standard would be higher that 
noted herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements
    79. The Order modifies our Next Gen TV licensing processes to 
include additional reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance for 
small entities that seek to include hosted multicast streams within 
their license. While the Commission is not in a position to determine 
whether small entities will have to hire professionals to comply with 
our decisions and cannot quantify the cost of compliance for small 
entities, as discussed in the Order, the approaches we have taken to 
implement the requirements for Next Gen TV multicasting have minimal 
cost implications for impacted entities.
    80. As discussed in section A of this FRFA, this Order establishes 
a licensing

[[Page 45365]]

regime for Next Gen TV stations' multicast streams that are aired on 
host stations (as guest streams) during the transition period. The 
Order applies the licensing process for primary simulcast streams to 
guest multicast streams. Thus, Next Gen TV broadcasters that choose to 
deploy ATSC 3.0 service and seek to license guest multicast streams 
aired on a host station are subject to certain reporting, 
recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.
    81. A Next Gen TV broadcaster seeking to license one or more guest 
multicast streams aired on a host station (multicast license applicant) 
is subject to the host capacity limit (discussed in section III.D. of 
this Order). That is, a Next Gen TV station may not use more 1.0 host 
capacity than it could have used if it were still broadcasting in 1.0 
on its own facilities. A multicast license applicant is also subject to 
most requirements applicable to primary streams, including rules 
concerning signal coverage, simulcast agreements, MVPD notice and on-
air consumer notice requirements for each guest multicast stream 
(discussed in section III.H. of this Order).
    82. All multicast license applicants, including small entities, 
must file an application (Form 2100) to modify its license with the 
Commission and receive prior Commission approval. This requires the 
applicant must prepare an exhibit identifying each guest stream and 
provide the following information about each stream, as broadcast: the 
host station; channel number (RF and virtual); network affiliation (or 
type of programming if unaffiliated); resolution (e.g., 1080i, 720p, 
480p, or 480i); 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, with a contour overlay map 
identifying areas of service loss and, in the case of 1.0 streams, 
coverage of the originating station's community of license; and whether 
the stream will be simulcast, and if so, the ``paired'' stream in the 
other service. Finally, the exhibit must either state that the 
applicant will be airing the same programming that it is airing in 1.0 
at the time of the application or identify the station that has aired 
or is airing the same or a similar programming lineup at the same 
resolutions on the same type of facility (individual or shared), as 
well as that station's lineup (with resolutions). This exhibit must be 
placed on the applicant's public website, with a link provided in the 
application.
    83. The Order also retains for another four years two existing 
compliance requirements for all stations, including small entities, and 
eliminates the sunset dates for these requirements. The Order retains 
the ``substantially similar'' rule (see section III.I. of this Order). 
This rule requires that the programming aired on a Next Gen TV 
station's ATSC 1.0 simulcast channel be ``substantially similar'' to 
that of the primary video programming stream on the ATSC 3.0 channel. 
This 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. This rule will now expire in 2027absent Commission 
action. The Order retains the requirement to comply with the ATSC A/322 
standard (``Physical Layer Protocol'') (A/322) (see section III.J of 
this Order), which is the standard that defines the waveforms that ATSC 
3.0 signals may take. The requirement to comply with A/322 will now 
expire in 2027 absent Commission action.
6. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered
    84. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its 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 and reporting requirements under the rule for such 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.'' \101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    85. The Commission has authorized television broadcasters to use 
the Next Gen TV (ATSC 3.0) standard on a voluntary, market-driven 
basis. As observed in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the 
2017 First Next Gen TV Report and Order, this means that broadcasters 
decide whether (and if so when) to deploy ATSC 3.0 service and bear the 
costs associated with such deployment. All broadcasters, including 
small entities, will need to undertake any costs or burdens associated 
with ATSC 3.0 service should they choose to do so.
    86. The rules concerning multicast licensing provide increased 
flexibility to broadcasters without imposing additional obligations. By 
expanding the ability of broadcasters to place licensed streams on 
additional host partners, the rules 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 rules, which could improve their ability to 
participate in the transition to Next Gen TV. Although we intended to 
limit certain simulcast multicast stream relief only to NCE stations or 
commercial stations airing multicast streams on NCE partner hosts, we 
will instead allow any Next Gen TV station to apply for this relief 
under the non-expedited process, but emphasize that all applicants, 
including small entities, must demonstrate why this relief is in the 
public interest and outweighs any potential harms. In addition, the 
multicast licensing approach minimizes administrative burdens for all 
broadcasters, including small broadcasters. The rules streamline the 
current process whereby broadcasters request special temporary 
authority on a case-by-case basis. We also considered concerns 
regarding the potential abuse of these rules in that the multicast 
streams may allow stations to evade local ownership rules. Consistent 
with our previous decisions, hosting multicast streams on a temporary 
host station's facility will not result in any additional requirements 
for small entities related to television stations attribution (e.g., 
filing ownership reports). In finding that it is appropriate to limit a 
Next Gen TV station's 1.0 host capacity to that which it could deploy 
on its own 1.0 channel, we determined that other alternatives related 
to proposed capacity limits would be overly restrictive to all 
stations, including small entities, and that the best metric will be 
the number and resolution of streams actually airing (or that 
previously actually aired) on specific 1.0 facilities. In retaining the 
rules that require stations, including small entities, to broadcast 
substantially similar programing to their primary streams, we rejected 
the alternatives presented by broadcasters that argued that market 
incentives would ensure OTA viewers have access to this programming.
7. Report to Congress
    87. The Commission will send a copy of the Third Report and Order, 
including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act.\102\ In

[[Page 45366]]

addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Third Report and 
Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
SBA. The Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published 
in the Federal Register.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ See 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
    \103\ See id. 604(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Final PRA Analysis

    88. This document contains new information collection requirements 
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).\104\ The 
requirements will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general 
public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the 
information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. The 
Commission will publish a separate document in the Federal Register at 
a later date seeking these comments. In addition, we note that pursuant 
to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002 (SBPRA),\105\ we 
will seek specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce 
the information collection burden for small business concerns with 
fewer than 25 employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ 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.).
    \105\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Congressional Review Act

    89. The Bureau has determined, and the Administrator of the Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
concurs that these rules are non-major under the Congressional Review 
Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of this Third 
Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability office, 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

V. Ordering Clauses

    90. 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 Third Report and Order is hereby adopted, 
effective thirty (30) days after the date of publication in the Federal 
Register.
    91. It is further ordered that the Commission's rules are hereby 
amended as set forth in Appendix B of the Third Report and Order and 
will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal 
Register, except for 47 CFR 73.3801, 73.6029, and 74.782 which contain 
new or modified information collection requirements that require 
approval by the OMB under the PRA and which shall become effective 
after the Commission publishes a notice in the Federal Register 
announcing OMB approval and the effective date of the rules.
    92. It is further ordered that, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 155(c), the 
Chief, Media Bureau, is granted delegated authority for the purpose of 
amending FCC Form 2100 as necessary to implement the licensing process 
adopted herein.
    93. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Third Report and Order, including the Initial and Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.
    94. It is further ordered, that pursuant to section 801(a)(1)(A) of 
the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), the Commission 
shall send a copy of this Third Report and Order to Congress and to the 
Government Accountability Office.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 73 and 74

    Communications equipment, Television.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 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.


Sec.  73.682  [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  73.682 by:
0
a. Lifting the stay on paragraph (f)(2)(iii) published on April 5, 2023 
(88 FR 20076).
0
b. In paragraph (f)(2)(iii), removing the date ``March 6, 2023'' and 
adding, in its place, ``July 17, 2027''.
0
c. Removing Note 2 to Sec.  73.682.
0
3. Amend Sec.  73.3801 by:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(3), by removing the date ``July 17, 2023'' and 
adding in its place ``July 17, 2027'';
0
b. Revising paragraphs (f)(5) and (6); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (i).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  73.3801  Full power 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.
    (6) Required information. (i) An application in paragraph (f)(2) of 
this section must include the following information:
    (A) The station or stations serving as the host or hosts, 
identified by call sign and facility identification number, if 
applicable;
    (B) The technical facilities of each host station, if applicable;
    (C) The DMA of the originating broadcaster's facility and the DMA 
of each host station, if applicable;
    (D) A web link to the exhibit described in paragraph (i) of this 
section, if applicable; and
    (E) Any other information deemed necessary by the Commission to 
process the application.
    (ii) If an application in paragraph (f)(2) of this section includes 
a request to air an ATSC 1.0 signal on the facilities of a host station 
or stations, the broadcaster must, in addition to the information in 
paragraph (f)(6)(i) of this section, also indicate on the application:
    (A) The predicted population within the noise limited service 
contour served by the station's original ATSC 1.0 signal;
    (B) The predicted population within the noise limited service 
contour served by the station's original ATSC 1.0 signal that will lose 
the station's ATSC 1.0 service as a result of the hosting arrangement 
or arrangements, including identifying areas of service loss by 
providing a contour overlap map; and
    (C) Whether the ATSC 1.0 primary stream simulcast signal aired on 
the host station will serve at least 95 percent of the population in 
paragraph (f)(6)(ii)(A) of this section.
* * * * *

[[Page 45367]]

    (i) Multicast streams. A Next Gen TV station is not required to 
license, under paragraph (f) of this section, a ``guest'' multicast 
programming 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) of this section 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.
    (i) Host capacity limit. A Next Gen TV station that has converted 
its own facility to 3.0 must not license more capacity on one or more 
partner host stations, in the aggregate, than the station could use if 
it were still operating on its own facility in 1.0. It must demonstrate 
compliance with this limit in its license application exhibit.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (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) Children's television. A Next Gen TV station may rely on a 
multicast stream it is airing via a host partner to comply with the 
Commission's children's television programming requirement in Sec.  
73.671. 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 Next Gen TV 
station's pre-transition 1.0 signal.
    (4) Application exhibit required. A Next Gen TV station seeking to 
license hosted multicast streams must prepare and host on its public 
website (or its Online Public Inspection File if the station does not 
have a dedicated website) the exhibit referenced in paragraph 
(f)(6)(i)(D) of this section. The exhibit must contain the following:
    (i) For each hosted stream: channel number (RF and virtual); 
network affiliation (or type of programming if unaffiliated); 
resolution (e.g., 1080i, 720p, 480p, or 480i); whether the stream will 
be simulcast; and if so, the identity of the paired stream in the other 
service; and
    (ii) For a station that has converted its own facility to 3.0, the 
exhibit must also demonstrate compliance with the host capacity limit. 
It may do so by either showing that it is seeking hosting only for 
streams it was broadcasting on its own 1.0 facility prior to its 
transition to 3.0, or identifying another 1.0 station that is carrying 
or has carried the same or a similar programming lineup at the same 
resolutions on the same type of facility (individual or shared);
    (iii) For a station that has converted its own facility to 3.0, the 
exhibit must also demonstrate compliance with the coverage requirement 
for guest multicast streams, including by providing a contour map 
showing the guest multicast stream will continue to serve the station's 
community of license; and
    (iv) Changes to the exhibit. Changes to the affiliation or content 
of a stream that would not result in the use of additional capacity, 
the elimination of a stream, or non-substantive corrections may be made 
at the discretion of the applicant but must be reflected in a timely 
update to the existing public exhibit and an emailed notice to the 
Chief of the Media Bureau's Video Division or their designee. No other 
changes, including to the location of the exhibit itself, may be made 
without the filing and approval of a new application.

0
4. Amend Sec.  73.6029 by:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(3), remove the date ``July 17, 2023'' and add, in 
its place, ``July 17, 2027'';
0
b. Revising paragraphs (f)(5) and (6); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (i).
    The revisions and addition 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.
    (6) Required information. (i) An application in paragraph (f)(2) of 
this section must include the following information:
    (A) The station or stations serving as the host or hosts, 
identified by call sign and facility identification number, if 
applicable;
    (B) The technical facilities of each host station, if applicable;
    (C) The DMA of the originating broadcaster's facility and the DMA 
of each host station, if applicable;
    (D) A web link to the exhibit described in paragraph (i) of this 
section, if applicable; and
    (E) Any other information deemed necessary by the Commission to 
process the application.
    (ii) If an application in paragraph (f)(2) of this section includes 
a request to air an ATSC 1.0 signal on the facilities of a host station 
or stations, the broadcaster must, in addition to the information in 
paragraph (f)(6)(i) of this section, also indicate on the application:
    (A) The predicted population within the noise limited service 
contour served by the station's original ATSC 1.0 signal;
    (B) The predicted population within the noise limited service 
contour served by the station's original ATSC 1.0 signal that will lose 
the station's ATSC 1.0 service as a result of the hosting arrangement 
or arrangements, including identifying areas of service loss by 
providing a contour overlap map; and
    (C) Whether the ATSC 1.0 primary stream simulcast signal aired on 
the host station will serve at least 95 percent of the population in 
paragraph (f)(6)(ii)(A) of this section.
* * * * *
    (i) Multicast streams. A Next Gen TV station is not required to 
license, under paragraph (f) of this section, a ``guest'' multicast 
programming 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) of this section 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.
    (i) Host capacity limit. A Next Gen TV station that has converted 
its own facility to 3.0 must not license more capacity on one or more 
partner host stations, in the aggregate, than the station could use if 
it were still operating on its own facility in 1.0. It must demonstrate 
compliance with this limit in its license application exhibit.

[[Page 45368]]

    (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) Children's television. A Next Gen TV station may rely on a 
multicast stream it is airing via a host partner to comply with the 
Commission's children's television programming requirement in Sec.  
73.671. 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 Next Gen TV 
station's pre-transition 1.0 signal.
    (4) Application exhibit required. A Next Gen TV station seeking to 
license hosted multicast streams must prepare and host on its public 
website (or its Online Public Inspection File if the station does not 
have a dedicated website) the exhibit referenced in paragraph 
(f)(6)(i)(D) of this section. The exhibit must contain the following:
    (i) For each hosted stream: channel number (RF and virtual); 
network affiliation (or type of programming if unaffiliated); 
resolution (e.g., 1080i, 720p, 480p, or 480i); whether the stream will 
be simulcast; and if so, the identity of the paired stream in the other 
service; and
    (ii) For a station that has converted its own facility to 3.0, the 
exhibit must also demonstrate compliance with the host capacity limit. 
It may do so by either showing that it is seeking hosting only for 
streams it was broadcasting on its own 1.0 facility prior to its 
transition to 3.0, or identifying another 1.0 station that is carrying 
or has carried the same or a similar programming lineup at the same 
resolutions on the same type of facility (individual or shared);
    (iii) For a station that has converted its own facility to 3.0, the 
exhibit must also demonstrate compliance with the coverage requirement 
for guest multicast streams, including by providing a contour map 
showing the guest multicast stream will continue to serve the station's 
community of license; and
    (iv) Changes to the exhibit. Changes to the affiliation or content 
of a stream that would not result in the use of additional capacity, 
the elimination of a stream, or non-substantive corrections may be made 
at the discretion of the applicant but must be reflected in a timely 
update to the existing public exhibit and an emailed notice to the 
Chief of the Media Bureau's Video Division or their designee. No other 
changes, including to the location of the exhibit itself, may be made 
without the filing and approval of a new application.

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

0
5. The authority citation for part 74 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 310, 325, 336 and 
554.


0
6. Amend Sec.  74.782 by:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(3) remove the date ``July 17, 2023'' and add, in 
its place, ``July 17, 2027'';
0
b. Revising paragraphs (g)(5) and (6); and
0
c. Adding paragraph (j).
    The revisions and addition 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.
    (6) Required information. (i) An application in paragraph (f)(2) of 
this section must include the following information:
    (A) The station or stations serving as the host or hosts, 
identified by call sign and facility identification number, if 
applicable;
    (B) The technical facilities of each host station, if applicable;
    (C) The DMA of the originating broadcaster's facility and the DMA 
of each host station, if applicable;
    (D) A web link to the exhibit described in paragraph (i) of this 
section, if applicable; and
    (E) Any other information deemed necessary by the Commission to 
process the application.
    (ii) If an application in paragraph (f)(2) of this section includes 
a request to air an ATSC 1.0 signal on the facilities of a host station 
or stations, the broadcaster must, in addition to the information in 
paragraph (f)(6)(i) of this section, also indicate on the application:
    (A) The predicted population within the noise limited service 
contour served by the station's original ATSC 1.0 signal;
    (B) The predicted population within the noise limited service 
contour served by the station's original ATSC 1.0 signal that will lose 
the station's ATSC 1.0 service as a result of the hosting arrangement 
or arrangements, including identifying areas of service loss by 
providing a contour overlap map; and
    (C) Whether the ATSC 1.0 primary stream simulcast signal aired on 
the host station will serve at least 95 percent of the population in 
paragraph (f)(6)(ii)(A) of this section.
* * * * *
    (j) Multicast streams. A Next Gen TV station is not required to 
license, under paragraph (f) of this section, a ``guest'' multicast 
programming 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) of this section 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.
    (i) Host capacity limit. A Next Gen TV station that has converted 
its own facility to 3.0 must not license more capacity on one or more 
partner host stations, in the aggregate, than the station could use if 
it were still operating on its own facility in 1.0. It must demonstrate 
compliance with this limit in its license application exhibit.
    (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) Children's television. A Next Gen TV station may rely on a 
multicast stream it is airing via a host partner to comply with the 
Commission's children's television programming requirement in Sec.  
73.671 of thischapter. 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 
Next Gen TV station's pre-transition 1.0 signal.
    (4) Application exhibit required. A Next Gen TV station seeking to 
license hosted multicast streams must prepare and host on its public 
website (or its Online Public Inspection File if the station does not 
have a dedicated

[[Page 45369]]

website) the exhibit referenced in paragraph (f)(6)(i)(D) of this 
section. The exhibit must contain the following:
    (i) For each hosted stream: channel number (RF and virtual); 
network affiliation (or type of programming if unaffiliated); 
resolution (e.g., 1080i, 720p, 480p, or 480i); whether the stream will 
be simulcast; and if so, the identity of the paired stream in the other 
service; and
    (ii) For a station that has converted its own facility to 3.0, the 
exhibit must also demonstrate compliance with the host capacity limit. 
It may do so by either showing that it is seeking hosting only for 
streams it was broadcasting on its own 1.0 facility prior to its 
transition to 3.0, or identifying another 1.0 station that is carrying 
or has carried the same or a similar programming lineup at the same 
resolutions on the same type of facility (individual or shared);
    (iii) For a station that has converted its own facility to 3.0, the 
exhibit must also demonstrate compliance with the coverage requirement 
for guest multicast streams, including by providing a contour map 
showing the guest multicast stream will continue to serve the station's 
community of license; and
    (iv) Changes to the exhibit. Changes to the affiliation or content 
of a stream that would not result in the use of additional capacity, 
the elimination of a stream, or non-substantive corrections may be made 
at the discretion of the applicant but must be reflected in a timely 
update to the existing public exhibit and an emailed notice to the 
Chief of the Media Bureau's Video Division or their designee. No other 
changes, including to the location of the exhibit itself, may be made 
without the filing and approval of a new application.

[FR Doc. 2023-14408 Filed 7-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P