40464 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 129 / Thursday, July 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

Note 1 to paragraph (g): Additional 

guidance for performing the functional test 

required by paragraph (g) of this AD can be 

found in 737–200 Airplane Maintenance 

Manual (AMM) 21–33–11/501, 737CL AMM 

TASK CARD 31–026–01–01, 737CL AMM 

TASK CARD 31–010–01–01, 737NG AMM 

TASK CARD 31–020–00–01, and 737MAX 

AMM TASK CARD 31–020–00–01, and other 

approved maintenance procedures. 

(h) Minimum Equipment List Provisions 

If any cabin altitude warning switch fails 

any functional test as required by this AD, 

the airplane may be operated as specified in 

the operator’s existing FAA-approved MEL, 

provided provisions that specify operating 

the airplane at a flight altitude at or below 

10,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) with the 

cabin altitude warning system inoperative are 

included in the operator’s existing FAAapproved MEL. 

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, 

FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs 

for this AD, if requested using the procedures 

found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 

14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your 

principal inspector or responsible Flight 

Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending 

information directly to the manager of the 

certification office, send it to the attention of 

the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of 

this AD. Information may be emailed to 9- 

ANM-Seattle-ACO-AMOC-Requests@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the responsible Flight Standards Office. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair, 

modification, or alteration required by this 

AD if it is approved by The Boeing Company 

Organization Designation Authorization 

(ODA) that has been authorized by the 

Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, to make 

those findings. To be approved, the repair 

method, modification deviation, or alteration 

deviation must meet the certification basis of 

the airplane, and the approval must 

specifically refer to this AD. 

(j) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Nicole Tsang, Aerospace Engineer, 

Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems 

Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 

South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; 

phone and fax: 206–231–3959; email: 

Nicole.S.Tsang@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD that is not incorporated by reference, 

contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 

Attention: Contractual & Data Services 

(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110– 

SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740–5600; telephone 

562–797–1717; internet https://

www.myboeingfleet.com. 

Issued on May 16, 2022. 

Gaetano A. Sciortino, 

Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, 

Compliance & Airworthiness Division, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13980 Filed 7–6–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 73 and 74 

[GN Docket No. 16–142; FCC 22–47; FR ID 

93764] 

Authorizing Permissive Use of the 

‘‘Next Generation’’ Broadcast 

Television Standard 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission seeks comment on the state 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALSEP07JY22.001</GPH>

• Make sure that the flat side of the adapter is connected with the cabin altitude 

warning switch. 

NOTE: Do not connect the flared side of the adapter with the cabin altitude warning 

switch. Connecting the flared side of the adapter with the cabin altitude warning 

switch may bottom out the cabin altitude warning switch, resulting in false test 

results. 

(5) PIN JUD321 Hose Fitting with MS28778-4 O-ring (Eaton Aerospace LLC, Bethel, 

CT 02750) (Preferred). 

• Use a Barfield Pitot Hose, or equivalent 25 feet (7.62 m) to 40 feet (12.19 m) long 

hose, with #4 AN fitting to the adapter and quick disconnect (if applicable) to the 

air data test set. 

(6) AN807-4D (or AS5180D04 or AS5180W04) Tube to Hose Adapter, AN924-4 nut 

and appropriate sized O-ring ( on the mating side with the switch) and spacer or 

washers (Alternate). 

NOTE: This adapter can be used if the steps below are carefully followed. This 

adapter is not preferred because if the AN924-4 nut is not connected carefully as 

recommended below, this may bottom out the cabin altitude warning switch, 

resulting in false test results. 

• Use a Barfield Pitot Hose, or equivalent 25 feet (7.62 m) to 40 feet (12.19 m) long 

hose, with quick disconnect (if applicable) to the air data test set. 

• Make sure that the thread length, including fitting end after the installation of 

AN924-4 nut and appropriate sized 7/16 spacer or washers, is less than 0.5 inch 

(1.270 cm) to avoid false test results. 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 129 / Thursday, July 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 40465 

1FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters 

Open Window and Change in Hand-Delivery 

Policy, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788 (OMD 

2020). See https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-and-changeshand-delivery-policy. 

2 In June 2020, the Commission adopted a Second 

Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 

resolving the remaining issues raised in the Next 

Gen TV Further Notice, as well as dismissing (or 

alternatively denying) the two petitions for 

reconsideration filed in response to the First Next 

Gen TV Report and Order. 

of the Next Generation Television 

(‘‘Next Gen TV’’ or ‘‘ATSC 3.0’’) 

transition and on the scheduled sunsets 

of two rules adopted in the First Next 

Gen TV Report and Order. First, the 

Commission reviews and seeks 

comment on the progress of Next Gen 

TV broadcasters’ voluntary, marketdriven deployment of ATSC 3.0 service 

and the current state of the ATSC 3.0 

marketplace, including whether holders 

of essential patents for the ATSC 3.0 

standards are licensing such patents on 

reasonable and non-discriminatory 

(RAND) terms. Second, the Commission 

seeks comment on the scheduled 2023 

sunset of the rule requiring that a Next 

Gen TV station’s ATSC 1.0 simulcast 

primary video programming stream be 

‘‘substantially similar’’ to its 3.0 primary 

programming stream. Third, the 

Commission seeks comment on the 

scheduled 2023 sunset of the 

requirement that a Next Gen TV station 

comply with the ATSC A/322 standard. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

August 8, 2022; reply comments are due 

on or before September 6, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by GN Docket No. 16–142, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ 

ecfs/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

Filings can be sent by commercial 

overnight courier or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• Effective March 19, 2020, and until 

further notice, the Commission no 

longer accepts any hand or messenger 

delivered filings. This is a temporary 

measure taken to help protect the health 

and safety of individuals, and to 

mitigate the transmission of COVID–19.1

• During the time the Commission’s 

building is closed to the general public 

and until further notice, if more than 

one docket or rulemaking number 

appears in the caption of a proceeding, 

paper filers need not submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rulemaking number; an 

original and one copy are sufficient. 

People with Disabilities. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (TTY). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Evan Baranoff, 

Evan.Baranoff@fcc.gov, of the Media 

Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418– 

2120. Direct press inquiries to Janice 

Wise at (202) 418–8165. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Third 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(FNPRM), FCC 22–47, adopted on June 

21, 2022 and released on June 22, 2022. 

The full text of this document is 

available electronically via the FCC’s 

Electronic Document Management 

System (EDOCS) website at https://

www.fcc.gov/edocs or via the FCC’s 

Electronic Comment Filing 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 fcc504@fcc.gov 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 Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), we 

seek comment on the state of the Next 

Generation Television (‘‘Next Gen TV’’ 

or ‘‘ATSC 3.0’’) transition and on the 

scheduled sunsets of two rules adopted 

in the First Next Gen TV Report and 

Order, 83 FR 4998. As part of our 

assessment, we review and seek 

comment on the progress of Next Gen 

TV broadcasters’ voluntary, marketdriven deployment of ATSC 3.0 service 

and the current state of the ATSC 3.0 

marketplace, including whether holders 

of essential patents for the ATSC 3.0 

standards are licensing such patents on 

reasonable and non-discriminatory 

(RAND) terms. Next, we seek comment 

on the scheduled 2023 sunset of the rule 

requiring that a Next Gen TV station’s 

ATSC 1.0 simulcast primary video 

programming stream be ‘‘substantially 

similar’’ to its 3.0 primary programming 

stream. Finally, we seek comment on 

the scheduled 2023 sunset of the 

requirement that a Next Gen TV station 

comply with the ATSC A/322 standard. 

II. Background 

2. 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 nonvideo services and enhanced content 

features to consumers. Also called 

‘‘ATSC 3.0’’ or ‘‘3.0’’, this new standard 

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 

DTV service. As 3.0 proponents have 

previously explained to the 

Commission, the greater spectral 

capacity of the new standard and its 

internet-Protocol (IP) 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. And as an IP-based standard, 

ATSC 3.0 could enable advanced oneway datacasting services to help support 

the proliferation of new, IP-based 

consumer applications. 

3. In November 2017, the Commission 

authorized television broadcasters to 

use the Next Gen TV transmission 

standard on a voluntary, market-driven 

basis.2 The Commission required that 

broadcasters voluntarily deploying 

ATSC 3.0 service must, with very 

limited exceptions, continue to air at 

least their primary stream using the 

current-generation digital television 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40466 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 129 / Thursday, July 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

3LPTV 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. 

4Under the Commission’s rules, a Next Gen TV 

station is encouraged, but not required, to simulcast 

its existing non-primary video programming 

streams (multicast streams) in a 1.0 format. In 

November 2021, the Commission initiated a 

proceeding to allow Next Gen TV stations to 

include within their license certain of their 

multicast streams that are aired in a different 

service on ‘‘host’’ stations during a transitional 

period, using the same licensing framework, and to 

a large extent the same regulatory regime, 

established for the simulcast of primary video 

programming streams on ‘‘host’’ station facilities. 

5As of August 31, 2017, new television receivers 

may, but are no longer required to, contain analog 

tuners. 

6A Next Gen TV station must partner with 

another television station (‘‘host’’) in its local 

market to either: (1) air an ATSC 3.0 channel at the 

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 

host’s facility, while converting its original facility 

to the ATSC 3.0 standard in order to provide a 3.0 

channel. 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. 

7We 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. 

8Such 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. 

9We 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; designated 

market area (DMA), and community of license 

coverage; and multichannel video programming 

distributor (MVPD) notices and consumer 

education. 

10The local simulcasting rules took effect on July 

17, 2018. 

11These 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. 

(DTV) transmission standard,3 also 

called ‘‘ATSC 1.0’’ or ‘‘1.0,’’ to their 

viewers through ‘‘local simulcasting’’ 

arrangements with other stations in 

their local market.4

4. The Commission found that a local 

simulcasting requirement is crucial to 

deploying Next Gen TV service in order 

to minimize viewer disruption. The 

Next Gen TV standard is not backwardcompatible with pre-existing TV sets or 

receivers, which have only ATSC 1.0 

and, in many cases, now-obsolete analog 

tuners.5 Accordingly, viewers will be 

unable to watch ATSC 3.0 transmissions 

on such 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 

creates and disseminates devices 

compatible with the new 3.0 

transmission standard, 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 partnerships between 

local market broadcasters that seek to 

provide Next Gen TV service.6 The 

Commission established certain 

requirements in the First Next Gen TV 

Report and Order for the provision of 

simulcast signals to ensure that local 

simulcasting is effective in protecting 

viewers. (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.) 

5. The Commission also required that 

Next Gen TV broadcasters comply with 

all of its broadcast rules, including, but 

not limited to, our rules regarding 

foreign ownership, political 

broadcasting, children’s programming, 

equal employment opportunities, public 

inspection file, indecency, sponsorship 

identification, contests, the CALM Act, 

the Emergency Alert System (EAS), and 

accessibility for people with disabilities. 

The Commission emphasized that 

broadcasters, equipment manufacturers, 

and MVPDs must comply with the 

Commission’s Part 79 captioning rules 

including closed captioning decoder 

requirements, video description and 

emergency information accessibility 

requirements, and requirements for user 

interfaces, programming guides, and 

menus. 

6. ‘‘Substantially Similar’’ Rule. In the 

2017 First Next Gen TV Report and 

Order, 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.7 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.8 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.9 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.10 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. 

7. 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), 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), which is the standard that defines 

the waveforms that ATSC 3.0 signals 

may take.11 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 129 / Thursday, July 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 40467 

12The Commission affirmed this decision in the 

Second Next Gen TV Report and Order, 85 FR 

43478. 

13The Media Bureau completed revisions to the 

FCC Form 2100 and began accepting ATSC 3.0 

license applications through the Commission’s 

Licensing and Management System (LMS) on May 

28, 2019. Prior to this date, the Bureau continued 

to process requests to commence ATSC 3.0 market 

trials and product development under the 

experimental licensing rules. 

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.’’ 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. 

8. Patent Licensing. In the First Next 

Gen TV Report and Order, the 

Commission observed that the ATSC, 

which developed the ATSC 3.0 

standard, requires patent owners to 

disclose that they hold relevant patents 

and to commit to licensing them on 

reasonable and non-discriminatory 

(RAND) terms. Courts have found that a 

patentee’s agreement with a standardsetting organization to provide RAND 

licensing created a contract enforceable 

by a third-party beneficiary. The 

Commission decided in 2017 that 

‘‘[w]ith no evidence of patent licensing 

issues, . . . it [was] premature to 

impose regulations on the private 

licensing marketplace.’’ We note that in 

the context of the original DTV 

transition, the Commission similarly 

stated its expectation that the licensing 

of patents in DTV technology would be 

on RAND terms. The Commission also 

emphasized that if a problem with 

patent licensing arose and was brought 

to the Commission’s attention, it would 

‘‘consider it and take appropriate 

action.’’ Ultimately, however, the 

Commission never adopted any specific 

licensing terms or otherwise took action 

on these issues in the context of the 

DTV transition. In the case of ATSC 3.0 

the Commission stated that it would 

‘‘monitor how the marketplace handles 

patent royalties for essential patents.’’ 12

III. Discussion 

9. As an initial matter, we seek 

comment on the state of the ATSC 3.0 

marketplace, including specifically 

information and data on broadcasters’ 

present deployment of ATSC 3.0 

service; current availability and pricing 

of ATSC 3.0 consumer television 

equipment; the number of over-the-air 

(OTA) television viewers currently 

watching ATSC 3.0 broadcasts; whether 

any MVPDs are currently carrying or 

have plans to carry 3.0 signals; and how 

the 3.0 marketplace is handling patent 

royalties for essential patents in ATSC 

3.0 technology. Next, we seek comment 

on whether we should retain the 

substantially similar requirement, 

which is set to expire in July 2023. 

Finally, we seek 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, which 

is set to expire in March 2023, and, if 

so, for how long. 

A. Review of ATSC 3.0 Marketplace 

10. First, we seek comment regarding 

the ATSC 3.0 marketplace. It has been 

more than four years since the 

Commission authorized Next Gen TV 

broadcasters to provide OTA broadcast 

ATSC 3.0 service on a voluntary, 

market-driven basis.13 During this time, 

dozens of broadcasters have voluntarily 

deployed ATSC 3.0 service to test its 

technical and economic viability as a 

DTV broadcast service. In the First Next 

Gen TV Report and Order, the 

Commission stated that it would 

‘‘monitor the pace of the voluntary 

deployment of ATSC 3.0 both nationally 

and market-by-market, including the 

rollout of 3.0 service by television 

broadcasters, the penetration of ATSC 

3.0-ready TV sets and other converter 

equipment, and the extent to which 

MVPDs have deployed 3.0 equipment.’’ 

The Commission also stated that it 

would ‘‘monitor how the marketplace 

handles patent royalties for essential 

patents.’’ Accordingly, we seek specific 

comment on five aspects of the 

deployment: (1) voluntary deployment 

of ATSC 3.0 service by broadcasters and 

the continued availability of ATSC 1.0 

programming; (2) availability of ATSC 

3.0 consumer TV sets and equipment; 

(3) consumer viewership of ATSC 3.0 

signals; (4) MVPD carriage of ATSC 3.0 

signals; and (5) status of ATSC 3.0 

patent licensing. 

11. As part of this review, we seek 

comment on whether broadcasters still 

consider ATSC 3.0 to be a trial 

technology and the extent to which 

broadcasters intend to fully transition to 

3.0 at some point. Is the expectation still 

a uniform transition by all broadcasters 

at some future point? The Commission 

intended for broadcasters to operate in 

both 1.0 and 3.0 only for a ‘‘temporary’’ 

period of time. We seek comment on the 

appropriate length of time broadcasters 

should be required or allowed to operate 

in both 1.0 and 3.0. What is the impact 

on OTA viewers and MVPDs of not 

having a date certain 3.0 transition 

deadline? For example, without a 

certain transition date, are viewers and 

MVPDs able to prepare for their own 

transitions? We also seek comment on 

the ways in which broadcasters are 

educating consumers about the 

continued progress of the transition. 

1. Broadcaster Deployment of ATSC 3.0 

Service 

12. We seek comment and data on 

broadcasters’ current and future 

deployment of ATSC 3.0 service. 

According to our licensing records, as of 

June 21, 2022, the Commission has 

licensed 306 broadcast television 

stations to provide ATSC 3.0 service. 

Based on our records, ATSC 3.0 stations 

have been licensed to operate in 68 

markets, though in some cases it may be 

a single low power television station. 

Furthermore, most markets with 3.0 

deployments have a single 3.0 

‘‘lighthouse’’ facility licensed to provide 

ATSC 3.0 service. According to S&P 

Global, Next Gen TV now reaches nearly 

66.3 million unique households, or 

about 51.1% of total U.S. households. 

Given current deployments, is this an 

accurate estimate of the percentage of 

the U.S. population that could have 

access to at least one ATSC 3.0 

broadcast signal if they had 3.0 TV 

equipment? We seek comment on these 

data points, as well as additional data. 

In how many DMAs has ATSC 3.0 

service actually been launched, and 

what percentage of viewers could 

receive ATSC 3.0 programming if they 

had 3.0 equipment? In how many 

markets are broadcasters providing 

access to all of the ‘‘Big-4’’ networks 

(NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX) and what 

percentage of 3.0 viewers have access to 

such programming? In how many 

markets are broadcasters providing 

access to all of the ‘‘Big-4’’ networks and 

PBS programming and what percentage 

of 3.0 viewers can receive such 

programming? What other programming 

networks are available in 3.0 and in 

which markets? What other data should 

the Commission be tracking in order to 

monitor the state of the ATSC 3.0 

transition, and how should it collect 

such information? Are existing 

Commission databases sufficient to 

track such information? 

13. We seek further information on 

the ATSC 3.0 broadcast rollout. Just 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40468 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 129 / Thursday, July 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

14We note that the Commission recently issued 

an FNPRM in response to broadcasters’ concerns 

about airing multicast streams on host stations. 

prior to the pandemic, the broadcast 

industry expected that ATSC 3.0 service 

would be available in 61 markets by the 

end of 2020. To date, however, fullpower broadcasters are licensed to 

provide ATSC 3.0 service in only 54 

markets. How, and to what extent, has 

the pandemic impacted overall ATSC 

3.0 deployment? Early in the pandemic, 

some expected that the delays would 

not be significant. Given the length of 

the pandemic and its impact on supply 

chains, have those early estimates held? 

Have the related supply-chain 

disruptions had an impact on 

broadcasters’ ability to secure necessary 

equipment? What other challenges have 

Next Gen TV broadcasters faced?14 What 

future challenges do they anticipate, if 

any? Has ATSC 3.0 met broadcasters’, 

and the Commission’s original 

expectations from a technical 

perspective? (For example, has ATSC 

3.0 service met the Commission’s 

original expectations of technical 

performance outlined in the First Next 

Gen TV Report and Order?) What have 

broadcasters learned so far in terms of 

the economic viability of ATSC 3.0 

service, and how are they evaluating 

viability? What else have broadcasters 

learned from over four years of realworld experience with ATSC 3.0? 

14. What are broadcasters’ plans for 

future voluntary ATSC 3.0 deployment? 

For example, by what date do 

broadcasters expect that there will be 

some ATSC 3.0 service in all 210 

markets, and when do they expect to be 

ready to transition entire markets to 

ATSC 3.0? To what extent are enhanced 

datacasting capabilities expected to help 

promote the transition to ATSC 3.0 and 

what, if any, services are already being 

offered? We also specifically seek 

comment from any broadcasters that do 

not currently have plans to voluntarily 

deploy ATSC 3.0 service. Do they have 

plans to transition at a later date? Why 

have they decided not to undertake 

ATSC 3.0 service, and what factors are 

most important to these stations as they 

plan for future services (be it in 1.0 or 

3.0)? 

15. Continuing Availability of 

Programming to Existing Viewers. We 

seek comment on the effectiveness of 

local simulcasting in ensuring 

continuity of OTA television service. 

Has local simulcasting worked as 

expected? To what extent, if any, have 

consumers experienced disruption or 

confusion as a result of the transition 

and simulcasting arrangements? Have 

any OTA viewers complained about 

problems related to 1.0 simulcast 

service such as loss of access to service 

or quality of a station’s signal? Have any 

viewers purchased 3.0 TV equipment 

because they stopped receiving a 1.0 

simulcast signal? Are Next Gen TV 

stations’ 1.0 simulcasts aired in HD 

format? Have any Next Gen TV stations 

that were previously broadcasting 1.0 

service in HD changed to an SD format 

for their 1.0 simulcast service upon or 

after the deployment of 3.0 service? If 

so, why? To what extent and in what 

ways has the programming on Next Gen 

TV stations’ 3.0 primary stream differed 

from that on their 1.0 primary stream? 

16. 3.0 Enhanced Content and 

Features. We seek comment on what 

types of enhanced content and features 

are currently being broadcast to 3.0 

viewers (both with and without internet 

service). The record established in the 

2017 First Next Gen TV Report and 

Order reflected ATSC 3.0’s potential to 

allow for ‘‘a wide range of potential 

services now and in the future.’’ ATSC 

3.0 proponents said that ATSC 3.0 will 

enable delivery of Ultra High Definition 

(UHD) television, including images with 

high spatial resolution, wide color 

gamut, high dynamic range and high 

frame rate as well as advanced audio 

systems to provide consumers with 

more vivid pictures and sound. In 

addition, ATSC 3.0 proponents said the 

new standard would ‘‘‘allow 

broadcasters to offer exciting and 

innovative services,’ including superior 

reception, mobile viewing capabilities, 

enhanced public safety capabilities, 

such as advanced emergency alerting 

capable of waking up sleeping devices 

to warn consumers of imminent 

emergencies, enhanced accessibility 

features, localized and/or personalized 

content, interactive educational 

children’s content, and other enhanced 

features.’’ To what extent are any of 

these enhanced content or features, such 

as enhanced accessibility features, 

currently being offered to viewers? If 

they are not currently available, when 

can viewers expect them to become 

available? What types of specific 

enhanced content and features are 

currently being provided? What types of 

enhanced content and features are 

expected to be launched in the near 

future, and what is the timing for such 

offerings? What offerings can be 

accessed by viewers who do not have 

wired or wireless broadband internet 

access? 

17. We seek comment in particular on 

the types of viewer data that 

broadcasters deploying ATSC 3.0 may 

collect and on the expected uses of such 

data. Will all 3.0 viewers be potentially 

subject to ATSC 3.0-enabled viewer data 

collection, or does that capability apply 

only to those 3.0 viewers whose 

television receivers have an internet 

connection? What efforts are 

broadcasters taking to inform 3.0 

viewers about the data that is being 

collected? Will 3.0 viewers have the 

ability to opt out of undesired 3.0 

features, such as data collection and 

targeted advertising? Would limitations 

or regulations on the collection of user 

data by ATSC 3.0 broadcasters be in the 

public interest? Commenters should 

identify the authority on which the 

Commission might rely to impose such 

limitations or regulations. 

2. Availability of ATSC 3.0 Consumer 

TV Equipment 

18. We seek comment on the current 

availability and pricing of TV sets with 

ATSC 3.0 tuners and other ATSC 3.0 

consumer TV equipment (e.g., gateway 

devices, set-top boxes, and 3.0 to 1.0 

converter devices such as dongles). 

According to recent press reports, the 

industry believes there is still ‘‘a lot of 

work to be done’’ to get 3.0 equipment 

on the shelves and into the hands of 

consumers. This is unsurprising, since 

no television purchased before 2020 is 

capable of tuning ATSC 3.0 

programming, and the first mass 

produced consumer converter device 

was not available until 2021. Even in 

2022, analyst forecasts of TV sales 

suggest that only 11% of new 

televisions sold will have ATSC 3.0 

tuners. We understand that about 70 

models of TV sets with ATSC 3.0 tuners 

are now available from three 

manufacturers—LG Electronics, 

Samsung, and Sony. Press reports 

suggest that the least expensive 3.0- 

compatible set is a mid-size TV that is 

consistently listed for more than $400. 

A fourth manufacturer, Hisense, 

recently announced that it will be 

releasing three 3.0-compatible sets this 

year, with the least expensive retailing 

for approximately $800. How many 3.0 

TV sets have been sold in the U.S. to 

date? How does the pricing of currently 

available 3.0 TV sets compare to the 

overall market? To what extent are 3.0 

tuners available, or expected to be 

available, in the lowest-cost models of 

TV sets? What other companies are 

manufacturing or are planning to 

manufacture 3.0 TV sets and other 3.0 

TV equipment? What challenges or 

impediments exist, if any, for 

manufacturers seeking to develop and 

manufacture 3.0 TV sets and other 3.0 

TV equipment? To what extent, if any, 

is patent licensing inhibiting the 

development of 3.0 TV sets or other 3.0 

equipment by non-patent holders? 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 129 / Thursday, July 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 40469 

15 In the 2017 First Next Gen TV Report and 

Order, the Commission observed that an ATSC 

working group called TG3/S37, the ‘‘Specialist 

Group on Conversion and Redistribution of ATSC 

3.0 Service,’’ was still working to resolve technical 

issues in this regard. What is the status of this 

working group and the resolution of these issues? 

16We note that, even without an expiration date, 

the substantially similar rule, which is tied to the 

underlying requirement to simulcast in 1.0, is 

intended to be temporary and would in any event 

be eliminated when the transition to 3.0 is 

complete. 

19. We seek specific comment on the 

availability of low-cost consumer 3.0 to 

1.0 set-top boxes or other converter 

devices, such as external tuners or 

dongles, that can make a legacy 1.0 TV 

set capable of receiving 3.0 signals. How 

many 3.0 converter devices have been 

sold in the U.S. to date? Where are such 

devices available for sale? Do all 

currently available converter devices 

require an internet connection, and if so 

are there plans to create devices that do 

not require internet access? What 

manufacturers are developing or have 

plans to develop ATSC 3.0 converter 

devices, particularly low-cost devices, 

and where will such devices be sold? 

When might such devices become 

available and at what prices? We believe 

the availability of low-cost 3.0 converter 

devices will be critical for consumers 

who are not ready to replace their 1.0 

TV sets. What is the price range that 

should be considered ‘‘low-cost,’’ and 

what is that range based on? The 

cheapest 3.0 gateway device currently 

available for purchase, of which we are 

aware, is the ‘‘HDHomeRun 4K’’ device 

that can be purchased over the internet 

and retails for $199. We are not aware 

of any low-cost set-top boxes or 

converters (e.g., external tuners or 

dongles), or any converter devices that 

can be purchased offline in a ‘‘brick and 

mortar’’ location. What (if anything) can 

the Commission do to foster the 

development of such low-cost 3.0 

converter devices? Do broadcasters have 

any plans to distribute or subsidize such 

devices as a means of facilitating the 

deployment of ATSC 3.0? 

3. OTA TV Viewers Watching 3.0 

Broadcasts 

20. We seek comment and data on 

how many OTA TV viewers are 

currently watching 3.0 broadcasts. Are 

there any current sources for this 

information? Are any companies able or 

planning to track this data as the 

transition progresses? If so, how? How 

many OTA TV households have a TV 

set with (or attached to) a 3.0 tuner? Is 

the number of 3.0 TV sets or other 3.0 

TV equipment sold with ATSC 3.0 

tuners a good indicator of consumer 

viewing trends for ATSC 3.0 service? Is 

there evidence that consumers are 

currently using the ATSC 3.0 tuner 

featured in these sets? Are OTA TV 

viewers and other consumers aware of 

the broadcasters’ voluntary transition to 

3.0 and how it may affect them now and 

in the future? 

21. We seek comment on how 

broadcasters are educating OTA TV 

viewers and other consumers about the 

broadcasters’ voluntary transition to 3.0 

and how it may affect them now and in 

the future. How effective have the 

required on-air notices been in 

informing OTA viewers about the 3.0 

transition? Following the transitions of 

individual stations, have broadcasters 

received any complaints or questions? 

What (if any) additional, voluntary 

education efforts are currently being 

employed by broadcasters, 

manufacturers and/or retailers? Other 

than the ‘‘NEXTGEN TV’’ branding 

noted above, are manufacturers and 

retailers providing information about 

the 3.0 transition to consumers before 

they buy new TV equipment? 

4. MVPD Carriage of 3.0 Signals 

22. We seek comment and data on 

whether any MVPDs are currently 

carrying or have plans to carry 3.0 

signals. We note that MVPDs are not 

required to carry 3.0 signals but may do 

so voluntarily if they obtain 

retransmission consent from the Next 

Gen TV broadcast station. We seek 

comment about the technical 

challenges, if any, that MVPDs face in 

carrying 3.0 signals. Is there equipment 

available that will allow MVPDs to 

receive 3.0 signals and redistribute them 

to their subscribers? We seek comment 

on the coordination efforts between 

Next Gen TV broadcasters and MVPDs 

to resolve any existing technical issues, 

including the status of any relevant 

ATSC 3.0 working groups.15 We observe 

that ATSC has issued a recommended 

practice, ATSC A/370: ‘‘Conversion of 

ATSC 3.0 Services for Redistribution.’’ 

Does this document resolve the question 

of how MVPDs can receive 3.0 broadcast 

signals and convert them to 1.0 or some 

other format for redistribution to their 

subscribers? Is ATSC still working on 

the issue of how broadcasters can 

deliver 3.0 services to MVPDs for direct 

redistribution? Which enhanced 

features available to OTA 3.0 viewers do 

MVPDs expect to be able to pass 

through to their subscribers now or in 

the future? We also seek comment on 

any other issues related to MVPDs’ 

ability to carry and transmit ATSC 3.0 

signals. 

5. RAND Licensing of 3.0 Patents 

23. We seek comment on how the 3.0 

marketplace is handling patent royalties 

for essential patents in ATSC 3.0 

technology. As noted above, ATSC 

requires patentees to make essential 

patents available on RAND terms. Are 

holders of essential patents in ATSC 3.0 

technologies licensing such patents on 

RAND terms? How have the available 

licensing terms impacted current and 

potential participants in the 3.0 

marketplace, the deployment of 3.0 

services, and the availability of 

consumer devices? The Commission 

previously found that it would be 

premature to impose regulations on 3.0 

patent licensing in the absence of any 

issues. Have there been any 

developments that would warrant such 

Commission action at this time and how 

should the Commission continue to 

monitor this issue in the future? If so, 

what precisely should such a rule 

require and upon what authority would 

the rule be based? What are the 

advantages, disadvantages, and legal 

limitations of such a requirement? 

Finally, we observe that a ‘‘ATSC 3.0 

Patent Portfolio License’’ is being 

offered by MPEG LA, LLC. We seek 

more information and comment about 

this portfolio license. Is this portfolio 

license being made available on RAND 

terms? What essential patents, if any, 

are not included in this portfolio 

license? 

B. Substantially Similar Rule 

24. We seek comment on whether we 

should retain the substantially similar 

rule or permit it to sunset in 2023.16 As 

the Commission stated when adopting 

the requirement, the purpose of the rule, 

in conjunction with the underlying 

requirement to simulcast in 1.0, is to 

protect 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 

requirement that a Next Gen TV 

broadcaster must air a 1.0 signal (when 

deploying 3.0) ensures 1.0 viewers 

continue to receive some free OTA TV 

service during the transition, the 

substantially similar rule ensures that 

1.0 viewers actually receive the same 

primary video programming as that 

aired on the 3.0 channel. As the 

Commission explained in the 2017 First 

Next Gen TV Report and Order, ‘‘[t]o 

ensure that viewers are protected, 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40470 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 129 / Thursday, July 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

17We recognize that two tiers of OTA TV service 

may already occur to a lesser extent. Due to 

inevitable 1.0 capacity constraints as the transition 

progresses, the Commission has afforded Next Gen 

TV stations with the flexibility to air 1.0 primary 

programming in SD, even if the station was 

previously broadcasting it in HD. Similarly, the 

Commission did not require that Next Gen TV 

stations air multicast streams in 1.0 format. In 

contrast to these situations, 1.0 capacity constraints 

would not seem to be hindering the provision of 

substantially similar programming. Next Gen TV 

broadcasters are not required to simulcast 

programming that cannot be aired in 1.0 format. 

18We observe that certain marketplace conditions 

will factor into our analysis about how long the 

underlying requirement to simulcast in 1.0 is 

needed. 

19Next Gen TV broadcasters do not have to 

duplicate enhanced content or features that cannot 

reasonably be provided in the 1.0 format. This 

includes: ‘‘hyper-localized’’ content (e.g., geotargeted 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. 

20Notably, the Commission has stated with 

respect to requests for waiver of the requirement to 

simulcast that ‘‘[it would] look favorably on a 

waiver applicant choosing to provide ATSC 3.0 

converter devices at no cost or low cost to over-theair households located within its community of 

license which will no longer receive the station’s 

ATSC 1.0 signal as a means to minimize the impact 

of not simulcasting on viewers.’’ 

21We note that small or rural MVPDs are more 

likely to rely exclusively on OTA delivery of TV 

signals. While MVPDs that rely on OTA delivery 

could mitigate signal quality issues by obtaining 

delivery through alternate means, such as fiber, 

DBS transport, or reception and transcoding/down 

conversion of the ATSC 3.0 signal, such methods 

may require significant expenditures that small 

MVPDs in particular are less able to afford. 

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.’’ 

25. To what extent would allowing 

the sunset of the substantially similar 

rule undermine the 1.0 simulcast rule? 

For example, without the substantially 

similar rule, how can the Commission 

ensure that 1.0 viewers are able to keep 

watching the same programming they 

watch today, as well as any new 

programming offerings on a 

broadcaster’s primary channel that can 

be offered in 1.0 format? The voluntary 

transition to 3.0 is intended to 

‘‘minimize[e] the impact on, and costs 

to, consumers and other industry 

stakeholders.’’ Yet many consumers 

may not want or be financially able to 

purchase new TV equipment with 3.0 

tuners in the current market. Would 

eliminating the rule make the 

underlying requirement to simulcast in 

1.0 less effective or ineffective? In the 

absence of the substantially similar rule, 

how would the Commission determine 

whether a 1.0 stream was a ‘‘simulcast’’ 

of a specific 3.0 stream when enforcing 

the underlying requirement to simulcast 

in 1.0? 

26. While broadcasters have 

incentives to provide the programming 

their viewers want, after making 

significant investments in ATSC 3.0 

technology they may also have 

incentives to favor their ATSC 3.0 

offerings. For example, without a 

requirement to make programming 

substantially similar, Next Gen TV 

broadcasters would be free to provide 

the most desirable programming only to 

those viewers with 3.0 TV equipment. 

This could create two different tiers of 

free, OTA television service.17

Advertising dollars, and thus spending 

on programming, could flow primarily 

to the 3.0 ‘‘tier’’ in such a scenario, 

potentially widening the quality gap 

between the two tiers. Given these 

concerns, are Next Gen TV broadcasters’ 

financial incentives sufficient to ensure 

that all 1.0 viewers retain access to all 

primary video programming that can be 

offered in 1.0 format? How might 

broadcasters’ financial incentives 

change as the 3.0 transition progresses? 

How could the development of ‘‘tiered’’ 

programming disproportionately impact 

consumers with limited means and 

other vulnerable consumers (such as 

seniors)? In a voluntary, market-based 

transition, what are Next Gen TV 

broadcasters’ obligations to 1.0 viewers 

that choose not to transition to 3.0? We 

seek comment on these questions and 

issues. 

27. Have marketplace developments 

to date in any way reduced or 

eliminated the need for the substantially 

similar rule? What marketplace 

conditions are relevant to this question, 

independent of the underlying 

requirement to simulcast in 1.0? 18

While we are seeking detailed 

information about the state of the ATSC 

3.0 marketplace in this proceeding, the 

information we have already shows that 

ATSC 3.0 deployment and consumer 

adoption remain in the early stages. 

When 3.0 viewership increases 

(reducing reliance on 1.0 service) and 

more affordable 3.0 TV equipment 

become available in the marketplace, 

will the need for the substantially 

similar rule remain? How, if at all, will 

any such need be affected by the 

potential for shifting financial 

incentives as the transition progresses? 

We seek comment on these questions 

and issues. 

28. We also seek comment on whether 

the substantially similar rule is 

currently impeding innovations in 

broadcast programming and, if so, how? 

Is it likely that the rule will hinder 3.0 

programming innovations in the near 

future? If so, how? Should any such 

innovations outweigh the protections 

afforded to 1.0 viewers by the rule? We 

observe that the substantially similar 

rule already affords significant 

flexibility for broadcasters to innovate 

and experiment with new, innovative 

programming features using Next Gen 

TV technology in that it does not require 

Next Gen TV broadcasters to duplicate 

enhanced content or features that 

cannot reasonably be provided in the 

1.0 format, and does not require any 

degree of simulcasting on any stream 

other than the primary stream.19 Does 

the requirement nonetheless pose any 

impediment to innovation in broadcast 

programming and, if so, how? Are such 

impediments imminent or currently 

theoretical? What innovations that are 

currently being aired or are in 

development would be hindered by the 

rule, if any? We seek specific comment 

on what types of programming Next Gen 

TV broadcasters would like to provide 

only in 3.0 and, to the extent such 

programming can (as a technical matter) 

be provided in 1.0 format, why such 

programming should not have to be 

provided in 1.0 format? To the extent an 

individual Next Gen TV broadcaster 

may need more flexibility than the rule 

allows, would targeted waivers be more 

appropriate than sunsetting the 

substantially similar requirement? 20 We 

seek comment on these questions and 

issues. 

29. Finally, we seek comment about 

any other advantages or disadvantages 

associated with the sunset of the 

substantially similar rule, and if we do 

decide to retain it, for how long? How 

would the sunset of the rule impact 

MVPDs, including small MVPDs, 

particularly given that the 1.0 simulcast 

signal remains the relevant signal for 

carriage purposes? 21 What is the impact 

on small broadcasters of requiring 

continued compliance with the 

substantially similar rule? Finally, we 

note that because the substantially 

similar rule, like the underlying 

requirement to simulcast in 1.0, will be 

eliminated when the transition to 3.0 is 

complete, the timing of the ultimate 

‘‘sunset’’ of this requirement is very 

much in the hands of the broadcast 

industry. If the rule is retained, should 

we consider extending the substantially 

similar requirement for a particular 

term, or retain it for as long as the 

underlying requirement to simulcast in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 129 / Thursday, July 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 40471 

22Section 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. 

23The 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). 

24 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601–612, 

was amended by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Public 

Law 104–121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). 25 5 U.S.C. 603(a). 

1.0 remains? If for a term, what would 

be an appropriate benchmark? We seek 

comment on these questions and issues. 

C. Requirement To Comply With the 

ATSC A/322 Standard 

30. We seek 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. If we retain the requirement, 

should we apply a different sunset date 

or is it needed on an ongoing basis? The 

purpose of this requirement is to 

provide 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. What would 

be the impact on consumers, television 

receiver manufacturers, and MVPDs if 

this requirement were to sunset? If we 

do not require compliance with the 

ATSC A/322 standard, how can we 

ensure that 3.0 TV sets and other 3.0 TV 

equipment will be able to receive all 3.0 

primary broadcast signals? What would 

be the potential impact, if any, of 

eliminating the requirement on 

consumers, television manufacturers, 

and MVPDs? Would the sunset of this 

requirement jeopardize the provision of 

ATSC 3.0 service as a free and 

universally available digital broadcast 

television service? Have marketplace 

developments since 2017 reduced or 

eliminated the need for mandatory 

compliance with the ATSC A/322 

standard? What marketplace conditions 

are relevant to this question? 

31. In 2017, broadcasters 

acknowledged that ‘‘adopting the full 

physical layer of the Next Gen standard, 

including A/322’’ may ‘‘ensure that 

consumer electronics manufacturers can 

build television receivers with 

confidence.’’ Is this no longer the case? 

Is A/322 no longer necessary to provide 

such certainty? Is the A/322 standard 

currently impeding broadcast 

innovations? If so, how? Does the need 

to facilitate any such innovations 

outweigh the protections the rule 

affords to consumers, television receiver 

manufacturers and MVPDs? Might 

retention of the A/322 standard—which 

applies only to the primary broadcast 

stream—hinder broadcast innovation in 

the future? If so, how? Do broadcasters 

merely hope to use methods that are 

likely to be adopted in future versions 

of A/322, or do they contemplate the 

use of a physical layer standard that 

ATSC would never incorporate into A/ 

322? What is the impact on small 

broadcasters of requiring continued 

compliance with the A/322 standard? 

What could be the impact on small 

television receiver manufacturers and 

small MVPDs if the requirement is 

allowed to sunset? We seek comment on 

these questions. 

32. Finally, we observe that ATSC has 

updated the A/322 standard since we 

mandated its use in 2017. It appears, 

however, that the most recent 2021 

version of the A/322 standard makes 

only ministerial changes to the standard 

and contains no substantive changes. 

We seek comment on this observation as 

well as whether it is necessary or 

advisable to incorporate into our rules 

the 2021 version of the A/322 standard 

to the extent that the requirement is 

retained. 

33. Digital Equity and Inclusion. The 

Commission, as part of its continuing 

effort to advance digital equity for all,22

including people of color, persons with 

disabilities, persons who live in rural or 

Tribal areas, and others who are or have 

been historically underserved, 

marginalized, or adversely affected by 

persistent poverty or inequality, invites 

comment on any equity-related 

considerations 23 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. 

IV. Procedural Matters 

A. Initial RFA Analysis 

34. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA),24 the Commission has prepared 

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities by 

the policies proposed in this Third 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM). Written public comments are 

requested on this IRFA. Comments must 

be identified as responses to the IRFA 

and must be filed by the deadlines for 

comments on the FNPRM provided on 

the first page of the FNPRM. The 

Commission will send a copy of this 

entire FNPRM, including this IRFA, to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration (SBA).25

1. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rule Changes 

35. In this Third Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the 

Commission considers and seeks 

comment on the state of the Next Gen 

TV transition and on the scheduled 

sunsets of two rules adopted in the First 

Next Gen TV Report and Order. In that 

decision, the Commission authorized 

broadcasters to use the ATSC 3.0 

standard and adopted rules governing 

the deployment of 3.0 service, including 

two which are scheduled to sunset 

absent further action. The Commission 

noted that it would monitor the 3.0 

transition and approximately one year 

before the scheduled sunsets, it would 

seek comment on whether marketplace 

conditions warranted extending these 

requirements. As part of our assessment, 

we review and seek comment on the 

progress of Next Gen TV broadcasters’ 

voluntary, market-driven deployment of 

ATSC 3.0 service and the current state 

of the ATSC 3.0 marketplace, including 

whether holders of essential patents for 

the ATSC 3.0 standards are licensing 

such patents on reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) terms and if a 

Commission rule requiring 3.0 patent 

licensing on RAND terms would 

provide benefits to consumers and 

potential participants in the 3.0 

marketplace. Next, the Commission 

considers whether to retain the rule 

requiring that a Next Gen TV station’s 

ATSC 1.0 simulcast primary video 

programming stream be substantially 

similar to its 3.0 primary programming 

stream. This rule is scheduled to sunset 

in July 2023. Finally, the Commission 

considers whether to retain the 

requirement that a Next Gen TV station 

comply with the ATSC A/322. This rule 

is also scheduled to sunset in March 

2023. 

2. Legal Basis 

36. The proposed action is authorized 

pursuant to sections 1, 4, 7, 301, 303, 

307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 325(b), 336, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40472 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 129 / Thursday, July 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

338, 399b, 403, 534, and 535 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 157, 301, 

303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 325(b), 336, 

338, 399b, 403, 534, and 535. 

3. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities To Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

37. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA 

generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small 

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’ 

under the Small Business Act. A small 

business concern is one which: (1) is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the SBA. The rules 

proposed herein will directly affect 

small television and radio broadcast 

stations. Below, we provide a 

description of these small entities, as 

well as an estimate of the number of 

such small entities, where feasible. 

38. 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. 

39. 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. 

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. 

40. 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. 

41. 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. 

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. 

42. 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. By exception, 

establishments providing satellite 

television distribution services using 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

operate are included in this industry. 

43. 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 

employees. 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. 

44. 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 129 / Thursday, July 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 40473 

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. Thus under the SBA size 

standard, the majority of firms in this 

industry can be considered small. 

45. 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 Cband 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. Thus, under the 

SBA size standard, the majority of firms 

in this industry can be considered 

small. 

46. Open Video Services (OVS). 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. 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. 

47. Wireless Cable Systems— 

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,’’ 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. 

48. 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. 

Thus under the SBA size standard, the 

Commission estimates that a majority of 

licensees in this industry can be 

considered small. 

49. 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 

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. 

50. 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. 

51. Incumbent Local Exchange 

Carriers (ILECs). Neither the 

Commission nor the SBA has developed 

a small business size standard 

specifically for incumbent local 

exchange carriers. 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40474 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 129 / Thursday, July 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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. 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. 

52. Competitive Local Exchange 

Carriers (CLECs). 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. 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. 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. 

53. 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. Thus, under the SBA size 

standard, the majority of firms in this 

industry can be considered small. 

54. Audio and Video Equipment 

Manufacturing. This industry comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

manufacturing 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, householdtype 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. Based on this data 

and the associated SBA size standard, 

we conclude that the majority of firms 

in this industry are small. 

55. 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. Based on this data we 

estimate that the majority of television 

broadcasters are small entities under the 

SBA small business size standard. 

56. The Commission estimates that as 

of March 2022, there were 1,373 

licensed commercial television stations. 

Of this total, 1,280 stations (or 93.2 

percent) had revenues of $41.5 million 

or less in 2021, according to 

Commission staff review of the BIA 

Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television 

Database (BIA) on June 1, 2022, and 

therefore these licensees qualify as 

small entities under the SBA definition. 

In addition, the Commission estimates 

as of March 2022, there were 384 

licensed noncommercial educational 

(NCE) television stations, 383 Class A 

TV stations, 1,840 LPTV stations and 

3,231 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. 

4. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

57. The FNPRM considers whether to 

retain two existing compliance 

requirements, both of which are 

scheduled to expire in 2023. The 

FNPRM does not propose any new 

reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements. 

58. Substantially Similar Rule. The 

FNPRM considers whether to retain the 

‘‘substantially similar’’ rule. 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. 

59. Requirement to comply with the 

ATSC A/322 standard. The FNPRM 

considers whether to retain the 

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), 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), which is the standard 

that defines the waveforms that ATSC 

3.0 signals may take. The requirement to 

comply with A/321 does not have a 

sunset date but the requirement to 

comply with A/322 will expire in 2023 

unless the Commission takes action to 

extend it. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 129 / Thursday, July 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 40475 

26The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 

Public Law 104–13, 109 Stat 163 (1995) (codified 

in chapter 35 of title 44 U.S.C.). 

27The 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). 

28 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. 

29 47 CFR 1.415, 1419. 

30Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking 

Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). 

31FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters 

Open Window and Change in Hand-Delivery 

Policy, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2788 (OMD 

2020). See https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-and-changeshand-delivery-policy. 

5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Impact on Small Entities and Significant 

Alternatives Considered 

60. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching its 

proposed approach, which may include 

the following four alternatives (among 

others): (1) the establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities. 

61. 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. The 

substantially similar requirement and 

the requirement to comply with A/322 

only apply to TV broadcast stations that 

voluntarily choose to implement the 

Next Gen TV (ATSC 3.0) standard. 

Because the decision to deploy ATSC 

3.0 service is voluntary, broadcasters, 

including small entities, do not need to 

undertake any costs or burdens 

associated with ATSC 3.0 service unless 

they choose to do so. Accordingly, we 

believe that should the Commission 

decide to retain either or both of these 

requirements (i.e., the substantially 

similar rule and the A/322 standard) 

that they would not impose a significant 

economic impact on small entities. We 

seek comment on this tentative 

conclusion. We also seek comment on 

the impact of these rules on small 

entities. 

6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rule 

62. None. 

B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act 

Analysis 

63. This document does not contain 

proposed information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).26 In 

addition, therefore, it does not contain 

any new or modified information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002.27

C. Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose 

64. This proceeding shall be treated as 

a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules.28 Persons making ex parte 

presentations must file a copy of any 

written presentation or a memorandum 

summarizing any oral presentation 

within two business days after the 

presentation (unless a different deadline 

applicable to the Sunshine period 

applies). Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda, or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with rule 

1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

rule 1.49(f) or for which the 

Commission has made available a 

method of electronic filing, written ex 

parte presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

D. Filing Requirements—Comments and 

Replies 

65. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 

1.419 of the Commission’s rules,29

interested parties may file comments 

and reply comments on or before the 

dates indicated on the first page of this 

document. Comments may be filed 

using the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS).30

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ 

ecfs/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. 

• Filings can be sent by commercial 

overnight courier or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

Æ Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 

Æ U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• Effective March 19, 2020, and until 

further notice, the Commission no 

longer accepts any hand or messenger 

delivered filings. This is a temporary 

measure taken to help protect the health 

and safety of individuals, and to 

mitigate the transmission of COVID– 

19.31

• During the time the Commission’s 

building is closed to the general public 

and until further notice, if more than 

one docket or rulemaking number 

appears in the caption of a proceeding, 

paper filers need not submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rulemaking number; an 

original and one copy are sufficient. 

66. People With Disabilities. To 

request materials in accessible formats 

for people with disabilities (braille, 

large print, electronic files, audio 

format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov 

or call the Consumer & Governmental 

Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 

202–418–0432 (TTY). 

V. Ordering Clauses 

67. 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
40476 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 129 / Thursday, July 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1https://acquisition-staging.gsa.gov/sites/default/ 

files/archives/loose_leaf/GSAM_Latest_Change_

Order_1382021528_0.pdf. 

2E.O. 14057 of December 8, 2021, 86 FR 70935. 

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 Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking is hereby adopted and 

notice is hereby given of the proposals 

and tentative conclusions described in 

this Third Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. 

68. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Third Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, including the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2022–14470 Filed 7–6–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 523 and 552 

[GSAR Case 2022–G517; Docket No. GSA– 

GSAR–2022–0014; Sequence No. 1] 

RIN 3090–AK60 

General Services Administration 

Acquisition Regulation (GSAR); SingleUse Plastics and Packaging 

AGENCY: Office of Acquisition Policy, 

General Services Administration (GSA). 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The General Services 

Administration (GSA) is publishing this 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

(ANPR) to seek public feedback 

pertaining to the use of plastic 

consumed in both packaging and 

shipping, as well as other single-use 

plastics for which the agency contracts. 

The issues raised in the comments 

submitted in response to this ANPR will 

inform future rulemaking to establish 

requirements and reporting mechanisms 

for reducing unnecessary single-use 

plastic, to include plastic packaging and 

shipping materials. 

DATES: Interested parties should submit 

written comments at the address shown 

below on or before September 6, 2022 to 

be considered in the formulation of a 

proposed rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in 

response to GSAR Case 2022–G517 to 

the Federal eRulemaking portal at 

https://www.regulations.gov by 

searching for ‘‘GSAR Case 2022–G517’’. 

Select the link ‘‘Comment Now’’ that 

corresponds with GSAR Case 2022– 

G517. Follow the instructions provided 

at the ‘‘Comment Now’’ screen. Please 

include your name, company name (if 

any), and ‘‘GSAR Case 2022–G517’’ on 

your attached document. If your 

comment cannot be submitted using 

https://www.regulations.gov, call or 

email the points of contact in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this document for alternate instructions. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite GSAR Case 2022–G517 in 

all correspondence related to this case. 

Comments received generally will be 

posted without change to https://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal and/or business confidential 

information provided. To confirm 

receipt of your comment(s), please 

check https://www.regulations.gov 

approximately two to three days after 

submission to verify posting. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Adina Torberntsson, Procurement 

Analyst, at 303–236–2677 or 

gsarpolicy@gsa.gov, for clarification of 

content. For information pertaining to 

status or publication schedules, contact 

the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 

202–501–4755 or GSARegSec@gsa.gov. 

Please cite GSAR Case 2022–G517 in 

your email subject line. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

This ANPR concerns reducing singleuse plastics, to include those used in 

packaging and shipping required for the 

delivery of products under General 

Services Administration (GSA) contracts 

as well as items included on the 

contracts. For this ANPR, plastic 

materials that are used and then 

immediately disposed of once the item 

is delivered are considered single-use 

plastics. 

Executive Order 14008 states ‘‘it is the 

policy of my Administration to lead the 

Nation’s effort to combat the climate 

crisis by example-specifically, by 

aligning the management of Federal 

procurement and real property, public 

lands and waters, and financial 

programs to support robust climate 

action.’’ As America’s Buyer, GSA is 

interested in its potential to play a 

supporting role including by reducing 

single use plastics. GSA has taken some 

initial internal policy steps towards a 

leadership role in using the Federal 

Government’s buying power towards 

this goal. The GSA Acquisition Manual 

(GSAM) was amended in October 2021 

through Change 138 1 to require 

consideration to reduce content waste as 

part of requirements planning for GSA 

acquisitions. One of the contents 

highlighted in this GSAM amendment is 

packaging. 

Since the last sustainability GSAM 

change, E.O. 14057 Catalyzing Clean 

Energy Industries and Jobs Through 

Federal Sustainability 2 was issued. 

Section 207 of the E.O. instructs each 

agency to reduce waste to include 

supporting a recycled content market 

and circular economy approaches. 

GSA will consider comments received 

in response to this ANPR in future 

rulemaking to amend the GSAR through 

a proposed rule, and to revise other GSA 

policies, procedures, and guidance that 

further support GSAM Change 138 and 

address E.O. 14057 regarding single-use 

plastics. 

II. Discussion and Analysis 

A. Evaluating the Need for Regulatory 

Change 

GSA is a leader in acquisition and 

provides supplies and services across 

the Federal government through the 

agency’s acquisition vehicles to include 

the Federal Supply Schedule program. 

Also known as the Government’s 

landlord, GSA has the ability to make a 

difference by addressing single-use 

plastics in our construction, concession, 

and facility maintenance contracts as 

well. 

GSA continues to provide the best 

customer service experience by 

providing access to thousands of 

products and services. Our agency also 

looks for the most advantageous 

solutions, remaining ahead of problems 

before they culminate, and making the 

best decisions on behalf of the American 

taxpayer. To do this, GSA has adopted 

internal policy changes to address 

sustainability in our acquisitions. With 

single-use plastics being a significant 

contributor to the global plastic 

pollution concern, it is a logical step for 

the agency to examine this. 

B. The Petition for Rulemaking 

The Center for Biological Diversity, 

along with 180 signatories, submitted a 

petition to GSA on February 3, 2022, 

requesting that the agency address 

single-use plastics through rulemaking. 

This ANPR, among other things, seeks 

to better understand the implications of 

any such rulemaking. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS