82 FR 60350 - Authorizing Permissive Use of the “Next Generation” Broadcast Television Standard
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 243 (December 20, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 243 (December 20, 2017)
| Page Range | 60350-60355 | |
| FR Document | 2017-27433 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 20, 2017)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 60350-60355] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-27433] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 15, 73, 74 and 76 [GN Docket No. 16-142; FCC 17-158] Authorizing Permissive Use of the ``Next Generation'' Broadcast Television Standard AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: In this document, we seek further comment on issues related to exceptions to and waivers of the local simulcasting requirement, whether we should let full power broadcasters use channels in the television broadcast band that are vacant to facilitate the transition to 3.0, and finally, we tentatively conclude that local simulcasting should not change the significantly viewed status of a Next Gen TV station. DATES: Comments are due on or before February 20, 2018; reply comments are due on or before March 20, 2018. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 16-142, by any of the following methods:Federal Communications Commission's website: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. People With Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: (202) 418- 0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information, contact Evan Baranoff, [email protected], of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-7142, or Matthew Hussey, [email protected], of the Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-3619. Direct press inquiries to Janice Wise at (202) 418-8165. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this document, send an email to [email protected] or contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), FCC 17-158, adopted on November 16, 2017 and released on November 20, 2017. The full text of this document is available electronically via the FCC's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) website at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ or via the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) website at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This document is also available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, which is located in Room CY-A257 at FCC Headquarters, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. The Reference Information Center is open to the public Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to [email protected] or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Synopsis I. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Introduction 1. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek further comment on three topics related to the rules adopted in the companion Report and Order. First, we seek further comment on issues related to exceptions to and waivers of the local simulcasting requirement. Second, we seek comment on whether we should let full power broadcasters use channels in the television broadcast band that are vacant to facilitate the transition to 3.0. Finally, we tentatively conclude that local simulcasting should not change the significantly viewed status of a Next Gen TV station. B. Discussion 1. Local Simulcasting Waivers and Exceptions 2. Simulcast Waivers. In the Report and Order, we explain that we will consider requests for waiver of our local simulcasting requirement on a case-by-case basis, including (1) requests seeking to transition directly from 1.0 to 3.0 service on the station's existing facility without simulcasting in 1.0 and (2) requests to air a 1.0 simulcast channel from a host location that does not cover all or a portion of the station's community of license or from which the station can provide only a lower signal threshold over the community than that required by the rules.\1\ With respect to such requests, we state: ``We are inclined to consider favorably requests for waiver of our local simulcasting requirement where the Next Gen TV station can demonstrate that it has no viable local simulcasting partner in its market and where the station agrees to make reasonable efforts to preserve 1.0 service to existing viewers in its community of license and/or otherwise minimize the impact on such viewers (for example, by providing free or low cost ATSC 3.0 converters to viewers).'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The Commission may waive its rules if good cause is shown. See 47 CFR 1.3. We explain in the Report and Order that we are not inclined to consider favorably requests to change community of license solely to enable simulcasting. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. We seek comment on what further guidance we should provide about the circumstances in which we will grant a waiver of the local simulcasting requirement. How should we determine if a station has a ``viable'' simulcast partner? Given that we specify in the Report and Order that a Next Gen TV broadcaster's 1.0 simulcast channel must continue to cover its entire community of license, should we consider a station to have no viable partner only if there is no potential simulcasting partner in the same DMA that can cover the station's entire community of license? Alternatively, should we consider adopting a broader definition of viability? For example, should we specify that waiver [[Page 60351]] applicants located in DMAs in which there are fewer than a threshold number of full power and/or Class A or LPTV broadcasters will be considered to have no viable partner? If so, what threshold should we adopt? How should we consider cases in which there are no stations that can cover a station's community of license, and therefore serve as an ATSC 1.0 simulcast host under our rules, but there are stations in the DMA that are transitioning to ATSC 3.0 and therefore could potentially serve as a 3.0 lighthouse? If there is a potential partner in the same DMA, are there other circumstances that would make such potential partner not viable, such as, for example, if the potential partner refused to agree to being a simulcasting partner? Should we have different levels of scrutiny for waiver requests depending on whether the petition seeks to transition directly as opposed to simulcast from a facility that will not cover its community of license? For stations that seek to simulcast from a facility that will not cover its community of license, should a factor be how far the host location is from the petitioner's community of license? Are there special circumstances we should consider for NCE stations, including those that are in isolated areas or are not centrally located in DMAs? \2\ We seek comment on the same issues for Class A stations if they cannot find a host that allows them to satisfy the simulcasting requirements in the Report and Order. We also seek comment on the potential impact that any definition of viability would have on local viewers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ Several commenters express concern that some broadcasters would not be able to satisfy a local simulcasting requirement because of the lack of availability of potential simulcasting partners. For example, PBS states that ``[p]ublic stations may be unable to share facilities with another station, particularly in rural and isolated communities, because they are often not centrally located in a television market. . . .'' PBS further explains that this is because ``noncommercial educational must-carry rights are not tied to Designated Market Areas, so such stations are not necessarily sited near their commercial counterparts, and given that 16 states are covered by statewide public television networks that are designed to serve their entire state regardless of DMA boundaries.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. In addition, we seek comment on what type of ``reasonable efforts'' we should require a waiver applicant to undertake in order to preserve 1.0 service to existing viewers in its community of license and/or otherwise minimize the impact on viewers in its coverage area. Should it be favorable to our determination if waiver applicants volunteer to provide free or low cost ATSC 3.0 converters to viewers in their coverage area? Should we require such a commitment as a condition for waiver? Are there other efforts to minimize disruption to consumers that we should consider or require? We also invite comment on other circumstances in which we should consider granting waivers of the local simulcasting requirement. 5. Simulcast Exceptions. We also seek comment on whether to exempt NCE and/or Class A stations as a class from our local simulcasting requirement or adopt a presumptive waiver standard for such stations. In the Report and Order, we exempt LPTV and TV translator stations from our local simulcasting requirement and allow these stations to transition directly to 3.0 service. Class A and NCE stations could also face more difficulty than commercial full power stations face when seeking a local simulcasting partner. Could allowing Class A and NCE stations to transition directly to 3.0 make them more attractive ``lighthouse'' candidates? We seek comment on whether, as a general matter, allowing NCE and Class A stations to transition directly would serve the public interest. Under what circumstances would direct transitions be appropriate? What effect would this have on consumers and on MVPDs? What criteria distinguish these stations from full power commercial broadcasters to justify disparate treatment? 2. Temporary Use of Vacant Channels 6. In the Next Gen TV NPRM, we asked whether we should ``consider allowing broadcasters [that wish to deploy ATSC 3.0 service] to use vacant in-band channels remaining in the market after the incentive auction repack to serve as temporary host facilities for ATSC 1.0 or 3.0 programming by multiple broadcasters.'' ONE Media requests that in markets with vacant channels, the Commission should allow full power broadcasters to use the vacant channels as ``dedicated transition channels to ensure maximum continuity of service, just as it did during the transition from analog to digital.'' It suggests that these vacant channels should be made available during the post-auction transition period, and that only after the full power broadcaster has vacated the channel should the channel be made available to others, such as displaced LPTV and translator license applicants. ONE Media asserts that as primary users in the television band, full power licensees have priority to obtain licenses for vacant channels over any LPTV and translator licensees, and therefore full power licensees should be able to use such a channel as a transition channel during the voluntary ATSC 3.0 deployment period, even if it is the only channel to which a displaced LPTV or translator station could relocate. The LPTV Spectrum Rights Coalition opposes ONE Media's proposal on the ground that it would diminish LPTV licensing rights in the middle of the displacement process. The Wi-Fi Alliance, Microsoft, the Consumers Union et al., and Dynamic Spectrum Alliance also oppose any approach that would expand broadcasters' spectrum rights in conjunction with ATSC 3.0 deployment, and they express concern about damaging the potential success of white space use in the television bands. 7. Given the diversity of comments on this issue, we seek additional comment on the extent to which we should allow full power broadcasters to use vacant channels in the television broadcast band to facilitate the transition to 3.0, and, if so, when they should be able to use these channels, and what procedures we should use to authorize that use. As a threshold matter, how should we define a ``vacant'' channel for this purpose? We seek specific comment on ONE Media's proposal, and how it potentially would affect the post-incentive auction transition/repacking process and the various other users in the repacked television band.\3\ That is, given that vacant channels might be needed by stations transitioning to new channel assignments, how does ONE Media's proposal impact that and the post-auction process in general? For example, if we allow usage of vacant channels, should we only allow temporary access to a vacant channel after the repacking process is completed? Or, should we permit such access after the LPTV displacement window is closed? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ In the Incentive Auction R&O, the Commission provided for a 39-month post-incentive auction transition pertaining to the various secondary broadcast and unlicensed operations in the TV bands-- including LPTV and TV translator stations, broadcast auxiliary service, wireless microphones, and unlicensed white space devices-- with the goal of promoting a smooth and effective transition process. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. If we were to permit full power licensees priority to use vacant channels as dedicated transition channels, we seek comment on the process for doing so. Specifically, how would broadcasters apply for an authorization to use a vacant channel? Should the request be for Special Temporary Authority (STA)? Should we instead consider a request for a temporary channel to be a minor change of the station's existing license and require a minor change application? If we treat these requests as minor changes, should we process such requests on a first- come, first-served basis? Should we [[Page 60352]] open a window for such requests? How should we resolve competing requests for temporary channels? What should we require a broadcaster to show to demonstrate that it needs a temporary channel, and how long should the authorization last? What effect would this proposal have on other users in the repacked band, including wireless microphone users and white space device operations? \4\ We also seek input on how we should address MVPD carriage issues related to usage of vacant channels. How would the Commission handle loss of service when the full power broadcaster ceases its temporary operation--and moves back to its original facility? We seek specific comment on the effects on small entities: (1) Would allowing broadcasters to use these vacant channels help small broadcasters transition, (2) would allowing broadcasters to use these vacant channels impose carriage burdens on small MVPDs, and (3) what can we do to ease the burdens on those entities? We seek comment on these and any other issues that we would need to address if we allow full power broadcasters to use vacant channels as temporary transition channels. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ We note that the Commission has an open proceeding seeking comment on whether to preserve a vacant channel in every area for white space device and wireless microphone use. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Significantly Viewed Status of Next Gen TV Stations 9. We tentatively conclude that the significantly viewed status of a Next Gen TV station should not change if it moves its 1.0 simulcast channel to a temporary host facility.\5\ Under our proposal, a commercial television station that relocates its 1.0 simulcast channel could not seek to gain significantly viewed status in new communities or counties and such station could not lose significantly viewed status in communities or counties for which it qualified prior to the move of its 1.0 simulcast channel. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. In the Report and Order, we impose a freeze on the filing of any requests to change the significantly viewed status of a Next Gen TV station that is moving its 1.0 simulcast channel to avoid confusion while we consider this issue.\6\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ Significantly viewed stations are commercial television stations that the Commission has determined have ``significant'' over-the-air (i.e., non-cable and non-satellite) viewing and are thus treated as local stations in certain respects with regard to a particular community in another television market. The Significantly Viewed Stations List is maintained on Commission's website at https://transition.fcc.gov/mb/significantviewedstations061817.pdf. \6\ We note that, in order to obtain a waiver of the network nonduplication and syndicated-exclusivity rules (collectively, ``exclusivity rules''), petitioners seeking to reassert exclusivity rights on significantly viewed stations are required to demonstrate for two consecutive years that a station was no longer significantly viewed, based either on community-specific or system-specific over- the-air viewing data, following the methodology set forth in 47 CFR 76.54(b). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. Stations that vary their signal strength or change their location as a result of moving their 1.0 signal to simulcast raise the question of how this change may affect their status as ``significantly viewed'' in certain communities or counties under Sec. Sec. 76.5(i) and 76.54 of our rules. Significantly viewed status allows the significantly viewed station (1) to be carried by a satellite carrier in such community in the other market; \7\ (2) to be carried in such community by cable and satellite operators at the reduced copyright payment applicable to local (in-market) stations; and (3) to be exempt in such community from another station's assertion of its network non- duplication or syndicated exclusivity rights. We tentatively agree with ATVA that we should maintain the status quo in the significantly viewed context with respect to 1.0 simulcast signals.\8\ We note that our tentative conclusion differs from how we addressed this issue in the channel sharing context. In the Incentive Auction Report and Order, the Commission found that because significantly viewed status is largely a function of signal availability, a station moving to a new channel should lose its status at the relinquished location. But unlike the channel sharing context, Next Gen TV broadcasters are not relinquishing their original channel, but rather will continue to operate on it and will ultimately return to it when the local simulcasting period ends. That is, the relocation of the 1.0 signal is temporary and a Next Gen TV broadcaster will continue to reach the communities or counties in which it is significantly viewed with an over-the-air signal, albeit in 3.0.\9\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ Significantly viewed status is an exception to the ``no distant where local'' requirement which prohibits satellite carriage of distant (out-of-market) stations. \8\ We note that ATVA argues the Commission should ``prohibit simulcasts that reduce a station's eligibility for `significantly viewed' carriage'' and urges that the Commission ``not adopt the approach it took to channel sharing.'' Although we do not restrict simulcasts in the manner sought by ATVA, we tentatively agree with ATVA in this FNPRM to the extent that ATVA seeks to maintain the status quo with respect to significantly viewed carriage while local simulcasting is required. \9\ We tentatively conclude that the availability of the 3.0 signal to the station's existing viewers at its original location is relevant in the significantly viewed context. Moreover, considering 3.0 service in this regard will not impose additional mandatory carriage obligations on MVPDs (because MVPD carriage of significantly viewed stations is voluntary). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. We recognize that broadcasters would not soon be able to demonstrate ``significant viewing'' with their 3.0 signals, but expect they will eventually be able to do so once Next Gen TV service takes hold in the marketplace. In the meantime, we tentatively conclude that maintaining the status quo with respect to eligibility for significantly viewed carriage would avoid some complications and disruptions to cable and satellite television viewers who have come to rely on such signals, while not imposing added mandatory carriage burdens on MVPDs.\10\ We likewise tentatively conclude that expansion of eligibility for significantly viewed carriage due to the relocation of the 1.0 simulcast channel is not consistent with the purposes of local simulcasting, which includes maintaining existing television service to viewers within the station's original coverage area but does not include expanding service into new areas. We seek comment on our proposal and tentative conclusions. We also seek comment on what effect our proposal and tentative conclusions would have on small broadcasters and MVPDs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ We note that significantly viewed status does not confer mandatory carriage rights to the station, but rather only allows carriage of the station via retransmission consent. Thus, maintaining the status quo with respect to eligibility for significantly viewed carriage presents no mandatory carriage burdens on MVPDs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Procedural Matters A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 12. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided on the first page of the item. The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).\11\ In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or [[Page 60353]] summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.\12\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). \12\ See id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 13. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek further comment on three topics related to the rules adopted in the companion Report and Order, which authorizes television broadcasters to use the ``Next Generation'' broadcast television (Next Gen TV) transmission standard, also called ``ATSC 3.0'' or ``3.0,'' on a voluntary, market- driven basis. Next Gen TV broadcasters will continue to deliver current-generation digital television (DTV) service, using the ATSC 1.0 transmission standard, also called ``ATSC 1.0'' or ``1.0,'' to their viewers via ``local simulcasting.'' 14. Simulcast Waivers and Exceptions. First, we seek further comment on issues related to exceptions to and waivers of the local simulcasting requirement. In the Report and Order, we explain that we will consider requests for waiver of our local simulcasting requirement on a case-by-case basis, including (1) requests seeking to transition directly from 1.0 to 3.0 service on the station's existing facility without simulcasting in 1.0 and (2) requests to air a 1.0 simulcast channel from a host location that does not cover all or a portion of the station's community of license or from which the station can provide only a lower signal threshold over the community than that required by the rules.\13\ With respect to such requests, we state: ``We are inclined to consider favorably requests for waiver of our local simulcasting requirement where the Next Gen TV station can demonstrate that it has no viable local simulcasting partner in its market and where the station agrees to make reasonable efforts to preserve 1.0 service to existing viewers in its community of license and/or otherwise minimize the impact on such viewers (for example, by providing free or low cost ATSC 3.0 converters to viewers).'' In this FNPRM, we seek comment on what further guidance we should provide about the circumstances in which we will grant a waiver of the local simulcasting requirement. Among other things, we ask how we should determine if a station has a ``viable'' simulcast partner and whether there are special circumstances we should consider for NCE and/or Class A stations. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ The Commission may waive its rules if good cause is shown. See 47 CFR 1.3. We explain in the Report and Order that we are not inclined to consider favorably requests to change community of license solely to enable simulcasting. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15. Simulcast Exceptions.\14\ In the Report and Order, we exempt LPTV and TV translator stations from our local simulcasting requirement and allow these stations to transition directly to 3.0 service. In this FNPRM, we also seek comment on whether to exempt NCE and/or Class A stations as a class from our local simulcasting requirement or adopt a presumptive waiver standard for such stations. Class A and NCE stations could also face more difficulty than commercial full power stations face when seeking a local simulcasting partner. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ Unlike waivers which are considered on a case-by-case basis, exceptions or class waivers do not require the filing of a waiver request. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16. Temporary Use of Vacant Channels. Second, we seek comment on whether we should let full power broadcasters use channels in the television broadcast band that are vacant to facilitate the transition to 3.0. In the Next Gen TV NPRM, the Commission asked whether we should ``consider allowing broadcasters [that wish to deploy ATSC 3.0 service] to use vacant in-band channels remaining in the market after the incentive auction repack to serve as temporary host facilities for ATSC 1.0 or 3.0 programming by multiple broadcasters.'' ONE Media requests that in markets with vacant channels, the Commission should allow full power broadcasters to use the vacant channels as ``dedicated transition channels to ensure maximum continuity of service, just as it did during the transition from analog to digital.'' The LPTV Spectrum Rights Coalition opposes ONE Media's proposal on the ground that it would diminish LPTV licensing rights in the middle of the displacement process. The Wi-Fi Alliance, Microsoft, the Consumers Union et al., and Dynamic Spectrum Alliance also oppose any approach that would expand broadcasters' spectrum rights in conjunction with ATSC 3.0 deployment, and they express concern about damaging the potential success of white space use in the television bands. 17. Significantly Viewed Status of Next Gen TV Stations. Finally, we tentatively conclude that local simulcasting should not change the significantly viewed status of a Next Gen TV station. Stations that vary their signal strength or change their location as a result of moving their 1.0 signal to simulcast raise the question of how this change may affect their status as ``significantly viewed'' in certain communities or counties under Sec. Sec. 76.5(i) and 76.54 of our rules. Significantly viewed status allows the significantly viewed station (1) to be carried by a satellite carrier in such community in the other market; (2) to be carried in such community by cable and satellite operators at the reduced copyright payment applicable to local (in-market) stations; and (3) to be exempt in such community from another station's assertion of its network non-duplication or syndicated exclusivity rights. Under our proposal, a commercial television station that relocates its 1.0 simulcast channel could not seek to gain significantly viewed status in new communities or counties and such station could not lose significantly viewed status in communities or counties for which it qualified prior to the move of its 1.0 simulcast channel. 2. Legal Basis 18. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 4, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 325(b), 336, 338, 399b, 403, 534, and 535 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 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 19. 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 types of small entities that may be affected by the R&O fall within the following categories: (1) Wired Telecommunications Carriers, of which 3,083 are estimated to be small entities; (2) Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation), of which 3,900 are estimated to be small entities; (3) Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard), of which 52,403,696 are estimated to be small entities; (4) Direct Broadcast Satellite Service, of which 3,083 are estimated to be small entities, but internally developed FCC data suggest that in general DBS service is only provided by large entities; (5) Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) Systems, also known as Private Cable Operators (PCOs),of which 3,083 are estimated to be small entities; (6) Home Satellite Dish (HSD) Service, of which 3,083 are estimated to be small entities; (7) Open Video Services, of which 3,083 are estimated to be small entities; (8) Wireless Cable Systems--Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service, of which 440 (BBS) and 2,241 (EBS) are [[Page 60354]] estimated to be small entities; (9) Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) and Small Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers, of which 3,083 are estimated to be small entities; (10) Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing, of which 819 are estimated to be small entities; (11) Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing of which 465 are estimated to be small entities; (12) and Television Broadcasting, of which 656 (commercial stations), 395 (NCE stations), 2,344 (LPTV), and 3,689 (TV translator stations) are estimated to be small entities. 4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements 20. The FNPRM does not propose any new reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance requirements. However, if the Commission decides to allow the use of unused channels, there may be new reporting requirements, such as the filing of an application with the Commission. Additionally, if the Commission decides to adopt specific criteria for its waiver standard, these may be considered new compliance requirements. 5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered 21. 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 and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.'' \15\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22. Local Simulcasting Waivers and Exceptions. The FNPRM seeks comment on two issues related to waivers of the local simulcasting requirement: (1) The circumstances in which we should grant a waiver of our local simulcasting requirement for full power and Class A stations; and (2) whether we should permit NCE and Class A stations to transition directly from ATSC 1.0 to 3.0. As noted in Section C. of this IRFA, NCE and Class A stations are considered small entities. Waiver of, or exemption from, the local simulcasting requirement may afford more flexibility to broadcasters, including small entities, that may face unique challenges in finding a suitable simulcasting partner. This added flexibility may reduce costs for such small entities. 23. Temporary Use of Vacant Channels. The FNPRM seeks comment on whether we should allow full power broadcasters to use vacant channels in the television broadcast band to facilitate the transition to 3.0, and, if so, when they should be able to use these channels, and what procedures we should use to authorize that use. We seek specific comment on the effects on small entities: (1) Would allowing broadcasters to use these vacant channels help small broadcasters transition to 3.0?, \16\ (2) would allowing broadcasters to use these vacant channels impose carriage burdens on small MVPDs?, and (3) what can we do to ease the burdens on those small entities? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\ For example, NCTA opposes temporary use of vacant channels in the television broadcast band for ATSC 1.0 simulcast signals. NCTA Reply at 8. NCTA explains that ``[a]llowing use of a `temporary' channel for these purposes would impose new, unreimbursed costs on cable operators. Operators might need to purchase and install new equipment--or at a minimum, incur the labor costs and burdens of repointing receive antennas at the headend--to be able to continue to receive a station transmitting on this new frequency.'' Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24. Significantly Viewed Status of Next Gen TV Stations. The FNPRM tentatively concludes that the significantly viewed status of a Next Gen TV station should not change if it moves its 1.0 simulcast channel to a temporary host facility. Under this proposal, a commercial television station that relocates its 1.0 simulcast channel could not seek to gain significantly viewed status in new communities or counties and such station could not lose significantly viewed status in communities or counties for which it qualified prior to the move of its 1.0 simulcast channel. We tentatively conclude that maintaining the status quo with respect to eligibility for significantly viewed carriage would avoid some complications and disruptions to MVPDs and their subscribers, who have come to rely on such signals. We seek comment on what effect our proposal and tentative conclusion would have on small broadcasters and MVPDs. 6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule 25. None. B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 26. This NPRM may result in new or revised information collection requirements. If the Commission adopts any new or revised information collection requirements, the Commission will publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the public to comment on such requirements, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the Commission will seek specific comment on how it might ``further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.'' C. Ex Parte Rules 27. Permit But Disclose. The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Ex parte presentations are permissible if disclosed in accordance with Commission rules, except during the Sunshine Agenda period when presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are generally prohibited. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. Memoranda must contain a summary of the substance of the ex parte presentation and not merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and [[Page 60355]] must be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b) of the rules. In proceedings governed by Sec. 1.49(f) of the rules or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules. D. Filing Procedures 28. Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. [ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. [ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. [ssquf] Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, 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. [ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building. [ssquf] 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. [ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. [ssquf] People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty). III. Ordering Clauses 29. 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, 614, and 615 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 157, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 325(b), 336, 338, 399b, 403, 534, and 535, this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted, effective thirty (30) days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2017-27433 Filed 12-19-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
![60350 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2017 / Proposed Rules
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 418–0432. For detailed instructions for Order. First, we seek further comment
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). submitting comments and additional on issues related to exceptions to and
information on the rulemaking process, waivers of the local simulcasting
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION requirement. Second, we seek comment
Environmental protection, Air section of this document. on whether we should let full power
pollution control, Incorporation by FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For broadcasters use channels in the
reference, Intergovernmental relations, additional information, contact Evan television broadcast band that are
Volatile organic compounds, Particulate Baranoff, Evan.Baranoff@fcc.gov, of the vacant to facilitate the transition to 3.0.
matter. Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) Finally, we tentatively conclude that
Dated: December 5, 2017. 418–7142, or Matthew Hussey, local simulcasting should not change
Alexis Strauss, Matthew.Hussey@fcc.gov, of the Office the significantly viewed status of a Next
of Engineering and Technology, (202) Gen TV station.
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2017–27432 Filed 12–19–17; 8:45 am] 418–3619. Direct press inquiries to B. Discussion
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Janice Wise at (202) 418–8165. For
additional information concerning the 1. Local Simulcasting Waivers and
Paperwork Reduction Act information Exceptions
collection requirements contained in 2. Simulcast Waivers. In the Report
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
this document, send an email to PRA@ and Order, we explain that we will
COMMISSION
fcc.gov or contact Cathy Williams at consider requests for waiver of our local
47 CFR Parts 15, 73, 74 and 76 (202) 418–2918. simulcasting requirement on a case-by-
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a case basis, including (1) requests
[GN Docket No. 16–142; FCC 17–158] seeking to transition directly from 1.0 to
summary of the Commission’s Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 3.0 service on the station’s existing
Authorizing Permissive Use of the
(FNPRM), FCC 17–158, adopted on facility without simulcasting in 1.0 and
‘‘Next Generation’’ Broadcast
November 16, 2017 and released on (2) requests to air a 1.0 simulcast
Television Standard
November 20, 2017. The full text of this channel from a host location that does
AGENCY: Federal Communications document is available electronically via not cover all or a portion of the station’s
Commission. the FCC’s Electronic Document community of license or from which the
ACTION: Proposed rule. Management System (EDOCS) website station can provide only a lower signal
at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ threshold over the community than that
SUMMARY: In this document, we seek or via the FCC’s Electronic Comment required by the rules.1 With respect to
further comment on issues related to Filing System (ECFS) website at http:// such requests, we state: ‘‘We are
exceptions to and waivers of the local fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. (Documents will inclined to consider favorably requests
simulcasting requirement, whether we be available electronically in ASCII, for waiver of our local simulcasting
should let full power broadcasters use Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) requirement where the Next Gen TV
channels in the television broadcast This document is also available for station can demonstrate that it has no
band that are vacant to facilitate the public inspection and copying during viable local simulcasting partner in its
transition to 3.0, and finally, we regular business hours in the FCC market and where the station agrees to
tentatively conclude that local Reference Information Center, which is make reasonable efforts to preserve 1.0
simulcasting should not change the located in Room CY–A257 at FCC service to existing viewers in its
significantly viewed status of a Next Headquarters, 445 12th Street SW, community of license and/or otherwise
Gen TV station. Washington, DC 20554. The Reference minimize the impact on such viewers
DATES: Comments are due on or before Information Center is open to the public (for example, by providing free or low
February 20, 2018; reply comments are Monday through Thursday from 8:00 cost ATSC 3.0 converters to viewers).’’
due on or before March 20, 2018. a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and Friday from 8:00 3. We seek comment on what further
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, a.m. to 11:30 a.m. The complete text guidance we should provide about the
identified by GN Docket No. 16–142, by may be purchased from the circumstances in which we will grant a
any of the following methods: Commission’s copy contractor, 445 12th waiver of the local simulcasting
• Federal Communications Street SW, Room CY–B402, Washington, requirement. How should we determine
Commission’s website: http:// DC 20554. Alternative formats are if a station has a ‘‘viable’’ simulcast
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the available for people with disabilities partner? Given that we specify in the
instructions for submitting comments. (Braille, large print, electronic files, Report and Order that a Next Gen TV
• Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or audio format), by sending an email to broadcaster’s 1.0 simulcast channel
messenger delivery, by commercial fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the must continue to cover its entire
overnight courier, or by first-class or Commission’s Consumer and community of license, should we
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) consider a station to have no viable
(although the Commission continues to 418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 partner only if there is no potential
experience delays in receiving U.S. (TTY). simulcasting partner in the same DMA
Postal Service mail). All filings must be that can cover the station’s entire
addressed to the Commission’s Synopsis community of license? Alternatively,
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, I. Further Notice of Proposed should we consider adopting a broader
Federal Communications Commission. Rulemaking definition of viability? For example,
• People With Disabilities: Contact should we specify that waiver
the FCC to request reasonable A. Introduction
1 The Commission may waive its rules if good
accommodations (accessible format 1. In this Further Notice of Proposed
cause is shown. See 47 CFR 1.3. We explain in the
documents, sign language interpreters, Rulemaking, we seek further comment Report and Order that we are not inclined to
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov on three topics related to the rules consider favorably requests to change community of
or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202) adopted in the companion Report and license solely to enable simulcasting.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:03 Dec 19, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM 20DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_60593/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2017 / Proposed Rules 60351
applicants located in DMAs in which minimize disruption to consumers that channel to which a displaced LPTV or
there are fewer than a threshold number we should consider or require? We also translator station could relocate. The
of full power and/or Class A or LPTV invite comment on other circumstances LPTV Spectrum Rights Coalition
broadcasters will be considered to have in which we should consider granting opposes ONE Media’s proposal on the
no viable partner? If so, what threshold waivers of the local simulcasting ground that it would diminish LPTV
should we adopt? How should we requirement. licensing rights in the middle of the
consider cases in which there are no 5. Simulcast Exceptions. We also seek displacement process. The Wi-Fi
stations that can cover a station’s comment on whether to exempt NCE Alliance, Microsoft, the Consumers
community of license, and therefore and/or Class A stations as a class from Union et al., and Dynamic Spectrum
serve as an ATSC 1.0 simulcast host our local simulcasting requirement or Alliance also oppose any approach that
under our rules, but there are stations in adopt a presumptive waiver standard for would expand broadcasters’ spectrum
the DMA that are transitioning to ATSC such stations. In the Report and Order, rights in conjunction with ATSC 3.0
3.0 and therefore could potentially serve we exempt LPTV and TV translator deployment, and they express concern
as a 3.0 lighthouse? If there is a stations from our local simulcasting about damaging the potential success of
potential partner in the same DMA, are requirement and allow these stations to white space use in the television bands.
there other circumstances that would transition directly to 3.0 service. Class A 7. Given the diversity of comments on
make such potential partner not viable, and NCE stations could also face more this issue, we seek additional comment
such as, for example, if the potential difficulty than commercial full power on the extent to which we should allow
partner refused to agree to being a stations face when seeking a local full power broadcasters to use vacant
simulcasting partner? Should we have simulcasting partner. Could allowing channels in the television broadcast
different levels of scrutiny for waiver Class A and NCE stations to transition band to facilitate the transition to 3.0,
requests depending on whether the directly to 3.0 make them more and, if so, when they should be able to
petition seeks to transition directly as attractive ‘‘lighthouse’’ candidates? We use these channels, and what
opposed to simulcast from a facility that seek comment on whether, as a general procedures we should use to authorize
will not cover its community of license? matter, allowing NCE and Class A that use. As a threshold matter, how
For stations that seek to simulcast from stations to transition directly would should we define a ‘‘vacant’’ channel for
a facility that will not cover its serve the public interest. Under what this purpose? We seek specific comment
community of license, should a factor be circumstances would direct transitions on ONE Media’s proposal, and how it
how far the host location is from the be appropriate? What effect would this potentially would affect the post-
petitioner’s community of license? Are have on consumers and on MVPDs? incentive auction transition/repacking
there special circumstances we should What criteria distinguish these stations process and the various other users in
consider for NCE stations, including from full power commercial the repacked television band.3 That is,
those that are in isolated areas or are not broadcasters to justify disparate given that vacant channels might be
centrally located in DMAs? 2 We seek treatment? needed by stations transitioning to new
comment on the same issues for Class A 2. Temporary Use of Vacant Channels channel assignments, how does ONE
stations if they cannot find a host that Media’s proposal impact that and the
allows them to satisfy the simulcasting 6. In the Next Gen TV NPRM, we
post-auction process in general? For
requirements in the Report and Order. asked whether we should ‘‘consider
example, if we allow usage of vacant
We also seek comment on the potential allowing broadcasters [that wish to
channels, should we only allow
impact that any definition of viability deploy ATSC 3.0 service] to use vacant
in-band channels remaining in the temporary access to a vacant channel
would have on local viewers. after the repacking process is
4. In addition, we seek comment on market after the incentive auction
repack to serve as temporary host completed? Or, should we permit such
what type of ‘‘reasonable efforts’’ we access after the LPTV displacement
should require a waiver applicant to facilities for ATSC 1.0 or 3.0
programming by multiple broadcasters.’’ window is closed?
undertake in order to preserve 1.0 8. If we were to permit full power
service to existing viewers in its ONE Media requests that in markets
licensees priority to use vacant channels
community of license and/or otherwise with vacant channels, the Commission
should allow full power broadcasters to as dedicated transition channels, we
minimize the impact on viewers in its seek comment on the process for doing
coverage area. Should it be favorable to use the vacant channels as ‘‘dedicated
transition channels to ensure maximum so. Specifically, how would
our determination if waiver applicants broadcasters apply for an authorization
volunteer to provide free or low cost continuity of service, just as it did
during the transition from analog to to use a vacant channel? Should the
ATSC 3.0 converters to viewers in their request be for Special Temporary
coverage area? Should we require such digital.’’ It suggests that these vacant
channels should be made available Authority (STA)? Should we instead
a commitment as a condition for consider a request for a temporary
waiver? Are there other efforts to during the post-auction transition
period, and that only after the full channel to be a minor change of the
2 Several commenters express concern that some power broadcaster has vacated the station’s existing license and require a
broadcasters would not be able to satisfy a local channel should the channel be made minor change application? If we treat
simulcasting requirement because of the lack of available to others, such as displaced these requests as minor changes, should
availability of potential simulcasting partners. For
LPTV and translator license applicants. we process such requests on a first-
example, PBS states that ‘‘[p]ublic stations may be
unable to share facilities with another station, ONE Media asserts that as primary users come, first-served basis? Should we
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
particularly in rural and isolated communities, in the television band, full power 3 In the Incentive Auction R&O, the Commission
because they are often not centrally located in a licensees have priority to obtain licenses
television market. . . .’’ PBS further explains that provided for a 39-month post-incentive auction
this is because ‘‘noncommercial educational must- for vacant channels over any LPTV and transition pertaining to the various secondary
carry rights are not tied to Designated Market Areas, translator licensees, and therefore full broadcast and unlicensed operations in the TV
so such stations are not necessarily sited near their power licensees should be able to use bands—including LPTV and TV translator stations,
commercial counterparts, and given that 16 states broadcast auxiliary service, wireless microphones,
are covered by statewide public television networks
such a channel as a transition channel and unlicensed white space devices—with the goal
that are designed to serve their entire state during the voluntary ATSC 3.0 of promoting a smooth and effective transition
regardless of DMA boundaries.’’ deployment period, even if it is the only process.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:03 Dec 19, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM 20DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_60593/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2017 / Proposed Rules 60353
summaries thereof) will be published in consider for NCE and/or Class A §§ 76.5(i) and 76.54 of our rules.
the Federal Register.12 stations. Significantly viewed status allows the
15. Simulcast Exceptions.14 In the significantly viewed station (1) to be
1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order, we exempt LPTV and carried by a satellite carrier in such
Proposed Rules TV translator stations from our local community in the other market; (2) to be
13. In this Further Notice of Proposed simulcasting requirement and allow carried in such community by cable and
Rulemaking, we seek further comment these stations to transition directly to satellite operators at the reduced
on three topics related to the rules 3.0 service. In this FNPRM, we also seek copyright payment applicable to local
adopted in the companion Report and comment on whether to exempt NCE (in-market) stations; and (3) to be
Order, which authorizes television and/or Class A stations as a class from exempt in such community from
broadcasters to use the ‘‘Next our local simulcasting requirement or another station’s assertion of its network
Generation’’ broadcast television (Next adopt a presumptive waiver standard for non-duplication or syndicated
Gen TV) transmission standard, also such stations. Class A and NCE stations exclusivity rights. Under our proposal, a
called ‘‘ATSC 3.0’’ or ‘‘3.0,’’ on a could also face more difficulty than commercial television station that
voluntary, market-driven basis. Next commercial full power stations face relocates its 1.0 simulcast channel could
Gen TV broadcasters will continue to when seeking a local simulcasting not seek to gain significantly viewed
deliver current-generation digital partner. status in new communities or counties
television (DTV) service, using the 16. Temporary Use of Vacant and such station could not lose
ATSC 1.0 transmission standard, also Channels. Second, we seek comment on significantly viewed status in
called ‘‘ATSC 1.0’’ or ‘‘1.0,’’ to their whether we should let full power communities or counties for which it
viewers via ‘‘local simulcasting.’’ broadcasters use channels in the qualified prior to the move of its 1.0
14. Simulcast Waivers and television broadcast band that are simulcast channel.
Exceptions. First, we seek further vacant to facilitate the transition to 3.0.
2. Legal Basis
comment on issues related to exceptions In the Next Gen TV NPRM, the
to and waivers of the local simulcasting Commission asked whether we should 18. The proposed action is authorized
requirement. In the Report and Order, ‘‘consider allowing broadcasters [that pursuant to sections 1, 4, 301, 303, 307,
we explain that we will consider wish to deploy ATSC 3.0 service] to use 308, 309, 316, 319, 325(b), 336, 338,
requests for waiver of our local vacant in-band channels remaining in 399b, 403, 534, and 535 of the
the market after the incentive auction Communications Act of 1934, as
simulcasting requirement on a case-by-
repack to serve as temporary host amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 301, 303,
case basis, including (1) requests
facilities for ATSC 1.0 or 3.0 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 325(b), 336,
seeking to transition directly from 1.0 to
programming by multiple broadcasters.’’ 338, 399b, 403, 534, and 535.
3.0 service on the station’s existing
facility without simulcasting in 1.0 and ONE Media requests that in markets 3. Description and Estimate of the
(2) requests to air a 1.0 simulcast with vacant channels, the Commission Number of Small Entities To Which the
channel from a host location that does should allow full power broadcasters to Proposed Rules Will Apply
not cover all or a portion of the station’s use the vacant channels as ‘‘dedicated
transition channels to ensure maximum 19. The RFA directs agencies to
community of license or from which the provide a description of, and where
station can provide only a lower signal continuity of service, just as it did
feasible, an estimate of the number of
threshold over the community than that during the transition from analog to
small entities that may be affected by
required by the rules.13 With respect to digital.’’ The LPTV Spectrum Rights
the proposed rules, if adopted. The
such requests, we state: ‘‘We are Coalition opposes ONE Media’s
types of small entities that may be
inclined to consider favorably requests proposal on the ground that it would
affected by the R&O fall within the
for waiver of our local simulcasting diminish LPTV licensing rights in the
following categories: (1) Wired
requirement where the Next Gen TV middle of the displacement process. The
Telecommunications Carriers, of which
station can demonstrate that it has no Wi-Fi Alliance, Microsoft, the
3,083 are estimated to be small entities;
viable local simulcasting partner in its Consumers Union et al., and Dynamic
(2) Cable Companies and Systems (Rate
market and where the station agrees to Spectrum Alliance also oppose any
Regulation), of which 3,900 are
make reasonable efforts to preserve 1.0 approach that would expand
estimated to be small entities; (3) Cable
service to existing viewers in its broadcasters’ spectrum rights in
System Operators (Telecom Act
community of license and/or otherwise conjunction with ATSC 3.0 deployment,
Standard), of which 52,403,696 are
minimize the impact on such viewers and they express concern about
estimated to be small entities; (4) Direct
(for example, by providing free or low damaging the potential success of white
Broadcast Satellite Service, of which
cost ATSC 3.0 converters to viewers).’’ space use in the television bands.
3,083 are estimated to be small entities,
In this FNPRM, we seek comment on 17. Significantly Viewed Status of
but internally developed FCC data
what further guidance we should Next Gen TV Stations. Finally, we
suggest that in general DBS service is
provide about the circumstances in tentatively conclude that local
only provided by large entities; (5)
which we will grant a waiver of the simulcasting should not change the
Satellite Master Antenna Television
local simulcasting requirement. Among significantly viewed status of a Next
(SMATV) Systems, also known as
other things, we ask how we should Gen TV station. Stations that vary their
Private Cable Operators (PCOs),of which
determine if a station has a ‘‘viable’’ signal strength or change their location
3,083 are estimated to be small entities;
as a result of moving their 1.0 signal to
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
simulcast partner and whether there are (6) Home Satellite Dish (HSD) Service,
special circumstances we should simulcast raise the question of how this
of which 3,083 are estimated to be small
change may affect their status as
entities; (7) Open Video Services, of
‘‘significantly viewed’’ in certain
12 See id. which 3,083 are estimated to be small
13 The Commission may waive its rules if good communities or counties under
entities; (8) Wireless Cable Systems—
cause is shown. See 47 CFR 1.3. We explain in the
Report and Order that we are not inclined to 14 Unlike waivers which are considered on a case- Broadband Radio Service and
consider favorably requests to change community of by-case basis, exceptions or class waivers do not Educational Broadband Service, of
license solely to enable simulcasting. require the filing of a waiver request. which 440 (BBS) and 2,241 (EBS) are
VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:03 Dec 19, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM 20DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_60593/page/4.svg)
![60354 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2017 / Proposed Rules
estimated to be small entities; (9) from, the local simulcasting requirement B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers may afford more flexibility to 1995 Analysis
(ILECs) and Small Incumbent Local broadcasters, including small entities, 26. This NPRM may result in new or
Exchange Carriers, of which 3,083 are that may face unique challenges in revised information collection
estimated to be small entities; (10) Radio finding a suitable simulcasting partner. requirements. If the Commission adopts
and Television Broadcasting and This added flexibility may reduce costs any new or revised information
Wireless Communications Equipment for such small entities. collection requirements, the
Manufacturing, of which 819 are 23. Temporary Use of Vacant Commission will publish a notice in the
estimated to be small entities; (11) Federal Register inviting the public to
Channels. The FNPRM seeks comment
Audio and Video Equipment comment on such requirements, as
on whether we should allow full power
Manufacturing of which 465 are required by the Paperwork Reduction
broadcasters to use vacant channels in
estimated to be small entities; (12) and
the television broadcast band to Act of 1995. In addition, pursuant to the
Television Broadcasting, of which 656
facilitate the transition to 3.0, and, if so, Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
(commercial stations), 395 (NCE
when they should be able to use these 2002, the Commission will seek specific
stations), 2,344 (LPTV), and 3,689 (TV
channels, and what procedures we comment on how it might ‘‘further
translator stations) are estimated to be
should use to authorize that use. We reduce the information collection
small entities.
seek specific comment on the effects on burden for small business concerns with
4. Description of Projected Reporting, small entities: (1) Would allowing fewer than 25 employees.’’
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance broadcasters to use these vacant C. Ex Parte Rules
Requirements channels help small broadcasters
20. The FNPRM does not propose any transition to 3.0?, 16 (2) would allowing 27. Permit But Disclose. The
new reporting, recordkeeping, or broadcasters to use these vacant proceeding this Notice initiates shall be
compliance requirements. However, if channels impose carriage burdens on treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’
the Commission decides to allow the small MVPDs?, and (3) what can we do proceeding in accordance with the
use of unused channels, there may be to ease the burdens on those small Commission’s ex parte rules. Ex parte
new reporting requirements, such as the entities? presentations are permissible if
filing of an application with the disclosed in accordance with
24. Significantly Viewed Status of Commission rules, except during the
Commission. Additionally, if the Next Gen TV Stations. The FNPRM
Commission decides to adopt specific Sunshine Agenda period when
tentatively concludes that the presentations, ex parte or otherwise, are
criteria for its waiver standard, these significantly viewed status of a Next
may be considered new compliance generally prohibited. Persons making ex
Gen TV station should not change if it parte presentations must file a copy of
requirements. moves its 1.0 simulcast channel to a any written presentation or a
5. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant temporary host facility. Under this memorandum summarizing any oral
Economic Impact on Small Entities and proposal, a commercial television presentation within two business days
Significant Alternatives Considered station that relocates its 1.0 simulcast after the presentation (unless a different
channel could not seek to gain deadline applicable to the Sunshine
21. The RFA requires an agency to
significantly viewed status in new period applies). Persons making oral ex
describe any significant alternatives that
communities or counties and such parte presentations are reminded that
it has considered in reaching its
station could not lose significantly memoranda summarizing the
proposed approach, which may include
viewed status in communities or presentation must (1) list all persons
the following four alternatives (among
counties for which it qualified prior to attending or otherwise participating in
others): ‘‘(1) The establishment of
the move of its 1.0 simulcast channel. the meeting at which the ex parte
differing compliance or reporting
We tentatively conclude that presentation was made, and (2)
requirements or timetables that take into
maintaining the status quo with respect summarize all data presented and
account the resources available to small
to eligibility for significantly viewed arguments made during the
entities; (2) the clarification,
carriage would avoid some presentation. Memoranda must contain
consolidation, or simplification of
complications and disruptions to a summary of the substance of the ex
compliance and reporting requirements
MVPDs and their subscribers, who have parte presentation and not merely a
under the rule for such small entities;
come to rely on such signals. We seek listing of the subjects discussed. More
(3) the use of performance rather than
comment on what effect our proposal than a one or two sentence description
design standards; and (4) an exemption
and tentative conclusion would have on of the views and arguments presented is
from coverage of the rule, or any part
small broadcasters and MVPDs. generally required. If the presentation
thereof, for small entities.’’ 15
22. Local Simulcasting Waivers and 6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, consisted in whole or in part of the
Exceptions. The FNPRM seeks comment Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed presentation of data or arguments
on two issues related to waivers of the Rule already reflected in the presenter’s
local simulcasting requirement: (1) The written comments, memoranda or other
circumstances in which we should grant 25. None. filings in the proceeding, the presenter
a waiver of our local simulcasting may provide citations to such data or
requirement for full power and Class A 16 For example, NCTA opposes temporary use of arguments in his or her prior comments,
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
stations; and (2) whether we should vacant channels in the television broadcast band for memoranda, or other filings (specifying
ATSC 1.0 simulcast signals. NCTA Reply at 8.
permit NCE and Class A stations to NCTA explains that ‘‘[a]llowing use of a ‘temporary’
the relevant page and/or paragraph
transition directly from ATSC 1.0 to 3.0. channel for these purposes would impose new, numbers where such data or arguments
As noted in Section C. of this IRFA, unreimbursed costs on cable operators. Operators can be found) in lieu of summarizing
NCE and Class A stations are considered might need to purchase and install new them in the memorandum. Documents
equipment—or at a minimum, incur the labor costs
small entities. Waiver of, or exemption and burdens of repointing receive antennas at the
shown or given to Commission staff
headend—to be able to continue to receive a station during ex parte meetings are deemed to
15 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)–(c)(4). transmitting on this new frequency.’’ Id. be written ex parte presentations and
VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:03 Dec 19, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM 20DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_60593/page/5.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 243 / Wednesday, December 20, 2017 / Proposed Rules 60355
must be filed consistent with § 1.1206(b) addressed to 445 12th Street SW, final rule published May 3, 2017 (May
of the rules. In proceedings governed by Washington, DC 20554. 2017 Final Rule).
§ 1.49(f) of the rules or for which the D People with Disabilities: To request DATES: Written comments on this
Commission has made available a materials in accessible formats for proposed rule must be received by
method of electronic filing, written ex people with disabilities (Braille, large January 19, 2018. Comments received
parte presentations and memoranda print, electronic files, audio format), after that date will be considered to the
summarizing oral ex parte send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call extent possible without incurring
presentations, and all attachments the Consumer & Governmental Affairs additional expense or delay.
thereto, must be filed through the Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– ADDRESSES: Comments related to Docket
electronic comment filing system 418–0432 (tty). No. FRA–2009–0033 may be submitted
available for that proceeding, and must III. Ordering Clauses by any of the following methods:
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 29. It is ordered, pursuant to the
http://www.regulations.gov and follow
in this proceeding should familiarize authority found in sections 1, 4, 7, 301,
the online instructions for submitting
themselves with the Commission’s ex 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 325(b),
comments;
parte rules. 336, 338, 399b, 403, 614, and 615 of the • Mail: Docket Management Facility,
Communications Act of 1934, as U.S. DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
D. Filing Procedures amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 157, 301, W12–140, Washington, DC 20590;
28. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, 319, 325(b), • Hand Delivery: The Docket
the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 336, 338, 399b, 403, 534, and 535, this Management Facility is located in Room
1.419, interested parties may file Report and Order and Further Notice of W12–140, West Building Ground Floor,
comments and reply comments on or Proposed Rulemaking is hereby U.S. DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
before the dates indicated on the first adopted, effective thirty (30) days after Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
page of this document. Comments may the date of publication in the Federal p.m., Monday through Friday, except
be filed using the Commission’s Register. Federal holidays; or
Electronic Comment Filing System It is further ordered that the • Fax: 202–493–2251.
(ECFS). Electronic Filers: Comments Commission’s Consumer and Instructions: All submissions must
may be filed electronically using the Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference include the agency name and docket
internet by accessing the ECFS: http:// Information Center, shall send a copy of number or Regulatory Identification
apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. this Report and Order and Further Number (RIN) for this rulemaking
D Electronic Filers: Comments may be Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, (2130–AC70). All comments received
filed electronically using the internet by including the Final Regulatory will be posted without change to http://
accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief www.regulations.gov; this includes any
ecfs/. Counsel for Advocacy of the Small personal information. Please see the
D Paper Filers: Parties who choose to Business Administration. Privacy Act heading in the
file by paper must file an original and Federal Communications Commission. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
one copy of each filing. If more than one Marlene H. Dortch, this document for Privacy Act
docket or rulemaking number appears in Secretary. information related to any submitted
the caption of this proceeding, filers [FR Doc. 2017–27433 Filed 12–19–17; 8:45 am] comments or materials.
must submit two additional copies for BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
Docket: For access to the docket to
each additional docket or rulemaking read background documents, petitions
number. for reconsideration, or comments
D Filings can be sent by hand or DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
received, go to http://
messenger delivery, by commercial www.regulations.gov and follow the
overnight courier, or by first-class or Federal Railroad Administration online instructions for accessing the
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All docket or visit the Docket Management
filings must be addressed to the 49 CFR Part 243 Facility described above.
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
[Docket No. FRA–2009–0033, Notice No. 5] Robert J. Castiglione, Staff Director—
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission. RIN 2130–AC70 Human Performance Division, Federal
D All hand-delivered or messenger- Railroad Administration, 4100
delivered paper filings for the Training, Qualification, and Oversight International Plaza, Suite 450, Fort
Commission’s Secretary must be for Safety-Related Railroad Employees Worth, TX 76109–4820 (telephone: 817–
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 AGENCY: Federal Railroad 447–2715); or Alan H. Nagler, Senior
12th St., SW, Room TW–A325, Administration (FRA), Department of Trial Attorney, Federal Railroad
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours Transportation (DOT). Administration, Office of Chief Counsel,
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
deliveries must be held together with Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: 202–
(NPRM).
rubber bands or fasteners. Any 493–6038).
envelopes and boxes must be disposed SUMMARY: In response to a petition for SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with PROPOSALS
of before entering the building. reconsideration of a final rule, FRA November 7, 2014, FRA published a
D Commercial overnight mail (other proposes to amend its regulations final rule (2014 Final Rule) that
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail (Training, Qualification, and Oversight established minimum training standards
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 for Safety-Related Railroad Employees) for each category and subcategory of
Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD by delaying certain implementation safety-related railroad employees and
20701. dates an additional year. FRA required railroad carriers, contractors,
D U.S. Postal Service first-class, previously delayed the regulations’ and subcontractors to submit training
Express, and Priority mail must be implementation dates for one year in a programs to FRA for approval. See 79
VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:03 Dec 19, 2017 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20DEP1.SGM 20DEP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_60593/page/6.svg)
Document Created: 2018-10-25 10:56:44
Document Modified: 2018-10-25 10:56:44
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Comments are due on or before February 20, 2018; reply comments are due on or before March 20, 2018. | |
| Contact | For additional information, contact Evan Baranoff, [email protected], of the Media Bureau, Policy Division, (202) 418-7142, or Matthew Hussey, [email protected], of the Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-3619. Direct press inquiries to Janice Wise at (202) 418-8165. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this document, send an email to [email protected] or contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 60350 | |
| CFR Citation | 47
CFR
15 47 CFR 73 47 CFR 74 47 CFR 76 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR