24606 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Proposed Rules

With regard to the scope of additional

type A procedures:

Should the procedures cover a

specific geographic area?

Should the procedures cover selected

types of habitat?

Should the procedures cover selected

types of resources?

Should the procedures cover selected

types of releases (e.g., spills versus

leachate from sites)?

Should the procedures cover selected

hazardous substances?

Should the procedures cover all steps

of the Assessment Phase or simply

certain parts (e.g., injury determination

or damage determination but not both)?

For which geographic regions,

habitats, resources, types of releases,

hazardous substances, or steps of the

Assessment Phase are there adequate

data with which to develop a type A

procedure?

With regard to the form of additional

type A procedures:

Should the Department develop

additional computer models or should

any additional type A procedures take a

different form, such as a look-up table,

a formula, or a model assessment or

restoration plan?

Which form would be easiest to use?

Which form would be most useful in

settlement negotiations?

Which form would be most useful in

litigation?

With regard to the process for

developing additional type A

procedures:

Should the Department hold

additional public meetings?

Should the Department hold meetings

with specific interested parties?

Should the Department conduct a

negotiated rulemaking?

Should the Department issue advance

notices of proposed rulemaking

soliciting comment on particular aspects

of the procedures prior to issuing a

proposed rule?

Dated: May 4, 1995.

Willie R. Taylor,

Director, Office of Environmental Policy and

Compliance.

[FR Doc. 95–11378 Filed 5–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–RG–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR PART 73

[MM Docket No. 95–42, FCC 95–155]

TV Broadcast Service, Ancillary

Communications Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In this proceeding, comment

is sought on what procedural and

substantive rules, if any, should be

established regarding the transmission

of ancillary digital data within the

active video portion of broadcast

television NTSC signals. This action is

needed to determine how best to permit

certain digital technologies to be

integrated with the current television

broadcast service (NTSC).

DATES: Comments must be submitted by

June 23, 1995. Reply comments must be

submitted July 10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paul Gordon at (202) 776–1653 or James

E. McNally, Jr. at (202) 418–2190.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket

No. 95–42, adopted April 10, 1995, and

released May 2, 1995. The complete text

of this Notice of Proposed Rule Making

(‘‘NPRM’’) is available for inspection

and copying during normal business

hours in the FCC Reference Center

(Room 239), 1919 M St., NW.,

Washington, DC and also may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Service, at (202) 857–3800, 2100 M

Street NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC

20037.

Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rule

Making

1. The Commission initiates this

proceeding to determine how best to

permit certain digital technologies to be

integrated with the current television

broadcast service (NTSC). Specifically,

it seeks comment on what procedural

and substantive rules, if any, should be

established regarding the transmission

of ancillary digital data within the

active video portion of broadcast

television NTSC signals.

2. Section 73.646 of the Commission’s

Rules allows the transmission, with

prior Commission consent, of ancillary

telecommunications services within the

Vertical Blanking Interval (VBI) of

television broadcast signals. No picture

information is transmitted during the

VBI. In order to ensure the public’s

ability to receive over-the-air video

broadcast transmissions of the highest

quality made possible by the current

television standard, the Commission has

generally not allowed the transmission

of ancillary telecommunications

services within the active video portion

of broadcast television signals without

specific approval.

3. Recently, two general approaches

have been proposed to the Commission

for the transmission of digital data. The

first replaces the transmitted video

signal with digitally encoded

information in a part of the picture not

normally seen by viewers because all

TV sets to some extent ‘‘overscan’’ the

picture to ensure that the portion of the

picture tube that is visible is completely

filled with the picture. To date, the

Commission has authorized only the top

line of the video picture (line 22) for

such activity, although in theory, digital

signals also could be concealed in the

left or right edges of the picture, or at

the bottom. The second method of

concealing digital signals distributes

them throughout the visible picture The

amplitudes of such signals are kept

sufficiently low (or they are confined to

such a limited part of the normally

emitted video spectrum bandwidth) that

they are invisible to the viewer. Tests of

such systems indicate that, with a

proper selection of system parameters,

no degradation to picture brightness,

contrast, color or focus is perceptible to

the viewer.

4. On December 9, 1993, WavePhore,

Inc. (WavePhore) requested a

declaratory ruling that television

broadcast licensees may, without prior

Commission authorization, use

WavePhore’s ‘‘TVT1’’ system to transmit

digital data signals. This system

transmits digital data on a subcarrier

within the standard 6.0 MHz NTSC

television signal, between 3.9 HNz and

4.2 MHz above the visual carrier

frequency, at an amplitude close to the

video noise floor.

5. On November 22, 1989, the staff

granted A. C. Nielsen Company

(‘‘Nielsen’’) temporary, conditional

authority to use line 22 of the active

portion of the television video signal to

transmit the Nielsen Automated

Measurement of Lineup (‘‘AMOL’’)

system signal identification codes. By a

subsequent letter dated May 1, 1990, the

temporary authority as extended until

the Commission acts on the request for

permanent authority, or until the

temporary authority is expressly

withdrawn.

6. As a result of the difficulties

encountered in obtaining assurance that

its system for identifying commercials

would not be overwritten (and thus be

rendered useless) by Nielsen’s AMOL

system, Airtrax filed a petition for rule

making (RM–7567), which requested the

Commission to set standard for ‘‘special

signal’’ use of line 22. As justification

for the rule making, Airtrax noted what

even with the limited number of special

signals currently authorized, disputes

had arisen as to how to ensure
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Proposed Rules 24607

compatibility of existing systems and to

ensure that one entity’s system would

not preclude other users from access to

line 22 at individual TV broadcast

stations. Airtrax argued that the

Commission had a statutory duty to

promote the provision of new

technologies and service to the public

and that it should establish the ground

rules by which competition may take

place.

7. By letter of November 8, 1993 Yes!

Entertainment Corporation (‘‘Yes!’’)

requested the Commission to permit

television broadcasters to transmit a

pulsed amplitude (7.5 to 100 IRE) signal

at the beginning of each line of active

video, yielding a data rate of 14,160

pulses per second, which could be

coded to carry audio information. By

means of equipment at a viewer’s

television receiver, this signal would be

detected, processed and retransmitted

from a set-top box to an external ‘‘TV

Teddy’’ toy bear (a stuffed animal with

a built-in receiver and speaker) for the

purpose of making it ‘‘talk.’’ Yes!

indicates that there would be no visible

degradation of received video because

the affected portion of each scanning

line is in an ‘‘overscanned’’ area.

8. On January 19, 1995, the

Commission authorized Station

WWOR–TV in Secaucus, New Jersey, to

conduct tests of a data transmission

technology developed by Digideck, Inc.

(Digideck called) ‘‘D–Channel.’’ This

system, like that of WavePhore, operates

in the active video part of the TV

spectrum and is represented as being

imperceptible to viewers.

9. The commission believes that it

does not yet have sufficient information

upon which to act on the requests from

Yes! and WavePhore and therefore

initiates this proceeding to address them

as well as the Airtrax petition. Both

requests raise significant questions

pertaining to potential use for other

purposes and technical compatibility.

The Commission solicits additional

information in order to ascertain the

long-term impact the authorization of

these or other potential systems may

have on broadcasters, the data

transmitting industry, consumers, and

others.

10. Generally, the Commission

proposes that licensees be allowed to

transmit acceptable data signals without

prior Commission authority or

notification but not be allowed to

relinquish to the data or program

supplier the right to delete the data. A

licensee should be notified of any

upstream data insertion in programming

supplied to it unless the presence of the

data is readily detectable. The

Commission further proposes that a

licensee be required to maintain a copy

at the station of any contract regarding

ancillary data transmissions within the

video, as is currently required for data

transmissions in the VBI.

11. With the possibility that other

manufacturers will want to employ

different schemes for their own

products or services, a substantial

demand for such ‘‘hidden video

spectrum’’ could develop, potentially

posing difficult system compatibility

problems. Maintaining the licensee’s

ultimate responsibility gives the

broadcaster flexibility to choose among

clearly mutually-exclusive uses.

However, the Commission is concerned

that newly-developed systems might be

incompatible with systems already in

use without that fact being obvious to

the broadcaster. It is also possible that

while a single system’s digital data

insertions on a particular video signal

would cause no discernible degradation

to reception of the TV signal by itself,

a combination of transmissions could

have destructive cumulative effects.

Comment is sought on how to be certain

that broadcasters and users are aware of

such cumulative effects and also on

how, if at all, such incompatibilities

could harm consumers, broadcasters, or

the data delivery industry. Comment is

also sought on whether the resolution of

questions concerning system

compatibility and the impact of

cumulative effects on the video signal

should be left to presumably informed

broadcasters or whether compatibility

standards and insertion limits should be

prescribed by regulation.

12. There are two fundamentally

different methods employed to prevent

the inserted data from being discernable

to viewers. In this proceeding, the

Commission will refer to them as

‘‘overscan’’ technology, where data is

inserted at the top, bottom, right or left

edge of the picture and ‘‘sub-video’’

technology, where data is inserted in a

manner that could affect regularly

viewable portions of the TV picture but

would still not be detectable by the

ordinary viewer. Line-22 uses and the

Yes! proposal are examples of the

‘‘overscan’’ approach. WavePhore’s and

Digideck’s proposals use the ‘‘subvideo’’ approach. Comments are sought

to explore two aspects of these different

approaches: discernable degradation

and broadcasters’ ability to delete the

data.

13. Current policy generally does not

allow any use of the video portion of the

TV signal for ancillary purposes if the

picture or sound would be adversely

affected in a manner that is discernable

by viewers. The Commission proposes

to continue to require that broadcasters

not be allowed to use any digital data

transmission system (or combination of

such systems) that would perceptibly

degrade the video signal. Comment is

also sought on whether further

reductions in overscan might result in

signals in ‘‘overscan’’ areas becoming

discernible to viewers in the future and

on whether ‘‘overscan’’ technologies are

visible on standard TVs and VCR

recordings when ‘‘picture-in-picture’’

modes of viewing are invoked or will be

more visible in the future when a TV

signal is displayed as a ‘‘window’’ on a

computer terminal graphics display. If

development of these methods of

television video display suggests that

continuing use of ‘‘overscan’’ data

transmission technology could create

problems as the previously hidden

information becomes visible on the

screen, comment is sought on whether

‘‘overscan’’ technologies should be

phased out in favor of more subtle, less

intrusive methods of data transmission,

and if so, on a timetable for such a

phase out.

14. Comment is sought on whether

there is some method by which picture

degradation or ‘‘distortion’’ due to subvideo methods of data transmission can

be objectively measured and on whether

there is some limit which should not be

exceeded. Comment also is invited on

the extent if at all, the Commission

should permit alteration of the video

signal or the video bandpass

characteristics to permit the insertion of

data. Any further information on the

potential for Digideck’s D-Channel

system to cause adjacent channel

interference also is requested. Finally,

the Commission asks whether some

types of receivers might be more prone

to showing degradation caused by any

method of sub-video data transmission.

15. Licensees must maintain control

over all aspects of their signal, including

data transmissions within the video and

must thus retain the right to reject any

material they deem unsuitable.

Comment is sought on whether an

ability to reject the entire program

should be considered to satisfy this

obligation or if any acceptable data

insertion method must allow the

broadcaster the option of stripping out

the data.

16. ‘‘Overscan’’ data signals are

limited to specific places in the picture

and are easily deleted by the licensee.

Comment is sought on what would

happen to the picture if the licensee

deletes sub-video data, if the licensee

replaces sub-video data, and if multiple

occurrences of such deletions or

replacements take place. The

Commission is concerned that

individually insignificant degradations
24608 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Proposed Rules

to the picture could become cumulative,

noticeable, and objectionable.

17. The Commission wishes to

encourage the use of television signals

for ancillary data transmission and to

permit new technological

developments. Comment is sought on

whether special rules should be applied

to digital data transmissions that are

directed to the general public.

18. While the Commission seeks

comments now to expedite resolution of

this proceeding and to gain information

that can assist any interim decisions it

may make, it intends also to consider

the work of the National Data

Broadcasting Committee as requested by

several commenters in this proceeding.

19. The Commission next seeks

comments on whether there are

limitations that should be imposed on a

technical standard developed by

industry. The Commission asks whether

any system that may be recommended

as a standard must be ‘‘partitioned by

use’’ at the time of its possible adoption

or whether its design permits its

adaptation to potential future uses on a

flexible or dynamic basis. This question

should also be considered in relation to

digital signal decoders that might be

used by the general public, either as an

optional accessory provided on certain

models of televisions or as some kind of

external converter.

20. Comment is sought on how the

rules should reflect the industry

standards. The options range from

continuing to authorize such

transmissions on an ad hoc basis to

adopting a comprehensive set of rules

defining and regulating permissible

transmissions. Comment is requested on

adopting rules analogous to those that

govern multichannel television sound,

where an industry committee evaluated

the technology and recommended a

standard. The Commission’s Rules refer

to the standard, which is also published

in a Bulletin issued by the

Commission’s Office of Engineering and

Technology, but are only designed to

protect receivers designed to the

standard from signals to which they

would respond incorrectly.

21. Pending the Committee’s

completion of its work, comment is

invited on whether the Commission

should consider the near-term

authorization of individual methods of

such transmission on an ad hoc basis.

The Commission expects technical

conflicts between users to be resolved

by the individual licensees, but requests

comments on whether Commission

involvement or guidance is necessary to

focus licensee decisions on the public

interest. Commenters are invited to

address how questions of picture or

sound degradation can be resolved.

22. The Commission proposes that the

policies currently contained in Sections

73.646 (which sets forth the rules

currently applicable to non-broadcast

services provided in the VBI) and

73.667 (TV subsidiary communications

services) be extended to include nonbroadcast use of overscan and sub-video

data transmission technologies.

23. Lines in the VBI are also used for

broadcast and broadcast-related

services. The Commission proposes to

permit both broadcast and broadcastrelated use of sub-video data

transmission technology and asks for

comment on this proposal.

24. As a final matter, given the

pendency of the advanced television

proceeding, MM Docket No. 87–268,

which proposes to replace the current

NTSC transmission standard, the

Commission seeks comment on whether

by further enhancing NTSC television in

the manner described herein the

Commission would provide a

disincentive for the public to readily

accept and upgrade to the digital service

that the Commission expects will be

introduced in the near future. Similarly,

the Commission requests comment on

the extent to which enhancing NTSC

service in the manner described herein

could slow or create a distincentive to

the recovery of the spectrum currently

used by NTSC stations, as discussed in

the advanced television proceeding.

Procedural Matters

25. Pursuant to applicable procedures

set forth in §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the

Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and

1.419, interested parties may file

comments on or before June 12, 1995,

and reply comments on or before June

27, 1995. To file formally in this

proceeding, you must file an original

and four copies of all comments, reply

comments, and supporting comments. If

you want each Commissioner to receive

a personal copy of your comments, you

must file an original plus nine copies.

You should send comments and reply

comments to the Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

Washington, DC 20554. Comments and

reply comments will be available for

public inspection during regular

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center, room 239, at the Federal

Communications Commission, 1919 M

Street NW., Washington, DC 20554.

26. This is a non-restricted notice and

comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex

parte presentations are permitted,

except during the Sunshine Agenda

period, provided they are disclosed as

provided in the Commission rules. See

generally 47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, and

1.1206(a).

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act

Statement

I. Reason for Action

In recent years, a number of requests

have been submitted to the Commission

concerning systems of embedding

digital data within television video

signals. These proposals raise important

questions about how embedded data

systems could be accommodated,

concerns over the extent to which

broadcasters’ control over their signals

may be impaired or lost, and to what

degree embedding multiple digital

signals in the television picture may

result in discernable picture

degradation.

II. Objectives of the Action

The purpose of this proceeding is to

develop policies and rules defining the

respective rights and responsibilities of

broadcast licensees and persons wishing

to provide different types of digital

information service, to explore the

potential uses of such digital

technology, to determine to what extent

different systems may be compatible, to

determine whether a national technical

standard is necessary for the provision

of such service, and to determine the

probable impact of such service on the

quality of primary television service.

III. Legal Basis

Authority for the actions proposed in

this Notice may be found in Sections

4(i) and 303 of the Communications Act

of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154 and

303.

IV. Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other

Compliance Requirements

Policies adopted in this proceeding

could lead to increased record-keeping

requirements being imposed on

broadcast licensees and/or providers of

digital information service. If such

requirements are imposed, they would

probably take the form of such entities

being required to maintain copies of

contracts relating to the provision of

such service and making them available

to the Commission upon request.

V. Federal Rules Which Overlap,

Duplicate or Conflict With These Rules

None.

VI. Description, Potential Impact and

Number of Small Entities Involved

Approximately 10,000 licensees of

television broadcast facilities of all

types (Commercial and educational VHF

and UHF stations, translators, boosters

and Low Power TV stations) could be
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 9, 1995 / Proposed Rules 24609

affected. The number of digital service

providers affected would probably be

much less.

VII. Any Significant Alternatives

Minimizing the Impact on Small

Entities Consistent With Stated

Objectives

A decision to implement a national

standard applicable to all digital

information to be contained within the

television picture, in conjunction with a

decision as to the general types of

information that could be provided,

could greatly reduce or eliminate the

compatibility problems related to the

provision of digital data services and

decrease the need for additional recordkeeping requirements.

27. As required by Section 603 of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, the

Commission has prepared an Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

of the expected impact on small entities

of the proposals suggested in this

document. The IRFA is set forth above.

Written public comments are requested

on the IRFA. These comments must be

filed in accordance with the same filing

deadlines as comments on the rest of the

Notice, but they must have a separate

and distinct heading designating them

as responses to the Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis. The Secretary shall

send a copy of this Notice of Proposed

Rule Making, including the Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration in accordance

with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. Pub. L. 96–354, 94 Stat.

1164, 5 U.S.C. Section 601 et seq.

(1981).

28. Authority for the proposed

amendments is contained in Section 4(i)

and 303 of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Television broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–11284 Filed 5–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M