Broadcast Services; Television Stations

[[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'').1 We have the following

objectives with regard to the authorization and implementation of a DTV

standard.2 We seek to ensure that all affected parties have

sufficient confidence and certainty in order to promote the smooth

introduction of a free and universally available digital broadcast

television service. We seek to increase the availability of new

products and services to consumers through the introduction of digital

broadcasting. We seek to ensure that our rules encourage technological

innovation and competition. And we seek to minimize regulation and

assure that any regulations we do adopt remain in effect no longer than

necessary.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.''

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 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 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.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.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.8 However, we also stated that the continuation of

mandatory standards may no longer be necessary and may even be

counterproductive.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.10 In

this regard, we asserted that establishing a standard has certain

advantages such as pointing the various interested parties in the same

direction, reducing the risk to both audiences and broadcasters of

investments in systems that might become obsolete if a different system

is introduced in the market, and overcoming reluctance to invest in new

equipment.11 We also stated that, ``detailed, inflexible standards

that have the force of law may reduce consumer choice and prevent the

timely introduction of new technology.'' 12

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.''

13 We also stated that, ``parties filing comments in response to

the Further Notice generally assume that the Commission will ultimately

authorize a system using new technology that will provide HDTV

service.'' (Footnote omitted.) 14 The Commission's November 14,

1990 Memorandum of Understanding with the Advisory Committee, the

Advanced Television Test Center, Inc., Cable Television Laboratories,

Inc., and the Canadian Communications Research Centre, said, ``[t]he

FCC's stated intention is to select an ATV standard by the second

quarter of 1993.''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.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.16 First,

that there is a substantial public benefit from a standard. Second,

private industry either will not, or cannot, produce a standard because

the private costs of getting involved in standard setting outweigh the

private benefits, or a number of different standards have been

developed and private industry cannot agree which should become the

standard. The second condition may not be applicable in view of the

strong industry coalescence around the ATSC DTV Standard. However, we

believe that the first condition applies to DTV. Television today is a

ubiquitous service that is available to almost every American household

and is relied on by a majority of Americans as their primary news and

information source.17

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.18 Over time, we expect that normal technological

progress will lead to improvements. If subsequent technological

improvements cannot be readily incorporated into the ATSC DTV Standard,

the Standard could lock the broadcast market into less than optimal

technology. Required standards also may reduce some forms of

competition while enhancing others. With required standards, equipment

manufacturers cannot compete by offering differentiated products using

different technologies. As such, a primary cost of required standards

is loss of variety.19 On the other hand, required standards, which

are licensed to everyone on a non-discriminatory basis, may intensify

the more conventional forms of competition, such as price, service, and

product features.20

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.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.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.'' 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.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; 25 and (2) adopting a

standard for allocation and assignment purposes only.26 We also

seek comment on requiring use of some layers of the ATSC DTV Standard

(described more fully above) but making others optional. For example,

would it be desirable to require digital licensees to use the RF/

transmission layer of the ATSC DTV Standard, while leaving them free to

choose coding and compression technologies different from those

described in the ATSC DTV Standard?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.27 Proponents of the ATSC DTV Standard respond that

the Standard was developed for terrestrial broadcasting but has

incorporated significant elements to enhance compatibility with

computers.28 With respect to the issue of the presence of

interlaced scanning in the proposed Standard, the Grand Alliance argues

that, ``* * * the Grand Alliance HDTV system emphasizes progressive

scan--five of the six HDTV formats are progressive scan, and the

Advisory Committee believes that the lone interlaced format should be

`migrated' to progressive as soon as improvements in digital

compression and transmission technology make an over-1000 line, 60 Hz

progressively scanned format achievable within a 6 MHz terrestrial

channel.'' 29

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.'' 30 SMPTE states that it has been demonstrated that there

is no difficulty in accommodating program material or motion picture

films of any reasonable aspect ratio within the 16:9 format and that

material originally composed for a 2:1 aspect ratio could be

accommodated by leaving 11% of the vertical space unused.31

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.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+[(f)2/1.44]

Where: f=frequency difference in MHz from the edge of the

channel

This proposal is derived from analysis of the ACATS test results

for protection of adjacent channel stations. The attenuation level is

based on an assumption that the average DTV power in a 6 MHz channel is

12 dB less than the NTSC station effective radiated power (ERP). This

power difference provides approximately equal noise limited coverage

for DTV and NTSC stations in the UHF frequency band. If DTV stations

are permitted to operate in a co-located adjacent channel arrangement

with average DTV power exceeding that assumed value, greater

attenuation of the out-of-band emissions may be required.

46. Second, ACATS has reported interference from an upper-adjacent

channel DTV signal to reception of an NTSC station that is related to

the precise location of the DTV signal pilot carrier frequency.33

To prevent interference to NTSC receivers from this source, we are

proposing to require an ATSC DTV Standard station pilot frequency to be

located 5.082138 MHz above the visual carrier of the lower adjacent

channel NTSC station. The above stated frequency difference between the

NTSC visual carrier and the DTV VSB pilot would need to be maintained

within a tolerance of 3 Hz.34

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.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.36 ACATS believes the Grand Alliance video system

adequately addresses all eleven factors and strikes the best balance

between various technical considerations and needs of different

industries. It is a balance that has been endorsed by, among others, a

subgroup of the Federal Government's Information Infrastructure Task

Force, the 1994 NIST/ARPA Workshop on Advanced Digital Video, and the

Information Technology Industry Council (``ITI'').37 We request

comment on the level of interoperability between the ATSC DTV Standard

and alternative media and on the ACATS Report's conclusion that it is

adequate. Are there any critical interoperability problems that remain?

What additional actions, if any, might the Commission take to

facilitate interoperability? We ask that in commenting on this issue,

commenters provide specific technical or economic analyses upon which

we can make our decision.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.'' 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.'' 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.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.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.42 It notes that a 10 dB ``noise figure'' was

used for spectrum planning purposes and it expects that value to be

appropriate. Additionally, the ATSC DTV Standard indicates that any

decoder interface standards we adopt for NTSC ``cable-ready'' receivers

in ET Docket No. 93-7 will almost certainly provide a basis for rules

concerning this aspect of digital TV receivers.43 In its Final

Report, the Technical Subgroup of ACATS recommended that the Commission

require that receivers (and set-top boxes designed to receive ATV

broadcasts for display on NTSC sets) be able to receive adequately all

DTV formats.44 In response to the Fourth Further Notice, some

commenters expressed concerned that such a requirement might have a

large effect on either reception quality or receiver costs.45 We

request comment on the importance of this requirement for compatibility

between receivers and broadcast signals. What level of reception

performance should be considered adequate? Given our proposal that

licensees must use the ATSC DTV Standard, is such a requirement

necessary? We seek comment on necessary adjustments to the existing TV

receiver rules so that they cover digital TV receivers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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.46 In response, the

Advisory Committee's testing procedures have required proponents of any

DTV system to follow American National Standards Institute patent

policies which require assurance that: (1) a license will be made

available without compensation to applicants desiring to utilize the

license for the purpose of implementing the standard; or (2) a license

will be made available to applicants under reasonable terms and

conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair

discrimination.47 We seek comment on whether we should require

more detailed information on the specific terms, if any, for patenting

and licensing the ATSC DTV Standard.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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

48 requires the Commission, within 18 months after the date of

enactment of the Telecom Act, to prescribe regulations to assure that

video programming is fully accessible through the provision of closed

captions. The ATSC DTV Standard reserves a fixed 9600 bits-per-second

data rate for closed captioning.49 We understand that EIA's R4.3

Subcommittee on TV Data Systems is considering a standard to define the

syntax for the data, as well as the issue of how to include closed

captioning information for multichannel SDTV transmissions. Any

comments parties may have concerning the ability of DTV to include

captioning and how the Commission should implement

[[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