[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 29, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26863-26872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13394]



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

[[Page 26864]]

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'').<SUP>1 We have the following 
objectives with regard to the authorization and implementation of a DTV 
standard.<SUP>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ACATS 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 Sec. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.'' 
<SUP>3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Notice of Inquiry in MM Docket No. 87-268, (``First 
Inquiry''), 2 FCC Rcd 5125 (1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 ATSC <SUP>4 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 26865]]

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 NTSC <SUP>5 programming and equipment as well as material 
designed for viewing on VGA computer monitors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.

                                                     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 high-resolution 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.<SUP>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ MPEG-2 is a video compression and transport standard created 
by the Moving Picture Experts Group of the International 
Organization for Standardization (ISO).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 26866]]

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 pay-per-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.<SUP>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.<SUP>8 However, we also stated that the continuation of 
mandatory standards may no longer be necessary and may even be 
counterproductive.<SUP>9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ First Inquiry, supra at 5135.
    \9\ 1Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.<SUP>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.<SUP>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.'' <SUP>12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Tentative 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.'' 
<SUP>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.) <SUP>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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ First Report and Order, 5 FCC Rcd 5626, 5628 (1990).
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.<SUP>15 
Thus, concerns with the possibility of multiple competing systems may 
be less relevant today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\  ACATS Report at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.<SUP>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.<SUP>17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Stanley 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).
    \17\ Seventy-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 26867]]

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.<SUP>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.<SUP>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.<SUP>20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For 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.
    \20\ Stanley M. Besen and Joseph Farrell, ``Choosing How to 
Compete: Strategies and Tactics in Standardization, Journal of 
Economic Perspectives (Spring 1994): 117-131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.<SUP>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ America'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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.<SUP>22
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 26868]]

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.'' <SUP>23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Preamble to Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35. There are several options that arguably could accomplish these 
goals and we propose to adopt one, or more than one in 
combination.<SUP>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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; <SUP>25 and (2) adopting a 
standard for allocation and assignment purposes only.<SUP>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?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Second Inquiry, supra at 6535.
    \26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.<SUP>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.<SUP>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.'' <SUP>29
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See 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).
    \28\ Letter 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.
    \29\ Reply Comments of the HDTV Grand Alliance, supra at 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.'' <SUP>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.<SUP>31
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Letter 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.<SUP>32
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See, e.g., Comments of Abacus Television in response to the 
Fourth Further Notice, at 24-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 26869]]

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-
of-channel 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+[(<greek-D>f)<SUP>2/1.44]

Where: <greek-D>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.<SUP>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 <plus-minus>3 Hz.<SUP>34
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ ACATS Final Technical Report at 5.2.8.
    \34\ See Annex to ACATS Report, Record of Test Results for 
Digital HDTV Grand Alliance System (October 1995), at I-14-67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.<SUP>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ This description of the ACATS position on interoperability 
is largely derived from the ACATS Report at 15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.<SUP>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'').<SUP>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ ACATS Report, Appendix I.
    \37\ ACATS 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.'' <SUP>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

[[Page 26870]]

standards for this purpose.'' <SUP>39 We seek comment on whether this 
view remains correct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Second Inquiry, supra at 6537.
    \39\ Id. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.<SUP>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.<SUP>41
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Id. at 10552.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.<SUP>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.<SUP>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.<SUP>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.<SUP>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ ATSC 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.
    \44\ ACATS Report at 20.
    \45\ See, e.g., Comments of the Electronic Industries 
Association and the Advanced Television Committee at 16. See also 
Comments of Zenith Electronics Corporation at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.<SUP>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.<SUP>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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Notice 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).
    \47\ Advisory Committee ATV Test Procedures Test Management Plan 
at Sec. 2.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
<SUP>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.<SUP>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

[[Page 26871]]

captioning requirements for DTV may be filed in response to this 
Further Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).
    \49\ ATSC DTV Standard at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. Secs. 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.

[[Page 26872]]

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