Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 104/Wednesday, May … · Federal Register/Vol. 61, No. 104/Wednesday, May 29, 1996/Proposed Rules26863 Commodity ... 0.2 parts per million in or on

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

Commodity Parts permillion

Bananas .................................... 5Beans ........................................ 1Beans, straw ............................. 1Beets, sugar (roots) .................. 5Beets, sugar (tops) ................... 5Cattle, mbyp .............................. 0.2Cattle, meat .............................. 0.2Coffee beans ............................ 2Corn, ear, dried (K+C) .............. 10Corn, fodder .............................. 5Corn, forage .............................. 5Corn, fresh (including sweet

K+CWHR) ............................. 5Corn, grain ................................ 10Cottonseed ................................ 35Cranberries ............................... 5Eggs .......................................... 0.3Flaxseed ................................... 75Goats, mbyp ............................. 0.2Goats, meat .............................. 0.2Grapefruit .................................. 5Grapes ...................................... 3Grasses, pasture ...................... 10Grasses, range ......................... 10Hogs, mbyp ............................... 0.2Hogs, meat ............................... 0.2Lemons ..................................... 5Limes ........................................ 5Macadamia nuts ....................... 1Milk ............................................ 0.1Oranges .................................... 5Peaches .................................... 15Pears ......................................... 3Peas, shelled ............................ 15Peas, unshelled ........................ 15Peas, vine, with pod ................. 15Peas, vine, without pod ............ 15Pecans ...................................... 0.1Pineapples ................................ 3Plums ........................................ 1Potatoes .................................... 10Poultry, (excluding kidney) ....... 3Poultry, kidney .......................... 9Sheep, mbyp ............................. 0.2Sheep, meat ............................. 0.2Sorghum ................................... 1Sorghum, forage ....................... 5Soybeans .................................. 1Soybeans, straw ....................... 1Sugarcane ................................. 0.1Tangerines ................................ 5Walnuts ..................................... 5

(b) A time-limited tolerance, with anexpiration date of May 1, 1999, isestablished for residues of dalapon (2,2-dichloropropionic acid) resulting fromapplication of dalapon sodium-magnesium salt mixtures to irrigationditch banks in the western United Statesin or on the following raw agriculturalcommodities. Where tolerances areestablished at higher levels from otheruses of dalapon on the subject crops, thehigher tolerance applies also to residuesfrom the irrigation ditch bank use.


Avocados .................................. 0.2Citrus fruits ................................ 0.2Cottonseed ................................ 0.2


Cucurbits ................................... 0.5Flaxseed ................................... 2.0Fruits, pome .............................. 0.2Fruits, small .............................. 0.2Fruits, stone .............................. 0.2Grain crops (exc wheat) ........... 0.5Grasses, forage ........................ 2Hops .......................................... 0.2Legumes, forage ....................... 2Nuts ........................................... 0.2Vegetables, fruiting ................... 0.2Vegetables, leafy ...................... 0.5Vegetables, root crop ............... 0.2Vegetables, seed and pod ........ 0.5Wheat ........................................ 2

§ 180.161 [Removed]

f. By removing § 180.161 Manganousdimethyldithio-carbamate; tolerancesfor residues.

g. By revising § 180.230 Diphenamid;tolerances for residues to read asfollows.

§ 180.230 Diphenamid; tolerances forresidues.

A time-limited tolerance with anexpiration date of May 1, 1999, isestablished for the residues of theherbicide dipenamid (N,N,-dimethyl-2,2-diphenylacetamide) including itsdesmethyl metabolite N-methyl-2,2-diphenylacetamide in or on the rawagricultural commodities as follows:

2 parts per million in or on peanut hay andforage.

1 parts per million in or on potatoes andstrawberries.

0.5 parts per million in or on peanut hullsand 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 sweetpotatoes.

0.05 parts per million in or on (negligibleresidue) in meat, fat, and meat byproducts ofcattle, 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 zincsulfate; tolerances for residues.

§ 180.250 [Removed]

i. By removing § 180.250Metobromuron; tolerances for residues.

§ 180.325 [Removed]

j. By removing § 180.325 2-(m-Chlorophenoxy) propionic acid;tolerances for residues.

k. By revising § 180.344 4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol and its sodium salt; tolerance forresidues to read as follows.

§ 180.344 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol and its sodiumsalt; tolerance for residues.

A time-limited tolerance of 0.2 partper million, with an expiration date ofMay 1, 1999, is established for residuesof the plant regulators 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol (DNOC) and its sodium salt in oron the raw agricultural commodityapples from application to apple trees atthe blossom stage as a fruit-thinningagent.

§ 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 asfollows.

§ 185.1500 Dalapon; tolerances forresidues.

A time-limited tolerance of 0.2 partper million, with an expiration date ofMay 1, 1999, is established for theresidues of the herbicide dalapon (2,2-dichloropropionic acid) in potable waterwhen present therein as a result of theapplication of dalapon sodium-magnesium salt mixtures to irrigationditch banks in the western UnitedStates.

§ 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 asfollows:

§ 186.1500 Dalapon; tolerances forresidues.

A time-limited tolerance of 20 partsper million, with an expiration date ofMay 1, 1999, is established for residuesof the herbicide dalapon (2,2-dichloropropionic acid) in dehydratedcitrus pulp for cattle feed, when presenttherein as a result of the application ofdalapon sodium salt or dalapon sodium-magnesium salt mixtures during thegrowing 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

1 ACATS Report at 19. The Advisory Committeewas formed by the Commission on October 16,1987, pursuant to the Federal Advisory CommitteeAct (86 Stat. 770, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 § 1et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. V)). It was established‘‘to assist the Commission in considering the issuessurrounding the introduction of advancedtelevision service in the United States.’’ (Notice, 52Fed. Reg. 38523 (October 16, 1987).) The AdvisoryCommittee consisted of a twenty-five memberparent committee and three subcommittees—Planning, Systems and Implementation. Itsmembership on the date that the ATSC DTVStandard was recommended to the Commission isat Appendix B.

2 In issuing this Notice, we are requestingcomment, inter alia, on whether to accept theconclusions of the Final Report andRecommendation of the Advisory Committee,adopted November 28, 1995 (‘‘ACATS Report’’),which recommends the Advanced TelevisionSystems Committee Standard A/53 (1995) ATSCDigital Television Standard (‘‘ATSC DTVStandard’’) as the standard for DTV broadcasting inthe United States. This standard is based on theAdvisory Committee design specifications and theDigital HDTV Grand Alliance (‘‘Grand Alliance’’)System. The ACATS Report is hereby incorporatedinto the record of this proceeding. Copies of theACATS Report are available through theCommission’s copy contractor, InternationalTranscription Services. Additionally, the ACATSReport, ACATS Final Technical Report and ATSCDTV Standard are available on the Internet at theATSC site (http://www.atsc.org).

3 Notice of Inquiry in MM Docket No. 87–268,(‘‘First Inquiry’’), 2 FCC Rcd 5125 (1987).

4 ‘‘ATSC’’ is the Advanced Television SystemsCommittee. ATSC currently has 54 membersincluding television networks, motion picture andtelevision program producers, trade associations,television and other electronic equipmentmanufacturers and segments of the academiccommunity. It was formed by the memberorganizations of the Joint Committee onInterSociety Coordination (‘‘JCIC’’) for the purposeof exploring the need for and, where appropriate,to coordinate development of the documentation ofATV systems. The JCIC is composed of theElectronic Industries Association, the Institute ofElectrical and Electronics Engineers, the NationalAssociation of Broadcasters, the National CableTelevision Association, and the Society of MotionPicture and Television Engineers. The membershipof the ATSC when it adopted the ATSC DTVStandard is at Appendix C.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSION

47 CFR Chapter I

[MM Docket No. 87–268; FCC: 96–207]

Broadcast Services; TelevisionStations

AGENCY: Federal CommunicationsCommission.ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission proposes torequire digital broadcast televisionlicensees to use the digital television(‘‘DTV’’) system described by the ATSC(‘‘Advanced Television SystemsCommittee’’) DTV Standard andrecommended to the Commission by theAdvisory Committee on AdvancedTelevision Service. The Commissionalso proposes to adopt one or moremethod of assuring that at some futuretime the Standard does not inhibitinnovation and competition. Theintended effect is to ensure that allaffected partieis have sufficientconfidence and certainty in order topromote the smooth introduction of afree and universally available digitalbroadcast television service whileencouraging technological innovationand competition.DATES: Comments are due by July 11,1996, and reply comments are due byAugust 12, 1996.ADDRESSES: Federal CommunicationsCommission, 1919 M Street, N.W.,Washington, D.C. 20554FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Roger Holberg, Mass Media Bureau,Policy and Rules Division (202) 418–2134 or Saul Shapiro, Mass MediaBureau, (202) 418–2600.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is asynopsis of the Commission’s FifthFurther Notice of Proposed Rule Makingin MM Docket No. 87–268 , FCC 96–207, adopted May 9, 1996, and releasedMay 20, 1996. The complete text of thisFNPRM is available for inspection andcopying during normal business hoursin the FCC Reference Center (Room239), 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington,D.C., and also may be purchased fromthe 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 ProposedRule Making

I. Introduction1. In this proceeding we consider

adoption of a digital television (‘‘DTV’’)broadcast standard. This action has beenrecommended to the Commission by its

Advisory Committee on AdvancedTelevision Service (‘‘AdvisoryCommittee’’ or ‘‘ACATS’’).1 We have thefollowing objectives with regard to theauthorization and implementation of aDTV standard.2 We seek to ensure thatall affected parties have sufficientconfidence and certainty in order topromote the smooth introduction of afree and universally available digitalbroadcast television service. We seek toincrease the availability of new productsand services to consumers through theintroduction of digital broadcasting. Weseek to ensure that our rules encouragetechnological innovation andcompetition. And we seek to minimizeregulation and assure that anyregulations we do adopt remain in effectno longer than necessary.

II. Background

2. On February 13, 1987, 58 broadcastorganizations (‘‘Petitioners’’) filed ajoint ‘‘Petition for Notice of Inquiry’’asking the Commission to initiate aproceeding to explore issues arisingfrom the advent of new and advancedtelevision (‘‘ATV’’) technologies andtheir possible impact, in eitherbroadcast or non-broadcast uses, onexisting television broadcast service. OnJuly 16, 1987, as a result of thecomments it received in response to thepetition, the Commission inauguratedthe instant proceeding, ‘‘to consider thetechnical and public policy issuessurrounding the use of advanced

television technologies by televisionbroadcast licensees.’’ 3

3. The Commission empaneled theAdvisory Committee on AdvancedTelevision Service (ACATS) shortlyafter having opened the inquiry phase ofthis proceeding. Among other activities,ACATS designed the detailed testingplans for the system and conductedsubstantial related studies.

4. On May 24, 1993 the three groupsthat had developed the four final DTVsystems examined by ACATS agreed toproduce a single, best-of-the-best systemto propose as the standard. The threeventures that joined to become the‘‘Grand Alliance’’ consisted of AT&Tand Zenith Electronics Corporation;General Instrument Corporation andMassachusetts Institute of Technology;and Philips Electronics North AmericaCorporation, Thomson ConsumerElectronics, and the David SarnoffResearch Center. The standardrecommended by ACATS and nowbefore us is based on the systemdeveloped, built, and proposed by theDigital HDTV Grand Alliance proposalto ACATS. The system described by theATSC 4 DTV Standard having beensuccessfully designed, built and tested,in November 1995, the AdvisoryCommittee voted to recommend theCommission’s adoption of the ATSCDTV Standard.

5. We believe that the ATSC DTVStandard embodies the world’s bestdigital television technology andpromises to permit strikingimprovements to today’s televisionpictures and sound; to permit theprovision of additional services andprograms; to permit integration of futuresubstantial improvements whilemaintaining compatibility with initialreceivers; and to permit interoperabilitywith computers and other digitalequipment associated with the nationalinformation initiative.


5 NTSC refers to the current analog televisionsystem. It is named for the National TelevisionSystem Committee, an industry group thatdeveloped the monochrome (black and white)

television standard in 1940–41 and the colortelevision standard in 1950–53.

6 MPEG–2 is a video compression and transportstandard created by the Moving Picture ExpertsGroup of the International Organization forStandardization (ISO).

III. The ATSC DTV Standard6. The five components described in

the annexes to the ATSC DTV Standardare video coding, audio coding,transport, RF/transmission and receiver.These five basic components, plus avideo format selection function, aresometimes referred to as comprising‘‘layers’’ of the system. Compliance withthe ATSC DTV Standard requires someof its provisions be followed, but manyof these provisions include numerousacceptable options that the system’s

users may select. In addition to therequired provisions, some additionalprovisions of the ATSC DTV Standardare recommended but not required, andothers are optional. Finally, although itdescribes the coding and transmissionof television video and audio, it alsoallows transmission of a variety of otherservices as ‘‘ancillary data.’’ Thisstructure makes the system described bythe ATSC DTV Standard extremelyflexible and gives it room to incorporatea wide range of future improvements.

7. Format selection: The ATSC DTVStandard supports a variety of scanningformats. Table I shows the number ofscanning lines and horizontal pictureelements (or pixels) per line, whichaffect resolution. The 720-line and 1080-line formats below represent highresolution video. The lower-resolution480-line formats accommodate existingNTSC 5 programming and equipment aswell as material designed for viewing onVGA computer monitors.

TABLE I

Vertical lines Horizontal pixels Aspectratio Picture rate

1080 ......................................................................... 1920 ........................................................................... 16:9 60I 30P 24P720 ......................................................................... 1280 ........................................................................... 16:9 60P 30P 24P480 ......................................................................... 704 ........................................................................... 16:9 4:3 60I 60P 30P 24P480 ......................................................................... 640 ........................................................................... 4:3 60I 60P 30P 24P

8. Table I also indicates that the high-resolution formats both use a pictureaspect ratio of 16 units horizontally by9 units vertically (that is, a picture 16inches wide would be 9 inches tall orone 32 inches wide would be 18 inchestall). The choices of 1280 pixels per linefor the 720-line format and 1920 pixelsper line for the 1080-line format resultin square pixels (that is, pixels whichare displayed at equal distances, bothhorizontally and vertically) for bothformats, based on the 16:9 aspect ratio.Material in the 480-line by 704-pixelformat could use either a 16:9 or a 4:3aspect ratio.

9. The picture rates specified in TableI identify the number of images that aresent each second, with an ‘‘I’’designating interlaced scanning and a‘‘P’’ designating progressive scanning.Progressive scanning lines are presentedin succession from the top of the pictureto the bottom, with a complete imagesent in each frame as is commonlyfound in computer displays today. Forinterlaced scanning, which also is usedin NTSC television, odd and evennumbered lines of the picture are sentconsecutively, as two separate fields.These two fields are superimposed tocreate one frame, or complete picture, atthe receiver. The picture rates can be 24,30 or 60 fields per second.

10. Video coding: For compression ofvideo signals, the ATSC DTV Standardrequires conformance with the mainprofile syntax of the MPEG–2 videostandard.6 Employing this standard, theamount of data needed to represent

television pictures is reduced using avariety of tools, including a motioncompensated discrete cosine transform(DCT) algorithm and bidirectional-frame(B-frame) prediction. Each of these toolsserves to improve compressionefficiency by reducing the total amountof digital information that needs to betransmitted.

11. Audio coding: For compression ofaudio signals, the ATSC DTV Standardrequires conformance with ATSC Doc.A/52, the Digital Audio Compression(AC–3) Standard. The AC–3 perceptualcoding system, which was developed byDolby Labs, can encode a completemain audio service which includes left,center, right, left surround, rightsurround, and low frequencyenhancement channels into a bit streamat a rate of 384 kilobits per second(kbps). Audio service can also includefewer channels (down to single channel,monophonic service) using a lower bitrate.

12. Transport: The service multiplexand transport layer of the ATSC DTVStandard is a compatible subset of theMPEG–2 systems standard thatdescribes a means of delivering a digitaldata stream in fixed-length ‘‘packets’’ ofinformation. Each packet contains onlyone type of data: video, audio orancillary. There is no fixed mix ofpacket types, which further helpsprovide flexibility. Channel capacitycan be dynamically allocated in thetransport layer, under the direct controlof the broadcaster. Within the transportlayer, the packets of video, audio, closed

captioning and any other dataassociated with a single digitaltelevision program are combined usinga mechanism to ensure that the sound,pictures and closed captioninginformation can be synchronized at thereceiver. Data describing multipletelevision programs, or unrelated datafor other purposes, are also combined inthe transport layer.

13. RF/Transmission: Thetransmission layer of the ATSC DTVStandard uses a vestigial sideband(VSB) technique with a small pilotcarrier added at the suppressed carrierfrequency. The relationship of the pilotcarrier frequency to interference tolower adjacent channel NTSC service isdiscussed in the ‘‘interference’’ sectionbelow.

14. Terrestrial broadcasts of DTV willbe exposed to situations that includestrong interfering signals,electromagnetic noise from numeroussources, and configurations of buildingsor terrain features that cause multipathinterference. For successful receptionunder these difficult conditions, an 8-level VSB signal is specified andextensive error correction is provided.Taking into account the transportrequirements and error correction, the8–VSB signal carries an effective usefulpayload of approximately 19.28megabits per second (Mbps). For morebenign environments, like that providedin a cable system, the ATSC DTV


7 For a discussion of the benefits of standards, seeStanley M. Besen and Leland L. Johnson,Compatibility Standards, Competition, andInnovation in the Broadcast Industry (SantaMonica, CA: The RAND Corporation, 1986) at 7–9.

8 First Inquiry, supra at 5135.9 1Id.10 Tentative Decision and Further Notice of

Inquiry in MM Docket No. 87–268 (‘‘SecondInquiry’’), 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 17.16 Stanley M. Besen and Garth Saloner, ‘‘The

Economics of Telecommunications Standards,’’ inChanging the Rules: Technological Change,International Competition, and Regulation inCommunications, Robert W. Crandall and KennethFlamm, editors (The Brookings Institute, 1989).

17 Seventy-two percent of Americans rely ontelevision as their primary source of news. NTVA,Roper-Starch, NAB, America’s Watching—PublicAttitudes Toward Television-1995, at 17.

Standard includes a 16-level VSB highdata rate mode that provides double thecapacity of the 8-level VSB terrestrialbroadcast mode.

15. Receiver: The ATSC DTVStandard does not specify requirementsfor a compliant receiver. In essence, theDTV receiver designs are to be based onthe specifications of the signalcontained in the other portions of theStandard. The receiver reverses thefunctions of the RF/transmission andtransport layers, and, afterdecompression, generates video andaudio suitable for its display.

16. Flexibility. The ATSC DTVStandard provides a method ofaccommodating a broad range of uses.The packetized transport structure is acritical component in achieving thisbroad level of flexibility. Scrambledpackets can be sent, which allowsconditional access subscription or pay-per-view services to be delivered.

17. Extensibility. In the future, newservices may be uniquely identifiedthrough the use of new packetidentifiers that would be ignored bypreviously deployed digital receivers.Such data could be used to augmentDTV programs or could permit newservices that have not yet beenenvisioned. Either extension of the DTVservice would require new DTVreceivers or new decoder devices to bedeveloped and used in order to obtainthe benefits of the new service orfunctionality, but would not disruptprovision of DTV service to consumersusing existing sets. The marketplacewould determine the extent to whichsets with new functionalities areavailable.

IV. Adopting the ATSC DTV Standard18. There is near universal agreement

that transmission standards, either defacto or de jure, confer many benefits.7We believe that the proposals discussedherein would enable consumers,licensees and equipment manufacturersto realize the benefits of standardswithout unduly restricting innovationand competition.

19. Previous Statements. Previously,we have asked whether mandatorytransmission standards serve the publicinterest. In our initial 1987 Notice ofInquiry in this proceeding, we notedthat NTSC standards were establishedduring the television industry’s infancywhen universal compatibility standardswere arguably necessary in order todevelop a national television

broadcasting system in a timelymanner.8 However, we also stated thatthe continuation of mandatorystandards may no longer be necessaryand may even be counterproductive.9

20. In the 1988 Second Inquiry, wecontinued our examination of whetherthe NTSC standard should be relaxed orrepealed, how standards should beestablished for advanced television, andwhether it would be desirable to requirecompatibility between advancedtelevision broadcast transmissions andother ATV distribution media.10 In thisregard, we asserted that establishing astandard has certain advantages such aspointing the various interested partiesin the same direction, reducing the riskto both audiences and broadcasters ofinvestments in systems that mightbecome obsolete if a different system isintroduced in the market, andovercoming reluctance to invest in newequipment.11 We also stated that,‘‘detailed, inflexible standards that havethe force of law may reduce consumerchoice and prevent the timelyintroduction of new technology.’’ 12

21. Subsequent to our statementsconcerning standards in the 1987 and1988 decisions, as described above, weconcluded in 1990 that ‘‘[c]onsistentwith our goal of ensuring excellence inATV service, we intend to select asimulcast high definition televisionsystem.’’ 13 We also stated that, ‘‘partiesfiling comments in response to theFurther Notice generally assume that theCommission will ultimately authorize asystem using new technology that willprovide HDTV service.’’ (Footnoteomitted.) 14 The Commission’sNovember 14, 1990 Memorandum ofUnderstanding with the AdvisoryCommittee, the Advanced TelevisionTest Center, Inc., Cable TelevisionLaboratories, Inc., and the CanadianCommunications Research Centre, said,‘‘[t]he FCC’s stated intention is to selectan ATV standard by the second quarterof 1993.’’

22. Recent Developments. Two recentdevelopments are relevant to whetherand, if so, what form of a requiredstandard is desirable. First, the presenceof multiple competing systemsstrengthened the argument for selectinga standard. Today, only one system hasbeen recommended by our Advisory

Committee and no other competingtechnology appears to demonstratesuperiority over the ATSC DTVStandard.15 Thus, concerns with thepossibility of multiple competingsystems may be less relevant today.

23. Second, prior to the developmentof the ATSC DTV Standard, it waswidely believed that the service offeredby a licensee would change from oneNTSC program stream to one HDTVprogram stream. Today’s digitaltechnologies and improved compressiontechniques create the opportunity fordelivering one, and under specialcircumstances perhaps two, HDTVprogram streams, or multiple programstreams at lower resolution.Furthermore, digital technologies giveeach licensee the technical capacity toexplore new business opportunities andprovide new services. If the ATSC DTVStandard is as dynamic as believed, arequired standard will not thwarttechnical advance.

24. Analysis of Required Standards.The traditional rationale for requiring astandard arises when two conditions aremet.16 First, that there is a substantialpublic benefit from a standard. Second,private industry either will not, orcannot, produce a standard because theprivate costs of getting involved instandard setting outweigh the privatebenefits, or a number of differentstandards have been developed andprivate industry cannot agree whichshould become the standard. Thesecond condition may not be applicablein view of the strong industrycoalescence around the ATSC DTVStandard. However, we believe that thefirst condition applies to DTV.Television today is a ubiquitous servicethat is available to almost everyAmerican household and is relied on bya majority of Americans as their primarynews and information source.17

25. A required standard may provideadditional certainty to consumers,licensees, and equipmentmanufacturers, especially during thelaunch of this new technology. Arequired standard may protectconsumers against losses by assuringthem that their investments in DTVequipment will not be made obsolete bya different technology. In addition,requiring use of a single standard


18 For an overview of the characteristics of thetelevision broadcast market that contribute to theinertia of established standards see Bruce M. Owenand Steven S. Wildman, Video Economics, (HarvardUniversity Press, 1992): 260–313. For a moregeneral discussion of the characteristics of one-wayand two-way communications systems that affectthe adoption of technology see Michael L. Katz andCarl Shapiro, ‘‘Systems Competition and NetworkEffects,’’ Journal of Economic Perspectives (Spring1994): 93–115.

19 Katz and Shapiro, supra at 110.20 Stanley M. Besen and Joseph Farrell, ‘‘Choosing

How to Compete: Strategies and Tactics inStandardization, Journal of Economic Perspectives(Spring 1994): 117–131.

21 America’s Watching—Public Attitudes TowardTelevision—1995, supra, at p. 3. Even nearly 60%of viewing in cable television households is of theprogramming of broadcast television stations.NCTA, Cable Television Developments, Fall 1995,at 5.

22 See Letter dated April 2, 1996, submitted forthe record by Joseph P. Markoski of the law firmof Squire, Sanders & Dempsey on behalf of the EIAand the EIA Advanced Television Committee. Theletter cites as precedent for incorporating thestandard into our Rules by reference Sections73.682(a)(14), 73.682(a)(21)(iv) and 15.31(a)(6) ofthe Commission’s Rules. A similar, but alternative,proposal would be to publish the Standard not inour Rules but, rather, as an OET technical bulletin.

guarantees compatibility. This assuresconsumers that the DTV equipment theypurchase to view one television stationcan be used to view every othertelevision station. The compatibilityguaranteed by a single required standardmay also reduce consumer costs byeliminating the need to purchaseduplicative equipment or specialdevices to convert from one standard toanother. Finally, a required standardmay lead to a more rapid developmentand acceptance of DTV equipment.Absent a required standard, someconsumers and licensees may bereluctant to purchase DTV equipment ifthey believe that different DTVtechnologies may become available inthe near future. A required standardmay reduce such ‘‘wait and see’’behavior.

26. Although there are benefits torequired standards, there also may becertain costs. One may be deterrence oftechnical innovations.18 Over time, weexpect that normal technologicalprogress will lead to improvements. Ifsubsequent technological improvementscannot be readily incorporated into theATSC DTV Standard, the Standardcould lock the broadcast market intoless than optimal technology. Requiredstandards also may reduce some formsof competition while enhancing others.With required standards, equipmentmanufacturers cannot compete byoffering differentiated products usingdifferent technologies. As such, aprimary cost of required standards isloss of variety.19 On the other hand,required standards, which are licensedto everyone on a non-discriminatorybasis, may intensify the moreconventional forms of competition, suchas price, service, and product features.20

27. As we weigh the benefits andcosts of required standards, we note thatfor MMDS and new services like PCS,DBS, and DARS, we have decided toallow the marketplace to determinetransmission standards. We recognizethat these decisions were made in acontext different from that of terrestrialbroadcast television, an establishedindustry upon which the American

people rely for both information andentertainment. Additionally, unlikethese other services, free over-the-airbroadcast television is a mass marketmedia serving nearly all of theAmerican public nationwide rather thana subscription service in which theservice provider may supply thereception equipment.21 In this context,the goals of certainty and reliability takeon a different significance than mayhave been present with respect to othercommunications services andstrengthens the case for our adoption ofa DTV standard.

28. Proposal. We propose to adopt theATSC DTV Standard. We tentativelyconclude that requiring the use of theATSC DTV Standard is appropriatebecause it would provide a measure ofcertainty and confidence tomanufacturers, broadcasters andconsumers, thus helping assure asmooth implementation of digitalbroadcast television and thepreservation of a free and universallyavailable broadcast television service.

29. The digital television system thathas been recommended by the AdvisoryCommittee appears to be dynamic,flexible and high quality. It provides avariety of picture formats that will allowbroadcasters to select the one mostappropriate for their program material,ranging from very high resolutionproviding the best possible picturequality to multiple programs of lowerresolution, which could result inincreased choices for viewers. Even atthe lower resolutions, the recommendedsystem represents a clear improvementover the current NTSC standard.

30. Use of the ATSC DTV Standardalso represents a rare opportunity toincrease significantly the efficient use ofbroadcast spectrum. The ATSC DTVStandard will allow channels unusablein the NTSC analog environment to beassigned for digital broadcastingbetween existing NTSC channels. It wasdesigned to be flexible enough toincorporate future improvements,including those resulting in ever higherresolution, that the Advisory Committeebelieves will be made possible by futureadvances in compression and displaytechnology.

31. We believe that the ‘‘headroom’’for innovation incorporated in the ATSCDTV Standard, along with thedesirability of providing certainty andconfidence, argue in favor of a requiredstandard. In addition, the flexibility of

the ATSC DTV Standard significantlyreduces some of the potentialdetriments associated with a requiredstandard as the new technology is beinglaunched. The packetized structure ofthe data transport, as described above,ensures a flexibility that will permit theDTV licensee to provide, for instance,several standard definition programs, orone high-definition program, or somestandard definition programmingtogether with data transfer or electronicpublishing on the remaining bit streams,and to switch instantaneously betweensuch applications. Other applicationsare limited primarily by the imaginationof the DTV licensee. This means that awide array of innovations can beintroduced without Commission action.

32. We seek comment on the tentativeconclusion that we will require use ofthe ATSC DTV Standard. Assuming thatwe do require the use of the ATSC DTVStandard by digital television licensees,we request comment on whether weshould place the Standard into our rulesin its entirety or whether we shouldincorporate it by reference.22

33.While we propose to require digitaltelevision licensees to use the ATSCDTV Standard, we recognize that thebenefits of a required standard maybecome attenuated over time, as thecosts of a requirement may increase. Atsome point, when the new digitalbroadcasting technology has becomefirmly established, requirementsdesigned to promote certainty and tofoster a smooth implementation ofdigital television may no longer benecessary. Meanwhile, over time, thelikelihood increases that there will betechnological innovation that even theflexible ATSC DTV Standard may not beable to accommodate. In addition, giventhe pace of technological change, it islikely that there will be unforeseeableinnovations that are incompatible withthe ATSC DTV Standard. As long asthere is a requirement in our rules thatDTV licensees use only the ATSC DTVStandard, such innovations could not beintroduced to consumers without apotentially costly and time-consumingCommission proceeding. That, in turn,could reduce the incentive to conductthe research and development that leadsto innovation.

34.In addition to ensuring that theCommission’s rules promote the rapid


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

24 These options are not necessarilyincompatible. For example, we could adopt a sunsetprovision but also provide for Commission reviewof the Standard prior to the sunset.

25 Second Inquiry, supra at 6535.26 Id.27 See Comments of Apple Computer, Inc., and

Microsoft Corporation, in response to the FourthFurther Notice of Proposed Rule Making and ThirdNotice of Inquiry in MM Docket No. 87–268(‘‘Fourth Further Notice’’), 10 FCC Rcd 10540(1995).

28 Letter of Stanley Baron, President, Society ofMotion Picture and Television Engineers(‘‘SMPTE’’), 28 August 1995, at 2, Memo of PaulMisener, ACATS, to Fiona Branton, ITI (‘‘MisenerMemo’’), August 18, 1995, at 1–2. Reply Commentsof the Digital HDTV Grand Alliance, in response tothe Fourth Further Notice, at 38 and 40.

29 Reply Comments of the HDTV Grand Alliance,supra at 40.

30 Letter of Stanley Baron, President, Society ofMotion Picture and Television Engineers, 18 August1995, at 2.

31 Id. at 3. In this regard it notes that there is abroad range of aspect ratios that has been employedin modern times and that there is no single aspectratio that is usable universally.

32 See, e.g., Comments of Abacus Television inresponse to the Fourth Further Notice, at 24–25.

introduction of digital televisionbroadcasting, we seek in this proceedingto adopt rules that encourage furtherinnovation by those who have devisedthe ATSC DTV Standard as well as newentrants. We also seek to minimize ourregulations and to have the regulationsthat we do adopt remain in effect nolonger than necessary. We are mindful,finally, of the spirit of the recentlyadopted Telecommunications Act of1996, which seeks, ‘‘[t]o promotecompetition and reduce regulation inorder to secure lower prices and higherquality services for Americantelecommunications consumers andencourage the rapid deployment of newtelecommunications technologies.’’ 23

35. There are several options thatarguably could accomplish these goalsand we propose to adopt one, or morethan one in combination.24 TheCommission could proceed under itscurrent processes for regulatoryevolution and change, which includeconsideration, as appropriate, ofrequests from parties to amend its rulesand reviews initiated by the agency.

36. Alternatively, the Commissioncould commit itself to conduct aproceeding to review the Standard atsome future time. If the Commissionchooses this option, should a review bestructured to place the burden ofpersuasion on those seeking to continuerequiring a standard or on those seekingto eliminate the requirement? Whenshould such a review take place?Should we select a specific date orshould we link the review to anobjective event?

37. Finally, the Commission couldestablish a period of time after whichthe ATSC DTV Standard no longerwould be required or exclusive. At theconclusion of some meaningful periodof time, digital licensees would be freeto use any technology that does notinterfere with users of the ATSC DTVStandard. If such a sunset provisionwere to be adopted, how should wedetermine when the mandatory aspectsof our rules would expire?

38. Commenters are encouraged tocomment on the foregoing and topropose other options. In so doing, theyshould provide a thorough explanationof the benefits and detriments of theiroptions and an explanation of how theiroptions serve the goals that we haveoutlined above.

39.Finally, we seek comment onalternative approaches to requiring a

standard, including those theCommission has previously identified:(1) authorizing use of a standard andprohibiting interference to it, but notrequiring the use of that standard; 25 and(2) adopting a standard for allocationand assignment purposes only.26 Wealso seek comment on requiring use ofsome layers of the ATSC DTV Standard(described more fully above) but makingothers optional. For example, would itbe desirable to require digital licenseesto use the RF/transmission layer of theATSC DTV Standard, while leavingthem free to choose coding andcompression technologies different fromthose described in the ATSC DTVStandard?

40. Acceptability of the ATSC DTVStandard. Although the ATSC DTVStandard has many supporters, it alsohas its critics. Some in the computerindustry argue that the presence ofinterlaced scanning formats, the 60 Hztransmission rate, aspect ratios,colorimetry and non-square pixelspacing in the ATSC DTV Standard allmerit further consideration.27

Proponents of the ATSC DTV Standardrespond that the Standard wasdeveloped for terrestrial broadcastingbut has incorporated significantelements to enhance compatibility withcomputers.28 With respect to the issue ofthe presence of interlaced scanning inthe proposed Standard, the GrandAlliance argues that, ‘‘* * * the GrandAlliance HDTV system emphasizesprogressive scan—five of the six HDTVformats are progressive scan, and theAdvisory Committee believes that thelone interlaced format should be‘migrated’ to progressive as soon asimprovements in digital compressionand transmission technology make anover-1000 line, 60 Hz progressivelyscanned format achievable within a 6MHz terrestrial channel.’’ 29

41. There also has been objection fromcinematographers to the 16:9 aspectratio contained in the ATSC DTVStandard. They are concerned that theproposed Standard may limitbroadcasters’ ability to display the full

artistic quality of their work. Theysuggest, instead, that HDTV bedisplayed in a 2:1 aspect ratio. In reply,the Society of Motion Picture andTelevision Engineers (SMPTE) statesthat the 16:9 aspect ratio wasestablished by the SMPTE WorkingGroup on High Definition ElectronicProduction in 1985 on the basis ofstudies of the requirement for bothmotion picture and televisionproduction. Moreover, it states that thevalue of 16:9 for aspect ratio wasdecided upon only after long debate andthat ‘‘due consideration was given to thethen current practices both in NorthAmerica and around the world.’’ 30

SMPTE states that it has beendemonstrated that there is no difficultyin accommodating program material ormotion picture films of any reasonableaspect ratio within the 16:9 format andthat material originally composed for a2:1 aspect ratio could be accommodatedby leaving 11% of the vertical spaceunused.31

42. Additionally, we note that lowpower television station (‘‘LPTV’’)operators generally want to be includedin the implementation of digitaltechnology, and have suggested that, ifLPTV is excluded, its continuedviability would be jeopardized. LPTVcommenters are concerned that anystandards that could adversely affecttheir operations be thoroughlydocumented in this proceeding.32

43. We seek comment on these issues.We believe that those opposing ourmandate of the ATSC DTV Standardshould have the burden of persuasion asto why that standard should not beadopted.

V. Protection From Interference44. Protection from interference is a

fundamental Commission function thatmust be considered when introducingnew technologies into spectrumallocations currently in use. In additionto criteria we will propose in the nearfuture, when we propose an initialTable of DTV Allotments and associatedtechnical criteria, there are someinterference-related aspects of the ATSCDTV Standard that we shall explorenow. In the following paragraphs, wesolicit comment on limitations onstations using the ATSC DTV Standardthat might be needed to avoid


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.

35 This description of the ACATS position oninteroperability is largely derived from the ACATSReport at 15–16.

36 ACATS Report, Appendix I.37 ACATS Report at 16. See also Information

Technology Industry Council, ‘‘Position Statementon Standards for Advanced Television,’’ October31, 1995, at 1–2. We note that subsequently ITIstated that the ATSC DTV Standard ‘‘will be animportant part of a diverse and flexible NII’’ and‘‘urges the Commission to promptly adopt andimplement’’ it, but without the interlace options,stating that it believes ‘‘a truly interoperable ATVsystem will require the exclusive use of progressivescan.’’ See Comments of the Industry InformationTechnology Industry Council filed in response tothe Fourth Further Notice, at 2–3.

38 Second Inquiry, supra at 6537.

objectionable interference to receptionof either existing NTSC service or thereception of other stations that use theATSC DTV Standard.

45. First, we propose to adopt anemission mask, limiting the out-of-channel emissions from a DTV stationtransmitter, measured after any externalfilter that may be used and based on ameasurement bandwidth of 500 kHz.We seek comment on the followingemission mask: (A) at the channel edge,emissions attenuated no less than 35 dBbelow the average transmitted power;(B) more than 6 MHz from the channeledge, emissions attenuated no less than60 dB below the average transmittedpower; and (C) at any frequencybetween 0 and 6 MHz from the channeledge, emissions attenuated no less thanthe value determined using thefollowing formula:Attenuation in dB=35+[(∆f)2/1.44]Where: ∆f=frequency difference in MHz

from the edge of the channelThis proposal is derived from analysis

of the ACATS test results for protectionof adjacent channel stations. Theattenuation level is based on anassumption that the average DTV powerin a 6 MHz channel is 12 dB less thanthe NTSC station effective radiatedpower (ERP). This power differenceprovides approximately equal noiselimited coverage for DTV and NTSCstations in the UHF frequency band. IfDTV stations are permitted to operate ina co-located adjacent channelarrangement with average DTV powerexceeding that assumed value, greaterattenuation of the out-of-band emissionsmay be required.

46. Second, ACATS has reportedinterference from an upper-adjacentchannel DTV signal to reception of anNTSC station that is related to theprecise location of the DTV signal pilotcarrier frequency.33 To preventinterference to NTSC receivers from thissource, we are proposing to require anATSC DTV Standard station pilotfrequency to be located 5.082138 MHzabove the visual carrier of the loweradjacent channel NTSC station. Theabove stated frequency differencebetween the NTSC visual carrier and theDTV VSB pilot would need to bemaintained within a tolerance of ±3Hz.34

47. Third, we propose to specify themaximum power for each DTV stationas an average power across the occupiedbandwidth, so an appropriate method ormethods of determining operating

power will be different from theestablished NTSC procedures, whichdetermine the power transmitted duringeach synchronizing pulse (peak power).We propose that stations using theATSC DTV Standard would be allowedto determine their average power usingconventional RMS averaging powermeters.

48. We seek comment on all of theforegoing including whether theproposed limits on out-of-channelemissions, pilot carrier frequencytolerance and average powerdetermination are appropriate andrepresent the minimum necessaryrequirements for controlling theinterference potential of stationsoperating in conformance with theATSC DTV Standard. We also seekcomment on whether the proposedlimits are sufficient for this purpose, orif other parameters also need to beconstrained.

49. In addition to rules restrictingbroadcast stations that relate tointerference concerns, there are manyrules that establish procedures or havebeen applied broadly to all broadcaststations. We propose to modify many ofthem to include DTV, or to adapt themand create new DTV rules, asappropriate so that eligible licenseesmight move quickly to introduce thisnew technology to consumers. Apreliminary list of these technical andprocedural rules is attached asAppendix A. We seek comment onwhether they should be modified toinclude DTV, be changed to treat DTVdifferently than NTSC or otherbroadcast services are treated, or if theyneed not be applied to DTV.Commenters addressing this issueshould provide specificrecommendations, rule-by-rule, as to themodifications they advocate.

VI. Interoperability50. Cross-Industry Interoperability.

Compatibility with other transmissionforms and media applications has beenan important issue throughout thisproceeding. Since its inception, ACATSemphasized the need for DTVbroadcasting technology to beinteroperable with alternative media.35

In addition, ACATS has recognized thatinteroperability takes on criticalimportance given the future needs forhigh resolution digital imagery and thedevelopment of a National InformationInfrastructure. ACATS believes that theATSC DTV Standard is suitablyinteroperable with other video delivery

media and imaging systems, includingcable television, direct broadcastsatellite, and computer systems.

51. The working party and an‘‘interoperability review panel’’ alsoadopted a list of eleven characteristicscritical to interoperability based on theneeds and desires exhibited byalternative media advocates.36 ACATSbelieves the Grand Alliance videosystem adequately addresses all elevenfactors and strikes the best balancebetween various technicalconsiderations and needs of differentindustries. It is a balance that has beenendorsed by, among others, a subgroupof the Federal Government’sInformation Infrastructure Task Force,the 1994 NIST/ARPA Workshop onAdvanced Digital Video, and theInformation Technology IndustryCouncil (‘‘ITI’’).37 We request commenton the level of interoperability betweenthe ATSC DTV Standard and alternativemedia and on the ACATS Report’sconclusion that it is adequate. Are thereany critical interoperability problemsthat remain? What additional actions, ifany, might the Commission take tofacilitate interoperability? We ask thatin commenting on this issue,commenters provide specific technicalor economic analyses upon which wecan make our decision.

52. With digital technologies,differences in transmission methodscould develop between broadcast andalternative media if an appropriatevariant of the ATSC DTV Standard isnot required for alternative media.There is no guarantee that alternativemedia will choose the ATSC DTVStandard. In our Second Inquiry, weexpressed ‘‘our tentative view that ATVcompatibility among alternative mediaalso may develop in an appropriatemanner without governmentinvolvement.’’ 38 While we recognizedthat there may be benefits tocompatibility, we added that ‘‘we do notintend to retard the introduction of ATVon non-broadcast media, nor do weintend at this point to requirecompatibility among the various mediaor set specific signal or equipment


39 Id.40 See Cable Television Consumer Protection and

Competition Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102–385, 106Stat. 1460, (1992). Section 17 of the 1992 Cable Actadded a new Section 624A to the CommunicationsAct of 1934, which has been implemented by FirstReport and Order in ET Docket No. 93–7, 9 FCCRcd 1981 (1994). Section 301 of the Telecom Act,in turn, has modified Section 624A.

41 Id. at 10552.42 ATSC DTV Standard at 61–64. Note that it

describes ‘‘appropriate’’ as meaning that theexisting rules for NTSC which are referencedcontain most elements of future rules for digitaltelevision and, further, the rules may be expandedto cover digital television.

43 First Report and Order in ET Docket No. 93–7, supra. Although the Commission adoptedrequirements for television receivers to be marketedas ‘‘cable-ready,’’ an open issue in that proceedingis a standard for a decoder interface.

44 ACATS Report at 20.45 See, e.g., Comments of the Electronic Industries

Association and the Advanced TelevisionCommittee at 16. See also Comments of ZenithElectronics Corporation at 4.

46 Notice of Proposed Rule Making in MM DocketNo. 87–268, 6 FCC Rcd 7024, 7035 (1991); SecondReport and Order/Further Notice of Proposed RuleMaking 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, 7FCC Rcd 6924, 6982 (1992).

47 Advisory Committee ATV Test Procedures TestManagement Plan at § 2.1.

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

standards for this purpose.’’ 39 We seekcomment on whether this view remainscorrect.

53. In the Cable Television ConsumerProtection and Competition Act of 1992(1992 Cable Act), Congress expressedconcern about compatibility betweenconsumer electronics equipment andcable systems.40 We are aware ofconcern within the broadcast industrythat, for example, cable systems mayvoluntarily adopt QAM modulation inlieu of VSB modulation specified in theATSC DTV Standard. Some cablesystem operators suggest deploying aDTV system that does not use B-frames.While we understand that technicaldistinctions between broadcast andcable may at some extreme causeconsumer harm, we also recognize thatit is in the economic interests of theproviders to ensure consumers haveaccess to the most desirableprogramming. Today, nearly 60 percentof cable viewing hours are spentwatching broadcast programming, muchof which is provided underretransmission consent agreements. Inlight of these concerns, we seekcomment on whether the public interestwould be served by Commissioninvolvement to assure compatibilitybetween digital broadcast standards anddigital cable standards. Similarly, therewould appear to be advantages anddisadvantages to Commissioninvolvement to assure compatibilitybetween other existing and potentialcompeting video delivery methods,including DBS, MMDS, InstructionalTelevision Fixed Service (‘‘ITFS’’) andopen video systems. We seek commenton the considerations that apply inthese different environments.

VII. Other Issues

54. Receiver Standards and RelatedFeatures. In the Fourth Further Notice,we solicited comment on whether DTVreceivers should be required to have theability to receive both SDTV and HDTVtransmissions, whether we shouldregulate how such signals should bedisplayed and whether permitting themanufacture only of ‘‘all format’’receivers capable of displaying NTSC,SDTV and HDTV signals would beconsistent with the All-Channel

Receiver Act or otherwise in the publicinterest.41

55. Now, however, we have the ATSCDTV Standard before us. In Annex E, itindicates that our current TV rulesshould be appropriate for the digital TVservice with respect to tunerperformance, direct pickup and closedcaptioning.42 It notes that a 10 dB ‘‘noisefigure’’ was used for spectrum planningpurposes and it expects that value to beappropriate. Additionally, the ATSCDTV Standard indicates that anydecoder interface standards we adoptfor NTSC ‘‘cable-ready’’ receivers in ETDocket No. 93–7 will almost certainlyprovide a basis for rules concerning thisaspect of digital TV receivers.43 In itsFinal Report, the Technical Subgroup ofACATS recommended that theCommission require that receivers (andset-top boxes designed to receive ATVbroadcasts for display on NTSC sets) beable to receive adequately all DTVformats.44 In response to the FourthFurther Notice, some commentersexpressed concerned that such arequirement might have a large effect oneither reception quality or receivercosts.45 We request comment on theimportance of this requirement forcompatibility between receivers andbroadcast signals. What level ofreception performance should beconsidered adequate? Given ourproposal that licensees must use theATSC DTV Standard, is such arequirement necessary? We seekcomment on necessary adjustments tothe existing TV receiver rules so thatthey cover digital TV receivers.

56. Licensing Technology. We havepreviously stated that in order for DTVimplementation to be fully realized, thepatents on a DTV standard would haveto be licensed to other manufacturingcompanies on reasonable andnondiscriminatory terms.46 In response,

the Advisory Committee’s testingprocedures have required proponents ofany DTV system to follow AmericanNational Standards Institute patentpolicies which require assurance that:(1) a license will be made availablewithout compensation to applicantsdesiring to utilize the license for thepurpose of implementing the standard;or (2) a license will be made availableto applicants under reasonable termsand conditions that are demonstrablyfree of any unfair discrimination.47 Weseek comment on whether we shouldrequire more detailed information onthe specific terms, if any, for patentingand licensing the ATSC DTV Standard.

57. International Trade. We recognizethat other countries may choose otherdigital television systems that they feelmore appropriately meet their needs,expectations or national priorities. Theirsystems may well be incompatible withthe ATSC DTV Standard. Would ourproposal here serve to enhancecompetitiveness of a U.S. systemworldwide and what are the benefitsassociated with such a result? Will arequirement to use the ATSC DTVStandard as the sole authorized systemexacerbate or enhance the opportunitiesof U.S. based content providers,equipment manufacturers or otherparties? Additionally, to increaseinternational compatibility, the GrandAlliance adopted the MPEG–2 videostream syntax for encoding of video andthe MPEG–2 transport stream syntax forthe packetization and multiplexing ofvideo, audio and data signals. Shouldwe pursue additional measures tofacilitate international compatibility?

58. Captioning. Section 305 of theTelecommunications Act of 1996 48

requires the Commission, within 18months after the date of enactment ofthe Telecom Act, to prescriberegulations to assure that videoprogramming is fully accessible throughthe provision of closed captions. TheATSC DTV Standard reserves a fixed9600 bits-per-second data rate for closedcaptioning.49 We understand that EIA’sR4.3 Subcommittee on TV Data Systemsis considering a standard to define thesyntax for the data, as well as the issueof how to include closed captioninginformation for multichannel SDTVtransmissions. Any comments partiesmay have concerning the ability of DTVto include captioning and how theCommission should implement


captioning requirements for DTV maybe filed in response to this FurtherNotice.

Administrative Matters

59. Pursuant to applicable proceduresset forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 ofthe Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R.Sections 1.415 and 1.419, interestedparties may file comments on or before45 days after publication in the FederalRegister, and reply comments on orbefore 30 days after comments are due.To file formally in this proceeding, youmust file an original plus six copies ofall comments, reply comments, andsupporting comments. If you want eachCommissioner to receive a personalcopy of your comments, you must filean original plus eleven copies. Youshould send comments and replycomments to Office of the Secretary,Federal Communications Commission,1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.20554. Comments and reply commentswill be available for public inspectionduring regular business hours in theFCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

60. This is a non-restricted notice andcomment rulemaking proceeding. Exparte presentations are permitted,except during the Sunshine Agendaperiod, provided they are disclosed asprovided in the Commission Rules. Seegenerally 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.1202,1.1203, and 1.1206(a).

Initial Regulatory Flexibility ActStatement

I. Reason for Action

The Commission seeks comment on avariety of issues concerning whether toadopt a technical standard for digitaltelevision and, if so, whether thatstandard should be the one reported tothe Commission by the AdvisoryCommittee on Advanced TelevisionSystems.

II. Objectives of the Action

The Fifth Further Notice of ProposedRule Making solicits comment on avariety of issues, in order to establish anaccurate, comprehensive, reliable recordon which to base the Commission’sultimate decisions in this proceeding.The record established from commentsfiled in response to this decision, aswell as other Commission decisions,and the combined efforts of theCommission, the affected industries, theAdvisory Committee on AdvancedTelevision Service, and the DTV testingprocess, will lead to implementation ofDTV in the most harmonious fashionand to selection of the most desirableDTV system.

III. Legal Basis

Authority for this action may befound at 47 U.S.C. §§ 154 and 303.

IV. Reporting, Recordkeeping and OtherCompliance Requirements

Such requirements are not proposedin this phase of the proceeding, but maybe raised and comment sought in futuredecisions in this proceeding.

V. Federal Rules Which Overlap,Duplicate or Conflict With These Rules

There are no rules which wouldoverlap, duplicate, or conflict with theserules.

VI. Description, Potential Impact andNumber of Small Entities Involved

There are approximately 1,546 UHFand VHF, commercial and educationaltelevision stations, 2,587 UHF translatorstations, 2,275 VHF translator stations,and 1,825 UHF and VHF low powertelevision stations which would beaffected by decisions reached in thisproceeding. The impact of actions takenin this proceeding on small entitieswould ultimately depend on the finaldecisions taken by the Commission.However, the Commission, in takingfuture action will continue to balancethe need to provide the public withaffordable, flexible, accessible digitalbroadcast television service with theeconomic and administrative interestsof the affected industries.

VII. Any Significant AlternativesMinimizing the Impact on Small EntitiesConsistent with Stated Objectives.

This Fifth Further Notice of ProposedRule Making is intended to examine theissue of what, if any, transmissionstandard for digital television should beadopted by the Commission. In sodoing, we are soliciting comments andsuggestions that hopefully willrepresent the views of all of theindustries concerned, and thus theCommission will be better able tominimize whatever negative impactmight face small entities as a result ofour decisions.

Ordering Clause

61. Accordingly, it is ordered Thatpursuant to the authority contained inSections 4 and 303 of theCommunications Act of 1934, asamended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154 and303, this Fifth Further Notice ofProposed Rule Making IS ADOPTED.

62. Additional Information: Foradditional information regarding thisproceeding, contact Saul Shapiro (202–418–2600) or Roger Holberg (202–418–2134), Mass Media Bureau.

63. As required by Section 603 of theRegulatory Flexibility Act, theCommission has prepared an InitialRegulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)of the expected impact on small entitiesof the proposals suggested in thisdocument. The IRFA is set forth above.Written public comments are requestedon the IRFA. These comments must befiled in accordance with the same filingdeadlines as comments on the rest of theNotice, but they must have a separateand distinct heading designating themas responses to the Initial RegulatoryFlexibility Analysis. The Secretary shallsend a copy of this Fifth Further Noticeof Proposed Rule Making, including theInitial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of theSmall Business Administration inaccordance with paragraph 603(a) of theRegulatory Flexibility Act. Public Law96–354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. Section601 et seq. (1981).Federal Communications Commission.William F. Caton,Acting Secretary.

Appendix AAdditional procedural or general

broadcast rules that may be modified oradapted 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 andcorrespondence.

73.1030 Notifications concerninginterference to radio astronomy, researchand 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.


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 SafetyAdministration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 95–28; Notice 7]

RIN 2127–AF73

Lamps, Reflective Devices andAssociated Equipment; AdvisoryCommittee on Regulatory NegotiationPublic Meeting

AGENCY: National Highway TrafficSafety Administration (NHTSA); DOT.ACTION: Schedule of AdvisoryCommittee on Regulatory NegotiationMeeting.

SUMMARY: This document announces thefinal meetings of NHTSA’s AdvisoryCommittee on Regulatory Negotiation(concerning the improvement ofheadlamp aimability performance andvisual/optical headlamp aiming).DATES: Wednesday-Thursday, May 29–30, 1996.ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held atthe Federal Mediation and Conciliation

Service, 2100 K Street, NW.,Washington, D.C. The meeting of May29 is scheduled for noon to 5:00 p.m.The meeting of May 30 will be from 9:00a.m. to 5:00 p.m.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JereMedlin, Office of Vehicle SafetyStandards, NHTSA (Phone: 202–366–5276; FAX: 202–366–4329). Mediator:Lynn Sylvester, Federal Mediation andConciliation Service, (phone: 202–606–9140; FAX: 202–606–3679).SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The finalmeetings of the Advisory Committee onRegulatory Negotiation (concerning theimprovement of headlamp aimabilityperformance and visual/opticalheadlamp aiming) will be held on May29–30, at which time it is anticipatedthat final consensus will be reached ona notice of proposed rulemaking on thesubject of the negotiations.

The meetings are open to the public.Issued: May 24, 1996.

Barry Felrice,Associate Administrator for SafetyPerformance Standards.[FR Doc. 96–13556 Filed 5–24–96; 12:33 pm]BILLING CODE 4910–59–P

Documents

Federal Register /Vol. 61, No. 104/Wednesday, May … · Federal Register/Vol. 61, No. 104/Wednesday, May 29, 1996/Proposed Rules26863 Commodity ... 0.2 parts per million in or on