Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules 26863

Commodity Parts per

million

Bananas .................................... 5

Beans ........................................ 1

Beans, straw ............................. 1

Beets, sugar (roots) .................. 5

Beets, sugar (tops) ................... 5

Cattle, mbyp .............................. 0.2

Cattle, meat .............................. 0.2

Coffee beans ............................ 2

Corn, ear, dried (K+C) .............. 10

Corn, fodder .............................. 5

Corn, forage .............................. 5

Corn, fresh (including sweet

K+CWHR) ............................. 5

Corn, grain ................................ 10

Cottonseed ................................ 35

Cranberries ............................... 5

Eggs .......................................... 0.3

Flaxseed ................................... 75

Goats, mbyp ............................. 0.2

Goats, meat .............................. 0.2

Grapefruit .................................. 5

Grapes ...................................... 3

Grasses, pasture ...................... 10

Grasses, range ......................... 10

Hogs, mbyp ............................... 0.2

Hogs, meat ............................... 0.2

Lemons ..................................... 5

Limes ........................................ 5

Macadamia nuts ....................... 1

Milk ............................................ 0.1

Oranges .................................... 5

Peaches .................................... 15

Pears ......................................... 3

Peas, shelled ............................ 15

Peas, unshelled ........................ 15

Peas, vine, with pod ................. 15

Peas, vine, without pod ............ 15

Pecans ...................................... 0.1

Pineapples ................................ 3

Plums ........................................ 1

Potatoes .................................... 10

Poultry, (excluding kidney) ....... 3

Poultry, kidney .......................... 9

Sheep, mbyp ............................. 0.2

Sheep, meat ............................. 0.2

Sorghum ................................... 1

Sorghum, forage ....................... 5

Soybeans .................................. 1

Soybeans, straw ....................... 1

Sugarcane ................................. 0.1

Tangerines ................................ 5

Walnuts ..................................... 5

(b) A time-limited tolerance, with an

expiration date of May 1, 1999, is

established for residues of dalapon (2,2-

dichloropropionic acid) resulting from

application of dalapon sodiummagnesium salt mixtures to irrigation

ditch banks in the western United States

in or on the following raw agricultural

commodities. Where tolerances are

established at higher levels from other

uses of dalapon on the subject crops, the

higher tolerance applies also to residues

from the irrigation ditch bank use.

Commodity Parts per

million

Avocados .................................. 0.2

Citrus fruits ................................ 0.2

Cottonseed ................................ 0.2

Commodity Parts per

million

Cucurbits ................................... 0.5

Flaxseed ................................... 2.0

Fruits, pome .............................. 0.2

Fruits, small .............................. 0.2

Fruits, stone .............................. 0.2

Grain crops (exc wheat) ........... 0.5

Grasses, forage ........................ 2

Hops .......................................... 0.2

Legumes, forage ....................... 2

Nuts ........................................... 0.2

Vegetables, fruiting ................... 0.2

Vegetables, leafy ...................... 0.5

Vegetables, root crop ............... 0.2

Vegetables, seed and pod ........ 0.5

Wheat ........................................ 2

§ 180.161 [Removed]

f. By removing § 180.161 Manganous

dimethyldithio-carbamate; tolerances

for residues.

g. By revising § 180.230 Diphenamid;

tolerances for residues to read as

follows.

§ 180.230 Diphenamid; tolerances for

residues.

A time-limited tolerance with an

expiration date of May 1, 1999, is

established for the residues of the

herbicide dipenamid (N,N,-dimethyl2,2-diphenylacetamide) including its

desmethyl metabolite N-methyl-2,2-

diphenylacetamide in or on the raw

agricultural commodities as follows:

2 parts per million in or on peanut hay and

forage.

1 parts per million in or on potatoes and

strawberries.

0.5 parts per million in or on peanut hulls

and soybean hay and forage.

0.2 parts per million in or on cotton forage.

0.1 parts per million (negligible residue) in

or on apples, cottonseed, fruiting vegetables,

okra, peaches, peanuts, soybeans, and sweet

potatoes.

0.05 parts per million in or on (negligible

residue) in meat, fat, and meat byproducts of

cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep.

0.01 parts per million (negligible residue)

in milk.

1.0 parts per million in or on raspberries.

§ 180.244 [Removed]

h. By removing § 180.244 Basic zinc

sulfate; tolerances for residues.

§ 180.250 [Removed]

i. By removing § 180.250

Metobromuron; tolerances for residues.

§ 180.325 [Removed]

j. By removing § 180.325 2-(mChlorophenoxy) propionic acid;

tolerances for residues.

k. By revising § 180.344 4,6-Dinitro-ocresol and its sodium salt; tolerance for

residues to read as follows.

§ 180.344 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol and its sodium

salt; tolerance for residues.

A time-limited tolerance of 0.2 part

per million, with an expiration date of

May 1, 1999, is established for residues

of the plant regulators 4,6-dinitro-ocresol (DNOC) and its sodium salt in or

on the raw agricultural commodity

apples from application to apple trees at

the blossom stage as a fruit-thinning

agent.

§ 180.363 [Removed]

l. By removing § 180.363 Fluchloralin;

tolerances for residues.

PART 185—[AMENDED]

2. In part 185:

a. The authority citation for part 185

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 348.

b. By revising § 185.1500 Dalapon;

tolerances for residues to read as

follows.

§ 185.1500 Dalapon; tolerances for

residues.

A time-limited tolerance of 0.2 part

per million, with an expiration date of

May 1, 1999, is established for the

residues of the herbicide dalapon (2,2-

dichloropropionic acid) in potable water

when present therein as a result of the

application of dalapon sodiummagnesium salt mixtures to irrigation

ditch banks in the western United

States.

§ 185.2900 [Removed]

c. By removing § 185.2900 Ethyl

formate; tolerances for residues.

PART 186—[AMENDED]

3. In part 186:

a. The authority citation for part 186

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 348.

b. By revising § 186.1500 Dalapon;

tolerances for residues to read as

follows:

§ 186.1500 Dalapon; tolerances for

residues.

A time-limited tolerance of 20 parts

per million, with an expiration date of

May 1, 1999, is established for residues

of the herbicide dalapon (2,2-

dichloropropionic acid) in dehydrated

citrus pulp for cattle feed, when present

therein as a result of the application of

dalapon sodium salt or dalapon sodiummagnesium salt mixtures during the

growing of citrus fruit.

[FR Doc. 96–13442 Filed 5–28–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F
26864 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules

1ACATS Report at 19. The Advisory Committee

was formed by the Commission on October 16,

1987, pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee

Act (86 Stat. 770, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 § 1

et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. V)). It was established

‘‘to assist the Commission in considering the issues

surrounding the introduction of advanced

television service in the United States.’’ (Notice, 52

Fed. Reg. 38523 (October 16, 1987).) The Advisory

Committee consisted of a twenty-five member

parent committee and three subcommittees—

Planning, Systems and Implementation. Its

membership on the date that the ATSC DTV

Standard was recommended to the Commission is

at Appendix B.

2 In issuing this Notice, we are requesting

comment, inter alia, on whether to accept the

conclusions of the Final Report and

Recommendation of the Advisory Committee,

adopted November 28, 1995 (‘‘ACATS Report’’),

which recommends the Advanced Television

Systems Committee Standard A/53 (1995) ATSC

Digital Television Standard (‘‘ATSC DTV

Standard’’) as the standard for DTV broadcasting in

the United States. This standard is based on the

Advisory Committee design specifications and the

Digital HDTV Grand Alliance (‘‘Grand Alliance’’)

System. The ACATS Report is hereby incorporated

into the record of this proceeding. Copies of the

ACATS Report are available through the

Commission’s copy contractor, International

Transcription Services. Additionally, the ACATS

Report, ACATS Final Technical Report and ATSC

DTV Standard are available on the Internet at the

ATSC site (http://www.atsc.org).

3Notice of Inquiry in MM Docket No. 87–268,

(‘‘First Inquiry’’), 2 FCC Rcd 5125 (1987).

4 ‘‘ATSC’’ is the Advanced Television Systems

Committee. ATSC currently has 54 members

including television networks, motion picture and

television program producers, trade associations,

television and other electronic equipment

manufacturers and segments of the academic

community. It was formed by the member

organizations of the Joint Committee on

InterSociety Coordination (‘‘JCIC’’) for the purpose

of exploring the need for and, where appropriate,

to coordinate development of the documentation of

ATV systems. The JCIC is composed of the

Electronic Industries Association, the Institute of

Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the National

Association of Broadcasters, the National Cable

Television Association, and the Society of Motion

Picture and Television Engineers. The membership

of the ATSC when it adopted the ATSC DTV

Standard is at Appendix C.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Chapter I

[MM Docket No. 87–268; FCC: 96–207]

Broadcast Services; Television

Stations

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission proposes to

require digital broadcast television

licensees to use the digital television

(‘‘DTV’’) system described by the ATSC

(‘‘Advanced Television Systems

Committee’’) DTV Standard and

recommended to the Commission by the

Advisory Committee on Advanced

Television Service. The Commission

also proposes to adopt one or more

method of assuring that at some future

time the Standard does not inhibit

innovation and competition. The

intended effect is to ensure that all

affected partieis have sufficient

confidence and certainty in order to

promote the smooth introduction of a

free and universally available digital

broadcast television service while

encouraging technological innovation

and competition.

DATES: Comments are due by July 11,

1996, and reply comments are due by

August 12, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20554

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roger Holberg, Mass Media Bureau,

Policy and Rules Division (202) 418–

2134 or Saul Shapiro, Mass Media

Bureau, (202) 418–2600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Fifth

Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making

in MM Docket No. 87–268 , FCC 96–

207, adopted May 9, 1996, and released

May 20, 1996. The complete text of this

FNPRM is available for inspection and

copying during normal business hours

in the FCC Reference Center (Room

239), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,

D.C., and also may be purchased from

the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

(202) 857–3800, 2100 M Street, N.W.,

Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

Synopsis of Further Notice of Proposed

Rule Making

I. Introduction

1. In this proceeding we consider

adoption of a digital television (‘‘DTV’’)

broadcast standard. This action has been

recommended to the Commission by its

Advisory Committee on Advanced

Television Service (‘‘Advisory

Committee’’ or ‘‘ACATS’’).1 We have the

following objectives with regard to the

authorization and implementation of a

DTV standard.2 We seek to ensure that

all affected parties have sufficient

confidence and certainty in order to

promote the smooth introduction of a

free and universally available digital

broadcast television service. We seek to

increase the availability of new products

and services to consumers through the

introduction of digital broadcasting. We

seek to ensure that our rules encourage

technological innovation and

competition. And we seek to minimize

regulation and assure that any

regulations we do adopt remain in effect

no longer than necessary.

II. Background

2. On February 13, 1987, 58 broadcast

organizations (‘‘Petitioners’’) filed a

joint ‘‘Petition for Notice of Inquiry’’

asking the Commission to initiate a

proceeding to explore issues arising

from the advent of new and advanced

television (‘‘ATV’’) technologies and

their possible impact, in either

broadcast or non-broadcast uses, on

existing television broadcast service. On

July 16, 1987, as a result of the

comments it received in response to the

petition, the Commission inaugurated

the instant proceeding, ‘‘to consider the

technical and public policy issues

surrounding the use of advanced

television technologies by television

broadcast licensees.’’ 3

3. The Commission empaneled the

Advisory Committee on Advanced

Television Service (ACATS) shortly

after having opened the inquiry phase of

this proceeding. Among other activities,

ACATS designed the detailed testing

plans for the system and conducted

substantial related studies.

4. On May 24, 1993 the three groups

that had developed the four final DTV

systems examined by ACATS agreed to

produce a single, best-of-the-best system

to propose as the standard. The three

ventures that joined to become the

‘‘Grand Alliance’’ consisted of AT&T

and Zenith Electronics Corporation;

General Instrument Corporation and

Massachusetts Institute of Technology;

and Philips Electronics North America

Corporation, Thomson Consumer

Electronics, and the David Sarnoff

Research Center. The standard

recommended by ACATS and now

before us is based on the system

developed, built, and proposed by the

Digital HDTV Grand Alliance proposal

to ACATS. The system described by the

ATSC4 DTV Standard having been

successfully designed, built and tested,

in November 1995, the Advisory

Committee voted to recommend the

Commission’s adoption of the ATSC

DTV Standard.

5. We believe that the ATSC DTV

Standard embodies the world’s best

digital television technology and

promises to permit striking

improvements to today’s television

pictures and sound; to permit the

provision of additional services and

programs; to permit integration of future

substantial improvements while

maintaining compatibility with initial

receivers; and to permit interoperability

with computers and other digital

equipment associated with the national

information initiative.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules 26865

5 NTSC refers to the current analog television

system. It is named for the National Television

System Committee, an industry group that

developed the monochrome (black and white)

television standard in 1940–41 and the color

television standard in 1950–53.

6MPEG–2 is a video compression and transport

standard created by the Moving Picture Experts

Group of the International Organization for

Standardization (ISO).

III. The ATSC DTV Standard

6. The five components described in

the annexes to the ATSC DTV Standard

are video coding, audio coding,

transport, RF/transmission and receiver.

These five basic components, plus a

video format selection function, are

sometimes referred to as comprising

‘‘layers’’ of the system. Compliance with

the ATSC DTV Standard requires some

of its provisions be followed, but many

of these provisions include numerous

acceptable options that the system’s

users may select. In addition to the

required provisions, some additional

provisions of the ATSC DTV Standard

are recommended but not required, and

others are optional. Finally, although it

describes the coding and transmission

of television video and audio, it also

allows transmission of a variety of other

services as ‘‘ancillary data.’’ This

structure makes the system described by

the ATSC DTV Standard extremely

flexible and gives it room to incorporate

a wide range of future improvements.

7. Format selection: The ATSC DTV

Standard supports a variety of scanning

formats. Table I shows the number of

scanning lines and horizontal picture

elements (or pixels) per line, which

affect resolution. The 720-line and 1080-

line formats below represent high

resolution video. The lower-resolution

480-line formats accommodate existing

NTSC5 programming and equipment as

well as material designed for viewing on

VGA computer monitors.

TABLE I

Vertical lines Horizontal pixels Aspect

ratio Picture rate

1080 ......................................................................... 1920 ........................................................................... 16:9 60I 30P 24P

720 ......................................................................... 1280 ........................................................................... 16:9 60P 30P 24P

480 ......................................................................... 704 ........................................................................... 16:9 4:3 60I 60P 30P 24P

480 ......................................................................... 640 ........................................................................... 4:3 60I 60P 30P 24P

8. Table I also indicates that the highresolution formats both use a picture

aspect ratio of 16 units horizontally by

9 units vertically (that is, a picture 16

inches wide would be 9 inches tall or

one 32 inches wide would be 18 inches

tall). The choices of 1280 pixels per line

for the 720-line format and 1920 pixels

per line for the 1080-line format result

in square pixels (that is, pixels which

are displayed at equal distances, both

horizontally and vertically) for both

formats, based on the 16:9 aspect ratio.

Material in the 480-line by 704-pixel

format could use either a 16:9 or a 4:3

aspect ratio.

9. The picture rates specified in Table

I identify the number of images that are

sent each second, with an ‘‘I’’

designating interlaced scanning and a

‘‘P’’ designating progressive scanning.

Progressive scanning lines are presented

in succession from the top of the picture

to the bottom, with a complete image

sent in each frame as is commonly

found in computer displays today. For

interlaced scanning, which also is used

in NTSC television, odd and even

numbered lines of the picture are sent

consecutively, as two separate fields.

These two fields are superimposed to

create one frame, or complete picture, at

the receiver. The picture rates can be 24,

30 or 60 fields per second.

10. Video coding: For compression of

video signals, the ATSC DTV Standard

requires conformance with the main

profile syntax of the MPEG–2 video

standard.6 Employing this standard, the

amount of data needed to represent

television pictures is reduced using a

variety of tools, including a motion

compensated discrete cosine transform

(DCT) algorithm and bidirectional-frame

(B-frame) prediction. Each of these tools

serves to improve compression

efficiency by reducing the total amount

of digital information that needs to be

transmitted.

11. Audio coding: For compression of

audio signals, the ATSC DTV Standard

requires conformance with ATSC Doc.

A/52, the Digital Audio Compression

(AC–3) Standard. The AC–3 perceptual

coding system, which was developed by

Dolby Labs, can encode a complete

main audio service which includes left,

center, right, left surround, right

surround, and low frequency

enhancement channels into a bit stream

at a rate of 384 kilobits per second

(kbps). Audio service can also include

fewer channels (down to single channel,

monophonic service) using a lower bit

rate.

12. Transport: The service multiplex

and transport layer of the ATSC DTV

Standard is a compatible subset of the

MPEG–2 systems standard that

describes a means of delivering a digital

data stream in fixed-length ‘‘packets’’ of

information. Each packet contains only

one type of data: video, audio or

ancillary. There is no fixed mix of

packet types, which further helps

provide flexibility. Channel capacity

can be dynamically allocated in the

transport layer, under the direct control

of the broadcaster. Within the transport

layer, the packets of video, audio, closed

captioning and any other data

associated with a single digital

television program are combined using

a mechanism to ensure that the sound,

pictures and closed captioning

information can be synchronized at the

receiver. Data describing multiple

television programs, or unrelated data

for other purposes, are also combined in

the transport layer.

13. RF/Transmission: The

transmission layer of the ATSC DTV

Standard uses a vestigial sideband

(VSB) technique with a small pilot

carrier added at the suppressed carrier

frequency. The relationship of the pilot

carrier frequency to interference to

lower adjacent channel NTSC service is

discussed in the ‘‘interference’’ section

below.

14. Terrestrial broadcasts of DTV will

be exposed to situations that include

strong interfering signals,

electromagnetic noise from numerous

sources, and configurations of buildings

or terrain features that cause multipath

interference. For successful reception

under these difficult conditions, an 8-

level VSB signal is specified and

extensive error correction is provided.

Taking into account the transport

requirements and error correction, the

8–VSB signal carries an effective useful

payload of approximately 19.28

megabits per second (Mbps). For more

benign environments, like that provided

in a cable system, the ATSC DTV
26866 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules

7For a discussion of the benefits of standards, see

Stanley M. Besen and Leland L. Johnson,

Compatibility Standards, Competition, and

Innovation in the Broadcast Industry (Santa

Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation, 1986) at 7–9.

8 First Inquiry, supra at 5135.

9 1Id.

10Tentative Decision and Further Notice of

Inquiry in MM Docket No. 87–268 (‘‘Second

Inquiry’’), 3 FCC Rcd 6520, 6534 (1988).

11 Id. at 6534–35.

12 Id. at 6535.

13 First Report and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 5626, 5628

(1990).

14 Id.

15 ACATS Report at 17.

16Stanley M. Besen and Garth Saloner, ‘‘The

Economics of Telecommunications Standards,’’ in

Changing the Rules: Technological Change,

International Competition, and Regulation in

Communications, Robert W. Crandall and Kenneth

Flamm, editors (The Brookings Institute, 1989).

17Seventy-two percent of Americans rely on

television as their primary source of news. NTVA,

Roper-Starch, NAB, America’s Watching—Public

Attitudes Toward Television-1995, at 17.

Standard includes a 16-level VSB high

data rate mode that provides double the

capacity of the 8-level VSB terrestrial

broadcast mode.

15. Receiver: The ATSC DTV

Standard does not specify requirements

for a compliant receiver. In essence, the

DTV receiver designs are to be based on

the specifications of the signal

contained in the other portions of the

Standard. The receiver reverses the

functions of the RF/transmission and

transport layers, and, after

decompression, generates video and

audio suitable for its display.

16. Flexibility. The ATSC DTV

Standard provides a method of

accommodating a broad range of uses.

The packetized transport structure is a

critical component in achieving this

broad level of flexibility. Scrambled

packets can be sent, which allows

conditional access subscription or payper-view services to be delivered.

17. Extensibility. In the future, new

services may be uniquely identified

through the use of new packet

identifiers that would be ignored by

previously deployed digital receivers.

Such data could be used to augment

DTV programs or could permit new

services that have not yet been

envisioned. Either extension of the DTV

service would require new DTV

receivers or new decoder devices to be

developed and used in order to obtain

the benefits of the new service or

functionality, but would not disrupt

provision of DTV service to consumers

using existing sets. The marketplace

would determine the extent to which

sets with new functionalities are

available.

IV. Adopting the ATSC DTV Standard

18. There is near universal agreement

that transmission standards, either de

facto or de jure, confer many benefits.7

We believe that the proposals discussed

herein would enable consumers,

licensees and equipment manufacturers

to realize the benefits of standards

without unduly restricting innovation

and competition.

19. Previous Statements. Previously,

we have asked whether mandatory

transmission standards serve the public

interest. In our initial 1987 Notice of

Inquiry in this proceeding, we noted

that NTSC standards were established

during the television industry’s infancy

when universal compatibility standards

were arguably necessary in order to

develop a national television

broadcasting system in a timely

manner.8 However, we also stated that

the continuation of mandatory

standards may no longer be necessary

and may even be counterproductive.9

20. In the 1988 Second Inquiry, we

continued our examination of whether

the NTSC standard should be relaxed or

repealed, how standards should be

established for advanced television, and

whether it would be desirable to require

compatibility between advanced

television broadcast transmissions and

other ATV distribution media.10 In this

regard, we asserted that establishing a

standard has certain advantages such as

pointing the various interested parties

in the same direction, reducing the risk

to both audiences and broadcasters of

investments in systems that might

become obsolete if a different system is

introduced in the market, and

overcoming reluctance to invest in new

equipment.11 We also stated that,

‘‘detailed, inflexible standards that have

the force of law may reduce consumer

choice and prevent the timely

introduction of new technology.’’ 12

21. Subsequent to our statements

concerning standards in the 1987 and

1988 decisions, as described above, we

concluded in 1990 that ‘‘[c]onsistent

with our goal of ensuring excellence in

ATV service, we intend to select a

simulcast high definition television

system.’’ 13 We also stated that, ‘‘parties

filing comments in response to the

Further Notice generally assume that the

Commission will ultimately authorize a

system using new technology that will

provide HDTV service.’’ (Footnote

omitted.) 14 The Commission’s

November 14, 1990 Memorandum of

Understanding with the Advisory

Committee, the Advanced Television

Test Center, Inc., Cable Television

Laboratories, Inc., and the Canadian

Communications Research Centre, said,

‘‘[t]he FCC’s stated intention is to select

an ATV standard by the second quarter

of 1993.’’

22. Recent Developments. Two recent

developments are relevant to whether

and, if so, what form of a required

standard is desirable. First, the presence

of multiple competing systems

strengthened the argument for selecting

a standard. Today, only one system has

been recommended by our Advisory

Committee and no other competing

technology appears to demonstrate

superiority over the ATSC DTV

Standard.15 Thus, concerns with the

possibility of multiple competing

systems may be less relevant today.

23. Second, prior to the development

of the ATSC DTV Standard, it was

widely believed that the service offered

by a licensee would change from one

NTSC program stream to one HDTV

program stream. Today’s digital

technologies and improved compression

techniques create the opportunity for

delivering one, and under special

circumstances perhaps two, HDTV

program streams, or multiple program

streams at lower resolution.

Furthermore, digital technologies give

each licensee the technical capacity to

explore new business opportunities and

provide new services. If the ATSC DTV

Standard is as dynamic as believed, a

required standard will not thwart

technical advance.

24. Analysis of Required Standards.

The traditional rationale for requiring a

standard arises when two conditions are

met.16 First, that there is a substantial

public benefit from a standard. Second,

private industry either will not, or

cannot, produce a standard because the

private costs of getting involved in

standard setting outweigh the private

benefits, or a number of different

standards have been developed and

private industry cannot agree which

should become the standard. The

second condition may not be applicable

in view of the strong industry

coalescence around the ATSC DTV

Standard. However, we believe that the

first condition applies to DTV.

Television today is a ubiquitous service

that is available to almost every

American household and is relied on by

a majority of Americans as their primary

news and information source.17

25. A required standard may provide

additional certainty to consumers,

licensees, and equipment

manufacturers, especially during the

launch of this new technology. A

required standard may protect

consumers against losses by assuring

them that their investments in DTV

equipment will not be made obsolete by

a different technology. In addition,

requiring use of a single standard
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules 26867

18For an overview of the characteristics of the

television broadcast market that contribute to the

inertia of established standards see Bruce M. Owen

and Steven S. Wildman, Video Economics, (Harvard

University Press, 1992): 260–313. For a more

general discussion of the characteristics of one-way

and two-way communications systems that affect

the adoption of technology see Michael L. Katz and

Carl Shapiro, ‘‘Systems Competition and Network

Effects,’’ Journal of Economic Perspectives (Spring

1994): 93–115.

19 Katz and Shapiro, supra at 110.

20Stanley M. Besen and Joseph Farrell, ‘‘Choosing

How to Compete: Strategies and Tactics in

Standardization, Journal of Economic Perspectives

(Spring 1994): 117–131.

21America’s Watching—Public Attitudes Toward

Television—1995, supra, at p. 3. Even nearly 60%

of viewing in cable television households is of the

programming of broadcast television stations.

NCTA, Cable Television Developments, Fall 1995,

at 5.

22See Letter dated April 2, 1996, submitted for

the record by Joseph P. Markoski of the law firm

of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey on behalf of the EIA

and the EIA Advanced Television Committee. The

letter cites as precedent for incorporating the

standard into our Rules by reference Sections

73.682(a)(14), 73.682(a)(21)(iv) and 15.31(a)(6) of

the Commission’s Rules. A similar, but alternative,

proposal would be to publish the Standard not in

our Rules but, rather, as an OET technical bulletin.

guarantees compatibility. This assures

consumers that the DTV equipment they

purchase to view one television station

can be used to view every other

television station. The compatibility

guaranteed by a single required standard

may also reduce consumer costs by

eliminating the need to purchase

duplicative equipment or special

devices to convert from one standard to

another. Finally, a required standard

may lead to a more rapid development

and acceptance of DTV equipment.

Absent a required standard, some

consumers and licensees may be

reluctant to purchase DTV equipment if

they believe that different DTV

technologies may become available in

the near future. A required standard

may reduce such ‘‘wait and see’’

behavior.

26. Although there are benefits to

required standards, there also may be

certain costs. One may be deterrence of

technical innovations.18 Over time, we

expect that normal technological

progress will lead to improvements. If

subsequent technological improvements

cannot be readily incorporated into the

ATSC DTV Standard, the Standard

could lock the broadcast market into

less than optimal technology. Required

standards also may reduce some forms

of competition while enhancing others.

With required standards, equipment

manufacturers cannot compete by

offering differentiated products using

different technologies. As such, a

primary cost of required standards is

loss of variety.19 On the other hand,

required standards, which are licensed

to everyone on a non-discriminatory

basis, may intensify the more

conventional forms of competition, such

as price, service, and product features.20

27. As we weigh the benefits and

costs of required standards, we note that

for MMDS and new services like PCS,

DBS, and DARS, we have decided to

allow the marketplace to determine

transmission standards. We recognize

that these decisions were made in a

context different from that of terrestrial

broadcast television, an established

industry upon which the American

people rely for both information and

entertainment. Additionally, unlike

these other services, free over-the-air

broadcast television is a mass market

media serving nearly all of the

American public nationwide rather than

a subscription service in which the

service provider may supply the

reception equipment.21 In this context,

the goals of certainty and reliability take

on a different significance than may

have been present with respect to other

communications services and

strengthens the case for our adoption of

a DTV standard.

28. Proposal. We propose to adopt the

ATSC DTV Standard. We tentatively

conclude that requiring the use of the

ATSC DTV Standard is appropriate

because it would provide a measure of

certainty and confidence to

manufacturers, broadcasters and

consumers, thus helping assure a

smooth implementation of digital

broadcast television and the

preservation of a free and universally

available broadcast television service.

29. The digital television system that

has been recommended by the Advisory

Committee appears to be dynamic,

flexible and high quality. It provides a

variety of picture formats that will allow

broadcasters to select the one most

appropriate for their program material,

ranging from very high resolution

providing the best possible picture

quality to multiple programs of lower

resolution, which could result in

increased choices for viewers. Even at

the lower resolutions, the recommended

system represents a clear improvement

over the current NTSC standard.

30. Use of the ATSC DTV Standard

also represents a rare opportunity to

increase significantly the efficient use of

broadcast spectrum. The ATSC DTV

Standard will allow channels unusable

in the NTSC analog environment to be

assigned for digital broadcasting

between existing NTSC channels. It was

designed to be flexible enough to

incorporate future improvements,

including those resulting in ever higher

resolution, that the Advisory Committee

believes will be made possible by future

advances in compression and display

technology.

31. We believe that the ‘‘headroom’’

for innovation incorporated in the ATSC

DTV Standard, along with the

desirability of providing certainty and

confidence, argue in favor of a required

standard. In addition, the flexibility of

the ATSC DTV Standard significantly

reduces some of the potential

detriments associated with a required

standard as the new technology is being

launched. The packetized structure of

the data transport, as described above,

ensures a flexibility that will permit the

DTV licensee to provide, for instance,

several standard definition programs, or

one high-definition program, or some

standard definition programming

together with data transfer or electronic

publishing on the remaining bit streams,

and to switch instantaneously between

such applications. Other applications

are limited primarily by the imagination

of the DTV licensee. This means that a

wide array of innovations can be

introduced without Commission action.

32. We seek comment on the tentative

conclusion that we will require use of

the ATSC DTV Standard. Assuming that

we do require the use of the ATSC DTV

Standard by digital television licensees,

we request comment on whether we

should place the Standard into our rules

in its entirety or whether we should

incorporate it by reference.22

33.While we propose to require digital

television licensees to use the ATSC

DTV Standard, we recognize that the

benefits of a required standard may

become attenuated over time, as the

costs of a requirement may increase. At

some point, when the new digital

broadcasting technology has become

firmly established, requirements

designed to promote certainty and to

foster a smooth implementation of

digital television may no longer be

necessary. Meanwhile, over time, the

likelihood increases that there will be

technological innovation that even the

flexible ATSC DTV Standard may not be

able to accommodate. In addition, given

the pace of technological change, it is

likely that there will be unforeseeable

innovations that are incompatible with

the ATSC DTV Standard. As long as

there is a requirement in our rules that

DTV licensees use only the ATSC DTV

Standard, such innovations could not be

introduced to consumers without a

potentially costly and time-consuming

Commission proceeding. That, in turn,

could reduce the incentive to conduct

the research and development that leads

to innovation.

34.In addition to ensuring that the

Commission’s rules promote the rapid
26868 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules

23Preamble to Pub. L. 104–104, 110 Stat. 56

(1996).

24 These options are not necessarily

incompatible. For example, we could adopt a sunset

provision but also provide for Commission review

of the Standard prior to the sunset.

25Second Inquiry, supra at 6535.

26 Id.

27See Comments of Apple Computer, Inc., and

Microsoft Corporation, in response to the Fourth

Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Third

Notice of Inquiry in MM Docket No. 87–268

(‘‘Fourth Further Notice’’), 10 FCC Rcd 10540

(1995).

28Letter of Stanley Baron, President, Society of

Motion Picture and Television Engineers

(‘‘SMPTE’’), 28 August 1995, at 2, Memo of Paul

Misener, ACATS, to Fiona Branton, ITI (‘‘Misener

Memo’’), August 18, 1995, at 1–2. Reply Comments

of the Digital HDTV Grand Alliance, in response to

the Fourth Further Notice, at 38 and 40.

29Reply Comments of the HDTV Grand Alliance,

supra at 40.

30Letter of Stanley Baron, President, Society of

Motion Picture and Television Engineers, 18 August

1995, at 2.

31 Id. at 3. In this regard it notes that there is a

broad range of aspect ratios that has been employed

in modern times and that there is no single aspect

ratio that is usable universally.

32See, e.g., Comments of Abacus Television in

response to the Fourth Further Notice, at 24–25.

introduction of digital television

broadcasting, we seek in this proceeding

to adopt rules that encourage further

innovation by those who have devised

the ATSC DTV Standard as well as new

entrants. We also seek to minimize our

regulations and to have the regulations

that we do adopt remain in effect no

longer than necessary. We are mindful,

finally, of the spirit of the recently

adopted Telecommunications Act of

1996, which seeks, ‘‘[t]o promote

competition and reduce regulation in

order to secure lower prices and higher

quality services for American

telecommunications consumers and

encourage the rapid deployment of new

telecommunications technologies.’’ 23

35. There are several options that

arguably could accomplish these goals

and we propose to adopt one, or more

than one in combination.24 The

Commission could proceed under its

current processes for regulatory

evolution and change, which include

consideration, as appropriate, of

requests from parties to amend its rules

and reviews initiated by the agency.

36. Alternatively, the Commission

could commit itself to conduct a

proceeding to review the Standard at

some future time. If the Commission

chooses this option, should a review be

structured to place the burden of

persuasion on those seeking to continue

requiring a standard or on those seeking

to eliminate the requirement? When

should such a review take place?

Should we select a specific date or

should we link the review to an

objective event?

37. Finally, the Commission could

establish a period of time after which

the ATSC DTV Standard no longer

would be required or exclusive. At the

conclusion of some meaningful period

of time, digital licensees would be free

to use any technology that does not

interfere with users of the ATSC DTV

Standard. If such a sunset provision

were to be adopted, how should we

determine when the mandatory aspects

of our rules would expire?

38. Commenters are encouraged to

comment on the foregoing and to

propose other options. In so doing, they

should provide a thorough explanation

of the benefits and detriments of their

options and an explanation of how their

options serve the goals that we have

outlined above.

39.Finally, we seek comment on

alternative approaches to requiring a

standard, including those the

Commission has previously identified:

(1) authorizing use of a standard and

prohibiting interference to it, but not

requiring the use of that standard; 25 and

(2) adopting a standard for allocation

and assignment purposes only.26 We

also seek comment on requiring use of

some layers of the ATSC DTV Standard

(described more fully above) but making

others optional. For example, would it

be desirable to require digital licensees

to use the RF/transmission layer of the

ATSC DTV Standard, while leaving

them free to choose coding and

compression technologies different from

those described in the ATSC DTV

Standard?

40. Acceptability of the ATSC DTV

Standard. Although the ATSC DTV

Standard has many supporters, it also

has its critics. Some in the computer

industry argue that the presence of

interlaced scanning formats, the 60 Hz

transmission rate, aspect ratios,

colorimetry and non-square pixel

spacing in the ATSC DTV Standard all

merit further consideration.27

Proponents of the ATSC DTV Standard

respond that the Standard was

developed for terrestrial broadcasting

but has incorporated significant

elements to enhance compatibility with

computers.28 With respect to the issue of

the presence of interlaced scanning in

the proposed Standard, the Grand

Alliance argues that, ‘‘* * * the Grand

Alliance HDTV system emphasizes

progressive scan—five of the six HDTV

formats are progressive scan, and the

Advisory Committee believes that the

lone interlaced format should be

‘migrated’ to progressive as soon as

improvements in digital compression

and transmission technology make an

over-1000 line, 60 Hz progressively

scanned format achievable within a 6

MHz terrestrial channel.’’ 29

41. There also has been objection from

cinematographers to the 16:9 aspect

ratio contained in the ATSC DTV

Standard. They are concerned that the

proposed Standard may limit

broadcasters’ ability to display the full

artistic quality of their work. They

suggest, instead, that HDTV be

displayed in a 2:1 aspect ratio. In reply,

the Society of Motion Picture and

Television Engineers (SMPTE) states

that the 16:9 aspect ratio was

established by the SMPTE Working

Group on High Definition Electronic

Production in 1985 on the basis of

studies of the requirement for both

motion picture and television

production. Moreover, it states that the

value of 16:9 for aspect ratio was

decided upon only after long debate and

that ‘‘due consideration was given to the

then current practices both in North

America and around the world.’’ 30

SMPTE states that it has been

demonstrated that there is no difficulty

in accommodating program material or

motion picture films of any reasonable

aspect ratio within the 16:9 format and

that material originally composed for a

2:1 aspect ratio could be accommodated

by leaving 11% of the vertical space

unused.31

42. Additionally, we note that low

power television station (‘‘LPTV’’)

operators generally want to be included

in the implementation of digital

technology, and have suggested that, if

LPTV is excluded, its continued

viability would be jeopardized. LPTV

commenters are concerned that any

standards that could adversely affect

their operations be thoroughly

documented in this proceeding.32

43. We seek comment on these issues.

We believe that those opposing our

mandate of the ATSC DTV Standard

should have the burden of persuasion as

to why that standard should not be

adopted.

V. Protection From Interference

44. Protection from interference is a

fundamental Commission function that

must be considered when introducing

new technologies into spectrum

allocations currently in use. In addition

to criteria we will propose in the near

future, when we propose an initial

Table of DTV Allotments and associated

technical criteria, there are some

interference-related aspects of the ATSC

DTV Standard that we shall explore

now. In the following paragraphs, we

solicit comment on limitations on

stations using the ATSC DTV Standard

that might be needed to avoid
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules 26869

33ACATS Final Technical Report at 5.2.8.

34See Annex to ACATS Report, Record of Test

Results for Digital HDTV Grand Alliance System

(October 1995), at I–14–67.

35This description of the ACATS position on

interoperability is largely derived from the ACATS

Report at 15–16.

36ACATS Report, Appendix I.

37ACATS Report at 16. See also Information

Technology Industry Council, ‘‘Position Statement

on Standards for Advanced Television,’’ October

31, 1995, at 1–2. We note that subsequently ITI

stated that the ATSC DTV Standard ‘‘will be an

important part of a diverse and flexible NII’’ and

‘‘urges the Commission to promptly adopt and

implement’’ it, but without the interlace options,

stating that it believes ‘‘a truly interoperable ATV

system will require the exclusive use of progressive

scan.’’ See Comments of the Industry Information

Technology Industry Council filed in response to

the Fourth Further Notice, at 2–3.

38Second Inquiry, supra at 6537.

objectionable interference to reception

of either existing NTSC service or the

reception of other stations that use the

ATSC DTV Standard.

45. First, we propose to adopt an

emission mask, limiting the out-ofchannel emissions from a DTV station

transmitter, measured after any external

filter that may be used and based on a

measurement bandwidth of 500 kHz.

We seek comment on the following

emission mask: (A) at the channel edge,

emissions attenuated no less than 35 dB

below the average transmitted power;

(B) more than 6 MHz from the channel

edge, emissions attenuated no less than

60 dB below the average transmitted

power; and (C) at any frequency

between 0 and 6 MHz from the channel

edge, emissions attenuated no less than

the value determined using the

following formula:

Attenuation in dB=35+[(∆f)2/1.44]

Where: ∆f=frequency difference in MHz

from the edge of the channel

This proposal is derived from analysis

of the ACATS test results for protection

of adjacent channel stations. The

attenuation level is based on an

assumption that the average DTV power

in a 6 MHz channel is 12 dB less than

the NTSC station effective radiated

power (ERP). This power difference

provides approximately equal noise

limited coverage for DTV and NTSC

stations in the UHF frequency band. If

DTV stations are permitted to operate in

a co-located adjacent channel

arrangement with average DTV power

exceeding that assumed value, greater

attenuation of the out-of-band emissions

may be required.

46. Second, ACATS has reported

interference from an upper-adjacent

channel DTV signal to reception of an

NTSC station that is related to the

precise location of the DTV signal pilot

carrier frequency.33 To prevent

interference to NTSC receivers from this

source, we are proposing to require an

ATSC DTV Standard station pilot

frequency to be located 5.082138 MHz

above the visual carrier of the lower

adjacent channel NTSC station. The

above stated frequency difference

between the NTSC visual carrier and the

DTV VSB pilot would need to be

maintained within a tolerance of ±3

Hz.34

47. Third, we propose to specify the

maximum power for each DTV station

as an average power across the occupied

bandwidth, so an appropriate method or

methods of determining operating

power will be different from the

established NTSC procedures, which

determine the power transmitted during

each synchronizing pulse (peak power).

We propose that stations using the

ATSC DTV Standard would be allowed

to determine their average power using

conventional RMS averaging power

meters.

48. We seek comment on all of the

foregoing including whether the

proposed limits on out-of-channel

emissions, pilot carrier frequency

tolerance and average power

determination are appropriate and

represent the minimum necessary

requirements for controlling the

interference potential of stations

operating in conformance with the

ATSC DTV Standard. We also seek

comment on whether the proposed

limits are sufficient for this purpose, or

if other parameters also need to be

constrained.

49. In addition to rules restricting

broadcast stations that relate to

interference concerns, there are many

rules that establish procedures or have

been applied broadly to all broadcast

stations. We propose to modify many of

them to include DTV, or to adapt them

and create new DTV rules, as

appropriate so that eligible licensees

might move quickly to introduce this

new technology to consumers. A

preliminary list of these technical and

procedural rules is attached as

Appendix A. We seek comment on

whether they should be modified to

include DTV, be changed to treat DTV

differently than NTSC or other

broadcast services are treated, or if they

need not be applied to DTV.

Commenters addressing this issue

should provide specific

recommendations, rule-by-rule, as to the

modifications they advocate.

VI. Interoperability

50. Cross-Industry Interoperability.

Compatibility with other transmission

forms and media applications has been

an important issue throughout this

proceeding. Since its inception, ACATS

emphasized the need for DTV

broadcasting technology to be

interoperable with alternative media.35

In addition, ACATS has recognized that

interoperability takes on critical

importance given the future needs for

high resolution digital imagery and the

development of a National Information

Infrastructure. ACATS believes that the

ATSC DTV Standard is suitably

interoperable with other video delivery

media and imaging systems, including

cable television, direct broadcast

satellite, and computer systems.

51. The working party and an

‘‘interoperability review panel’’ also

adopted a list of eleven characteristics

critical to interoperability based on the

needs and desires exhibited by

alternative media advocates.36 ACATS

believes the Grand Alliance video

system adequately addresses all eleven

factors and strikes the best balance

between various technical

considerations and needs of different

industries. It is a balance that has been

endorsed by, among others, a subgroup

of the Federal Government’s

Information Infrastructure Task Force,

the 1994 NIST/ARPA Workshop on

Advanced Digital Video, and the

Information Technology Industry

Council (‘‘ITI’’).37 We request comment

on the level of interoperability between

the ATSC DTV Standard and alternative

media and on the ACATS Report’s

conclusion that it is adequate. Are there

any critical interoperability problems

that remain? What additional actions, if

any, might the Commission take to

facilitate interoperability? We ask that

in commenting on this issue,

commenters provide specific technical

or economic analyses upon which we

can make our decision.

52. With digital technologies,

differences in transmission methods

could develop between broadcast and

alternative media if an appropriate

variant of the ATSC DTV Standard is

not required for alternative media.

There is no guarantee that alternative

media will choose the ATSC DTV

Standard. In our Second Inquiry, we

expressed ‘‘our tentative view that ATV

compatibility among alternative media

also may develop in an appropriate

manner without government

involvement.’’ 38 While we recognized

that there may be benefits to

compatibility, we added that ‘‘we do not

intend to retard the introduction of ATV

on non-broadcast media, nor do we

intend at this point to require

compatibility among the various media

or set specific signal or equipment
26870 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules

39 Id.

40See Cable Television Consumer Protection and

Competition Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102–385, 106

Stat. 1460, (1992). Section 17 of the 1992 Cable Act

added a new Section 624A to the Communications

Act of 1934, which has been implemented by First

Report and Order in ET Docket No. 93–7, 9 FCC

Rcd 1981 (1994). Section 301 of the Telecom Act,

in turn, has modified Section 624A.

41 Id. at 10552.

42ATSC DTV Standard at 61–64. Note that it

describes ‘‘appropriate’’ as meaning that the

existing rules for NTSC which are referenced

contain most elements of future rules for digital

television and, further, the rules may be expanded

to cover digital television.

43 First Report and Order in ET Docket No. 93–

7, supra. Although the Commission adopted

requirements for television receivers to be marketed

as ‘‘cable-ready,’’ an open issue in that proceeding

is a standard for a decoder interface.

44ACATS Report at 20.

45See, e.g., Comments of the Electronic Industries

Association and the Advanced Television

Committee at 16. See also Comments of Zenith

Electronics Corporation at 4.

46Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket

No. 87–268, 6 FCC Rcd 7024, 7035 (1991); Second

Report and Order/Further Notice of Proposed Rule

Making in MM Docket No. 87–268, 7 FCC Rcd 3340,

3358 (1992); Memorandum Opinion and Order/

Third Report and Order/Third Further Notice of

Proposed Rule Making in MM Docket 87–268, 7

FCC Rcd 6924, 6982 (1992).

47Advisory Committee ATV Test Procedures Test

Management Plan at § 2.1.

48Pub. L. No. 104–104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).

49ATSC DTV Standard at 26.

standards for this purpose.’’ 39 We seek

comment on whether this view remains

correct.

53. In the Cable Television Consumer

Protection and Competition Act of 1992

(1992 Cable Act), Congress expressed

concern about compatibility between

consumer electronics equipment and

cable systems.40 We are aware of

concern within the broadcast industry

that, for example, cable systems may

voluntarily adopt QAM modulation in

lieu of VSB modulation specified in the

ATSC DTV Standard. Some cable

system operators suggest deploying a

DTV system that does not use B-frames.

While we understand that technical

distinctions between broadcast and

cable may at some extreme cause

consumer harm, we also recognize that

it is in the economic interests of the

providers to ensure consumers have

access to the most desirable

programming. Today, nearly 60 percent

of cable viewing hours are spent

watching broadcast programming, much

of which is provided under

retransmission consent agreements. In

light of these concerns, we seek

comment on whether the public interest

would be served by Commission

involvement to assure compatibility

between digital broadcast standards and

digital cable standards. Similarly, there

would appear to be advantages and

disadvantages to Commission

involvement to assure compatibility

between other existing and potential

competing video delivery methods,

including DBS, MMDS, Instructional

Television Fixed Service (‘‘ITFS’’) and

open video systems. We seek comment

on the considerations that apply in

these different environments.

VII. Other Issues

54. Receiver Standards and Related

Features. In the Fourth Further Notice,

we solicited comment on whether DTV

receivers should be required to have the

ability to receive both SDTV and HDTV

transmissions, whether we should

regulate how such signals should be

displayed and whether permitting the

manufacture only of ‘‘all format’’

receivers capable of displaying NTSC,

SDTV and HDTV signals would be

consistent with the All-Channel

Receiver Act or otherwise in the public

interest.41

55. Now, however, we have the ATSC

DTV Standard before us. In Annex E, it

indicates that our current TV rules

should be appropriate for the digital TV

service with respect to tuner

performance, direct pickup and closed

captioning.42 It notes that a 10 dB ‘‘noise

figure’’ was used for spectrum planning

purposes and it expects that value to be

appropriate. Additionally, the ATSC

DTV Standard indicates that any

decoder interface standards we adopt

for NTSC ‘‘cable-ready’’ receivers in ET

Docket No. 93–7 will almost certainly

provide a basis for rules concerning this

aspect of digital TV receivers.43 In its

Final Report, the Technical Subgroup of

ACATS recommended that the

Commission require that receivers (and

set-top boxes designed to receive ATV

broadcasts for display on NTSC sets) be

able to receive adequately all DTV

formats.44 In response to the Fourth

Further Notice, some commenters

expressed concerned that such a

requirement might have a large effect on

either reception quality or receiver

costs.45 We request comment on the

importance of this requirement for

compatibility between receivers and

broadcast signals. What level of

reception performance should be

considered adequate? Given our

proposal that licensees must use the

ATSC DTV Standard, is such a

requirement necessary? We seek

comment on necessary adjustments to

the existing TV receiver rules so that

they cover digital TV receivers.

56. Licensing Technology. We have

previously stated that in order for DTV

implementation to be fully realized, the

patents on a DTV standard would have

to be licensed to other manufacturing

companies on reasonable and

nondiscriminatory terms.46 In response,

the Advisory Committee’s testing

procedures have required proponents of

any DTV system to follow American

National Standards Institute patent

policies which require assurance that:

(1) a license will be made available

without compensation to applicants

desiring to utilize the license for the

purpose of implementing the standard;

or (2) a license will be made available

to applicants under reasonable terms

and conditions that are demonstrably

free of any unfair discrimination.47 We

seek comment on whether we should

require more detailed information on

the specific terms, if any, for patenting

and licensing the ATSC DTV Standard.

57. International Trade. We recognize

that other countries may choose other

digital television systems that they feel

more appropriately meet their needs,

expectations or national priorities. Their

systems may well be incompatible with

the ATSC DTV Standard. Would our

proposal here serve to enhance

competitiveness of a U.S. system

worldwide and what are the benefits

associated with such a result? Will a

requirement to use the ATSC DTV

Standard as the sole authorized system

exacerbate or enhance the opportunities

of U.S. based content providers,

equipment manufacturers or other

parties? Additionally, to increase

international compatibility, the Grand

Alliance adopted the MPEG–2 video

stream syntax for encoding of video and

the MPEG–2 transport stream syntax for

the packetization and multiplexing of

video, audio and data signals. Should

we pursue additional measures to

facilitate international compatibility?

58. Captioning. Section 305 of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996 48

requires the Commission, within 18

months after the date of enactment of

the Telecom Act, to prescribe

regulations to assure that video

programming is fully accessible through

the provision of closed captions. The

ATSC DTV Standard reserves a fixed

9600 bits-per-second data rate for closed

captioning.49 We understand that EIA’s

R4.3 Subcommittee on TV Data Systems

is considering a standard to define the

syntax for the data, as well as the issue

of how to include closed captioning

information for multichannel SDTV

transmissions. Any comments parties

may have concerning the ability of DTV

to include captioning and how the

Commission should implement
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules 26871

captioning requirements for DTV may

be filed in response to this Further

Notice.

Administrative Matters

59. Pursuant to applicable procedures

set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of

the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R.

Sections 1.415 and 1.419, interested

parties may file comments on or before

45 days after publication in the Federal

Register, and reply comments on or

before 30 days after comments are due.

To file formally in this proceeding, you

must file an original plus six 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 eleven copies. You

should send comments and reply

comments to Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20554. Comments and reply comments

will be available for public inspection

during regular business hours in the

FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919

M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

60. 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 C.F.R. Sections 1.1202,

1.1203, and 1.1206(a).

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act

Statement

I. Reason for Action

The Commission seeks comment on a

variety of issues concerning whether to

adopt a technical standard for digital

television and, if so, whether that

standard should be the one reported to

the Commission by the Advisory

Committee on Advanced Television

Systems.

II. Objectives of the Action

The Fifth Further Notice of Proposed

Rule Making solicits comment on a

variety of issues, in order to establish an

accurate, comprehensive, reliable record

on which to base the Commission’s

ultimate decisions in this proceeding.

The record established from comments

filed in response to this decision, as

well as other Commission decisions,

and the combined efforts of the

Commission, the affected industries, the

Advisory Committee on Advanced

Television Service, and the DTV testing

process, will lead to implementation of

DTV in the most harmonious fashion

and to selection of the most desirable

DTV system.

III. Legal Basis

Authority for this action may be

found at 47 U.S.C. §§ 154 and 303.

IV. Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other

Compliance Requirements

Such requirements are not proposed

in this phase of the proceeding, but may

be raised and comment sought in future

decisions in this proceeding.

V. Federal Rules Which Overlap,

Duplicate or Conflict With These Rules

There are no rules which would

overlap, duplicate, or conflict with these

rules.

VI. Description, Potential Impact and

Number of Small Entities Involved

There are approximately 1,546 UHF

and VHF, commercial and educational

television stations, 2,587 UHF translator

stations, 2,275 VHF translator stations,

and 1,825 UHF and VHF low power

television stations which would be

affected by decisions reached in this

proceeding. The impact of actions taken

in this proceeding on small entities

would ultimately depend on the final

decisions taken by the Commission.

However, the Commission, in taking

future action will continue to balance

the need to provide the public with

affordable, flexible, accessible digital

broadcast television service with the

economic and administrative interests

of the affected industries.

VII. Any Significant Alternatives

Minimizing the Impact on Small Entities

Consistent with Stated Objectives.

This Fifth Further Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is intended to examine the

issue of what, if any, transmission

standard for digital television should be

adopted by the Commission. In so

doing, we are soliciting comments and

suggestions that hopefully will

represent the views of all of the

industries concerned, and thus the

Commission will be better able to

minimize whatever negative impact

might face small entities as a result of

our decisions.

Ordering Clause

61. Accordingly, it is ordered That

pursuant to the authority contained in

Sections 4 and 303 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154 and

303, this Fifth Further Notice of

Proposed Rule Making IS ADOPTED.

62. Additional Information: For

additional information regarding this

proceeding, contact Saul Shapiro (202–

418–2600) or Roger Holberg (202–418–

2134), Mass Media Bureau.

63. 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 Fifth Further 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. Public Law

96–354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. Section

601 et seq. (1981).

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

Appendix A

Additional procedural or general

broadcast rules that may be modified or

adapted for DTV.

Sec.

73.607 Availability of channels.

73.611 Reference points and distance

computations.

73.612 Protection from interference.

73.615 Administrative changes in

authorizations.

73.621 Noncommercial educational TV

stations.

73.635 Use of common antenna site.

73.684 Prediction of coverage.

73.685 Transmitter location and antenna

system.

73.686 Field strength measurements.

73.688 Indicating instruments.

73.1010 Cross reference to rules in other

parts.

73.1015 Truthful written statements and

responses to Commission inquiries and

correspondence.

73.1030 Notifications concerning

interference to radio astronomy, research

and receiving installations.

73.1120 Station location.

73.1125 Station main studio location.

73.1201 Station identification.

73.1202 Retention of letters received from

the public.

73.1206 Broadcast of telephone

conversations.

73.1207 Rebroadcasts.

73.1208 Broadcast of taped, filmed, or

recorded material.

73.1209 References to time.

73.1211 Broadcast of lottery information.

73.1212 Sponsorship identification; list

retention; related requirements.

73.1213 Antenna structure, marking and

lighting.

73.1216 Licensee-conducted contests.
26872 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 104 / Wednesday, May 29, 1996 / Proposed Rules

73.1217 Broadcast hoaxes.

73.1225 Station inspections by FCC.

73.1226 Availability to FCC of station logs

and records.

73.1230 Posting of station and operator

licenses.

73.1250 Broadcasting emergency

information.

73.1510 Experimental authorizations.

73.1515 Special field test authorizations.

73.1520 Operation for tests and

maintenance.

73.1580 Transmission system inspections.

73.1590 Equipment performance

measurements.

73.1610 Equipment tests.

73.1615 Operation during modification of

facilities.

73.1620 Program tests.

73.1635 Special temporary authorizations

(STA).

73.1660 Acceptability of broadcast

transmitters.

73.1665 Main transmitters.

73.1670 Auxiliary transmitters.

73.1675 Auxiliary antennas.

[FR Doc. 96–13394 Filed 5–28–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 95–28; Notice 7]

RIN 2127–AF73

Lamps, Reflective Devices and

Associated Equipment; Advisory

Committee on Regulatory Negotiation

Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA); DOT.

ACTION: Schedule of Advisory

Committee on Regulatory Negotiation

Meeting.

SUMMARY: This document announces the

final meetings of NHTSA’s Advisory

Committee on Regulatory Negotiation

(concerning the improvement of

headlamp aimability performance and

visual/optical headlamp aiming).

DATES: Wednesday-Thursday, May 29–

30, 1996.

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at

the Federal Mediation and Conciliation

Service, 2100 K Street, NW.,

Washington, D.C. The meeting of May

29 is scheduled for noon to 5:00 p.m.

The meeting of May 30 will be from 9:00

a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jere

Medlin, Office of Vehicle Safety

Standards, NHTSA (Phone: 202–366–

5276; FAX: 202–366–4329). Mediator:

Lynn Sylvester, Federal Mediation and

Conciliation Service, (phone: 202–606–

9140; FAX: 202–606–3679).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The final

meetings of the Advisory Committee on

Regulatory Negotiation (concerning the

improvement of headlamp aimability

performance and visual/optical

headlamp aiming) will be held on May

29–30, at which time it is anticipated

that final consensus will be reached on

a notice of proposed rulemaking on the

subject of the negotiations.

The meetings are open to the public.

Issued: May 24, 1996.

Barry Felrice,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 96–13556 Filed 5–24–96; 12:33 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P