Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of )

)

Digital Audio Broadcasting Systems )

And Their Impact On the Terrestrial Radio ) MM Docket No. 99-325

Broadcast Service. )

**NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING**

**Adopted: November 1, 1999 Released: November 1, 1999**

Comment Date: \[75 days from the date of publication in the Federal
Register\]

Reply Date: \[105 days from the date of publication in the Federal
Register\]

By the Commission:

Table of Contents:

Paragraph

I. Introduction 1

II. Background

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
A.  The Current Radio Broadcast Service and the Commission's Commitment

> to Enabling Broadcasters to Convert to Digital Transmissions. 4

B.  The Present Development of In-Band On-Channel ("IBOC") and

> Other Digital Audio Broadcasting ("DAB") Systems. 7

C.  The USA Digital Radio *Petition* and Comments. 12

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
III. Discussion

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
A.  DAB Policy Goals. 15

B.  Tentative Selection Criteria for a DAB System. 20

C.  IBOC DAB Model. 36

D.  DAB Model Utilizing New Spectrum. 40

E.  Standards and Testing.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  DAB Transmission Standard. 50

2.  Decision-Making Models for DAB System Testing, Evaluation and

> Transmission Standard Selection. 54

IV\. Administrative Matters 59

Appendix A: Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

I.  INTRODUCTION

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Digital audio broadcasting ("DAB") technology is in various stages
    of development and implementation throughout the world. Its
    proponents claim that it has the capacity to move the American radio
    broadcast service "to the next plateau of audio performance by
    providing listeners with enhanced sound quality more closely
    resembling original source material and digital recordings."[^1] DAB
    technology utilizes new and efficient audio compression techniques
    that reduce the amount of bandwidth required to transmit a
    high-quality audio signal. In addition, DAB transmission systems can
    be designed to achieve the same coverage as analog signals at lower
    powers, and to achieve greater robustness to interference and other
    impairments. Proponents also contend that a DAB system would enable
    radio broadcasters to offer the public an array of new auxiliary
    services.[^2] Thus, DAB technology has the potential to
    significantly enhance the American radio broadcast service.

2.  The Commission is initiating this rule making proceeding to consider
    alternative approaches to introducing DAB service to the American
    public. The catalyst for this action is the progress of in-band,
    on-channel ("IBOC") DAB technology, which IBOC system proponents
    assert is in a final stage of development.[^3] IBOC systems are
    designed to allow the simultaneous broadcast of analog and digital
    radio signals in the AM and FM bands without disrupting existing
    analog service. IBOC DAB systems have not been conclusively proven
    to be technically viable at this point in time, yet great strides
    have been made and the systems certainly hold real promise. It is
    helpful for the Commission to determine whether an IBOC model and/or
    a model utilizing new radio spectrum would be the best means of
    promptly introducing DAB service in the United States. By initiating
    this proceeding now, we can foster the further development of IBOC
    systems, as well as new-spectrum DAB alternatives, help DAB system
    proponents identify design issues of public interest dimension and,
    where possible, encourage modifications that advance these policy
    objectives. We also can begin developing a complete record regarding
    the issues raised by this new technology. The resolution of these
    issues will shape fundamentally the nature of our radio broadcast
    service for years to come, and we intend to be in a position to act
    expeditiously when the time is ripe.[^4]

3.  In this *Notice*, the Commission: (1) reaffirms its commitment to
    provide radio broadcasters with the opportunity to take advantage of
    DAB technology; (2) identifies Commission public policy objectives
    for the introduction of DAB service; (3) proposes criteria for the
    evaluation of DAB models and systems; (4) evaluates IBOC and
    new-spectrum DAB models; (5) inquires as to the need for a mandatory
    DAB transmission standard; and (6) considers certain DAB system
    testing, evaluation and standard selection issues.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
II. BACKGROUND

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
A.  **The Current Radio Broadcast Service and the Commission's
    Commitment to Enabling Broadcasters to Convert to Digital
    Transmissions.**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
4.  The Commission often has recognized the importance of our free,
    over-the-air radio broadcast service, with its unrivaled
    accessibility and unique ability to provide local news, information
    and public service programming.[^5] Although this vital
    communications service continues to grow and prosper, it faces
    significant technical limitations[^6] and competitive challenges.
    Opportunities for new and improved FM service are limited by
    spectrum congestion in most major and mid-sized radio markets.[^7]
    The Commission has proposed a new, low power FM ("LPFM") service,
    but acknowledged that there may be difficulty finding sufficient
    spectrum for the new service.[^8] With regard to the AM band, we
    have recognized that "many stations currently experience significant
    interference and degraded reception\[.\]"[^9] The radio broadcast
    service also faces competitive challenges from new digital audio
    technologies offering consumers enhanced sound fidelity and other
    services, including the recently-authorized satellite digital audio
    radio service ("satellite DARS").[^10] Many have argued that the
    Commission must provide radio broadcasters with the opportunity to
    convert to a digital platform to enable them to compete effectively
    and to ensure the continued viability of this important
    service.[^11]

5.  In 1990, the Commission opened a proceeding to consider the
    authorization of digital radio services.[^12] The proceeding
    initially addressed both a satellite DARS and a terrestrial DAB
    service. As the record developed, however, it became evident that
    the IBOC DAB systems then under consideration for a terrestrial
    service were not technically feasible, and the proceeding ultimately
    focused on satellite DARS spectrum allocation, service and licensing
    issues. Nevertheless, the Commission advanced several principles
    relevant here. Most importantly to the instant proceeding, the
    Commission emphasized its conviction that "existing radio
    broadcasters can and should have the opportunity to take advantage
    of new digital radio technologies\[.\]"[^13]

> > \[W\]e anticipate that technical advances will soon permit both AM
> > and FM broadcasters to offer improved digital sound. . . . Some of
> > the systems being tested are designed specifically to permit digital
> > broadcasting within the existing AM and FM bands. We fully support
> > these developments, and we see great promise in these innovations
> > for providing improved services to consumers. These innovations will
> > also help promote the future viability of our terrestrial
> > broadcasting system, which provides local news and public affairs
> > programming.[^14]

The Commission also expressed its willingness to "act expeditiously to
consider any appropriate changes to our rules" when the time was
ripe.[^15]

6.  In addition, the Commission emphasized localism as a "touchstone
    value" of the terrestrial radio broadcast service.[^16] Many radio
    broadcasters argued that authorization of a satellite DARS would
    have an adverse impact on the existing radio broadcast industry.
    Some also argued that satellite DARS should be delayed until a
    terrestrial DAB system was close to implementation. In rejecting
    such arguments, the Commission stated that "\[o\]ur concern about
    licensing satellite DARS focuses on its impact on the provision of
    locally oriented radio service."[^17] In this regard, it concluded
    that "the record does not demonstrate that licensing satellite DARS
    would have such a strong adverse impact that it threatens the
    provision of local radio service."[^18] Although the Commission
    recognized that the two services would compete to some extent, it
    found that the new satellite DARS would complement existing, local
    radio broadcasting stations by providing regional and national
    services.[^19]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
B.  **The Present Development of IBOC and Other DAB Systems.**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
7.  *Current IBOC system designs*. As stated above, IBOC systems are
    designed to allow the simultaneous broadcast of analog and digital
    signals in the AM and FM bands without disruption of existing analog
    service. The Commission's rules impose limits or "emission masks" on
    the power of a station's signal inside and outside its assigned
    channel.[^20] Together with minimum spacing requirements, emission
    masks prevent interference by limiting a station's signal strength
    relative to other, nearby stations operating on co- and adjacent
    channels. These limits are based on analog signal transmissions
    centered on their assigned channels. In the "hybrid" operational
    mode, IBOC systems transmit lower power digital signal "sidebands"
    that are positioned on either side of the host analog signal. The
    digital signal waveforms are designed to conform to the current
    emission masks.[^21] Digital signals would be interleaved: station
    A's upper digital sideband would be located between 1^st^ adjacent
    channel station B's lower and upper digital sidebands, and adjoining
    station B's carrier frequency.[^22] In addition, the presence of
    digital sidebands would reduce the separation between the host
    analog signal and 2^nd^ and 3^rd^ adjacent channel digital signals.
    IBOC system proponents believe that digital signal processing
    techniques will permit the transmission of a digital "pair" of each
    analog signal in the AM and FM bands, without disrupting existing
    analog service. Their systems purportedly will provide near
    CD-quality sound on FM channels and FM-quality sound on AM channels,
    coverage equal to or greater than that provided by analog
    transmission systems, and enhanced auxiliary capacity.

8.  IBOC systems also have an "all-digital" mode. As a result of
    significant differences in the design of the USA Digital Radio, Inc.
    ("USADR") and Lucent Technologies, Inc. ("Lucent") all-digital
    systems, the transition from hybrid to all-digital operations under
    each system also would differ.[^23] After a transition to
    all-digital operations, the USADR system would continue to divide
    the digital signal into sidebands, boost power by tenfold, and
    utilize the channel center formerly occupied by the host analog
    signal for lower-power auxiliary services. Because of the increased
    power of the signal sidebands, the all-digital transmissions likely
    would interfere with 1^st^ adjacent channel analog signals.
    Accordingly, USADR proposes to restrict digital stations to hybrid
    operating parameters for a period of 12 years to provide a
    reasonable transition to an all-digital radio broadcast service. At
    the end of this transition period, USADR proposes a sunset on
    protection of analog signals, with the initiation of "all-digital"
    signals. In contrast, Lucent's system would largely consolidate the
    all-digital signal in the channel center, utilizing the 1^st^
    adjacent channel areas formerly occupied by the digital sidebands
    for auxiliary services. Under this system, no sunset on analog
    protection would be necessary because all-digital transmissions
    would be expected not to interfere with other stations' analog
    signals, and broadcasters would be able to initiate all-digital
    service at any time.[^24]

9.  *Recent IBOC DAB system developments/NRSC process*. During the
    mid-1990s, the National Radio Systems Committee ("NRSC")[^25]
    established a DAB Subcommittee which, in collaboration with a
    Consumer Electronics Manufacturing Association ("CEMA") Digital
    Audio Radio Subcommittee, oversaw laboratory tests of a number of
    IBOC systems, ultimately concluding that none were technically
    viable. CEMA also oversaw laboratory and field testing of non-IBOC
    DAB systems, including a Eureka-147 system operating in the L-Band
    (1452-1492 MHz).[^26] CEMA's December, 1997 Final Report ("CEMA
    Final Report") stated that the IBOC systems tested exhibited two
    major deficiencies: (1) poor digital audio performance under
    impaired signal conditions; and (2) incompatibility with analog FM
    service.[^27]

10. IBOC system proponents now contend that they have made substantial
    progress towards developing technically viable IBOC systems. In its
    *Petition*, USADR describes computer model simulations demonstrating
    that its system design satisfies its own performance requirements,
    including improved performance over, and compatibility with,
    existing analog service.[^28] USADR acknowledges that laboratory and
    field testing also are necessary to demonstrate the system's
    viability.[^29] It states, however, that it expects to complete such
    testing before the end of the year and that "preproduction systems
    will be operational beginning in early 2000," with the capability of
    commencing commercial service later that year.[^30] Likewise, Lucent
    states that "substantial progress has been made in 1999 toward
    completing our IBOC system design and having it demonstrated in the
    laboratory and in the field\[,\]" and that "\[a\] completely tested
    and ready IBOC digital system is only months away."[^31] In light of
    the system proponents' progress, the NRSC has reactivated its DAB
    Subcommittee and developed model IBOC laboratory and field test
    guidelines.[^32] The IBOC system proponents reportedly have agreed
    on a December 15, 1999 deadline for submission of certain test
    results to the NRSC. In contrast to the CEMA Final Report, which
    compared systems based on a number of performance objectives, this
    first phase of NRSC testing appears to be designed to demonstrate
    the technical viability of IBOC systems, that is, "to establish
    whether or not IBOC DAB systems are a significant improvement over
    existing AM and FM analog radio services\[,\]" as well as whether
    IBOC systems can operate without disrupting analog service.[^33]

11. *Eureka-147 DAB systems*. DAB systems are now being implemented in
    Canada, Europe, and elsewhere utilizing what is referred to as
    "Eureka-147" technology.[^34] Eureka-147 systems utilize a wide
    bandwidth, are capable of transmitting multiple audio channels, and
    can operate on various frequencies.[^35] Rather than the FM band,
    the services that have been introduced in Europe and Canada are
    using other frequencies, such as the "L-Band" (1452-1492 MHz) and
    "Band III" (around 221 MHz).[^36] In the United States, however, the
    L-Band is allocated for the purpose of flight test telemetry,[^37]
    and the spectrum around 221 MHz is allocated for the primary
    purposes of land mobile and amateur use. The CEMA Final Report found
    that "\[o\]f all the systems tested, only the Eureka\[-147\] system
    offers the audio quality and signal robustness performance that
    listeners would expect from a new \[DAB\] service in all reception
    environments."[^38] No proponent of a Eureka-147 or other non-IBOC
    DAB system has filed comments in response to USADR's *Petition*. We
    currently are unaware of any such proponents in the United
    States.[^39]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
C.  **The USADR *Petition* and Comments.**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
12. The USADR *Petition* *for Rulemaking* was filed on October 7, 1998,
    and placed on public notice on November 6, 1998 (RM-9395). In the
    *Petition*, USADR urged the Commission to take the following
    regulatory steps:

> > \(1\) "find\[\] that the public interest would be served by the
> > introduction of DAB and that IBOC is the most appropriate means to
> > implement DAB in the United States\[;\]" (2) adopt rule changes "to
> > insure the compatibility of analog and digital radio stations\[;\]"
> > (3) adopt "a transition plan that provides appropriate protection
> > for analog radio for an interim period but also fosters the
> > transition to an all-digital environment\[;\]" (4) "find\[\] that it
> > will adopt a DAB transmission standard that will insure that all DAB
> > radios are compatible with all DAB transmitters\[;\]" (5) "establish
> > criteria for evaluating IBOC systems and a timetable for the
> > submission of IBOC system information to the Commission for
> > evaluation\[;\]" and (6) "select a single IBOC system to be
> > implemented . . . and adopt a transmission standard that will allow
> > implementation of the selected system."[^40]

13. Twenty-three comments and six reply comments were filed in response
    to the *Petition*. Commenters expressed nearly unanimous support for
    the introduction of DAB. IBOC system proponents and many radio
    broadcasters also endorsed IBOC as the best means of implementing
    DAB in the United States, provided that its compatibility with
    existing analog service is demonstrated.[^41] CEMA, National Public
    Radio, Inc. ("NPR") and a number of public interest groups, however,
    urged the Commission to carefully consider non-IBOC DAB systems
    utilizing new spectrum, such as a Eureka-147 system.[^42] With
    regard to USADR's proposed step (2), the comments reflected a broad
    consensus that until laboratory and field tests demonstrate the
    compatibility of the current generation of IBOC systems with analog
    service, consideration of specific rule changes to implement IBOC is
    premature.[^43] Several commenters noted that the Commission cannot
    consider specific rule changes until it selects a specific DAB
    system.[^44] Likewise, with regard to (3), the need to establish a
    sunset on analog signal protection may depend on the selection of an
    IBOC system.[^45]

14. With regard to USADR's proposed step (5), many commenters agreed
    that the Commission has a role to play not only in the
    implementation of DAB, but also in fostering the further development
    of IBOC DAB systems. The commenters suggested various models for
    such Commission action, including the mandatory submission of test
    results that would be evaluated in the context of a
    notice-and-comment rulemaking proceeding and the creation of an
    advisory committee with open membership.[^46] Finally, with regard
    to (4) and (6), the commenters generally agreed with USADR that a
    single DAB transmission standard ultimately will be required to
    ensure a successful transition to digital.[^47]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
III. DISCUSSION

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
A.  DAB Policy Goals.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
15. It has been several years since the Commission last considered
    terrestrial DAB issues. Accordingly, we believe it will be useful to
    set forth the public policy objectives that will guide our
    deliberations in this proceeding. We begin with the settled
    determination that fostering the development and implementation of
    terrestrial DAB is in the public interest.[^48] We believe that the
    principles advanced by the Commission in Docket No. 90-357 regarding
    the terrestrial radio broadcast service remain valid, and will look
    to them in developing our approach to a terrestrial DAB
    service.[^49] The goal of introducing terrestrial DAB service is
    most fundamentally grounded on the promise of digital technology to
    provide vastly improved radio service to the public. It is our goal
    to authorize a DAB service that permits broadcasters and listeners
    to realize fully the superior technical performance capabilities of
    this technology.

16. The Commission also remains firmly committed to the related goals of
    "supporting a vibrant and vital terrestrial radio service for the
    public" and creating DAB opportunities for existing radio
    broadcasters.[^50] We must ensure that the introduction of DAB does
    not weaken the vitality of our free, over-the-air radio broadcast
    service, which provides service to virtually all Americans through a
    strong, independent system of privately owned and operated
    stations.[^51] We previously recognized the close relationship
    between this goal and providing digital opportunities for existing
    broadcast licensees in the digital television ("DTV") proceeding,
    where we concluded that "implement\[ing DTV\] within the existing
    framework of local television broadcasting" would be the best way to
    preserve the unique benefits of the local television broadcast
    service.[^52] We also concluded that existing television
    broadcasters were the group best suited to introduce this new
    service to the public "in the quickest and most efficacious
    manner."[^53] We believe that the same reasoning applies here. In
    addition, as was the case with the DTV transition,[^54] we believe
    that it is desirable for all broadcasters to have the opportunity to
    provide DAB service. We recognize, however, that prior to the
    selection of a DAB system and spectrum, we cannot know whether this
    goal is feasible and what trade-offs it may require.

17. A viable DAB system must be spectrum efficient.[^55] Our preference
    is for DAB systems that use the least spectrum. It is the
    Commission's obligation to ensure that the value derived from the
    superior transmission capabilities of DAB technology is allocated in
    a manner consistent with the public interest. In addition, with
    regard to IBOC DAB systems, we believe that a transition to an
    all-digital service is an appropriate public policy goal, because
    the spectrum efficiencies and related new service opportunities
    inherent in such systems can be realized fully only in an
    all-digital operational mode.[^56]

18. Finally, it is our objective to foster a rapid and non-disruptive
    transition to DAB for broadcasters and listeners.[^57] A viable
    system must minimize interference to analog AM and FM stations
    during that period when digital and analog service operate
    concurrently.[^58] The Commission also will favor systems that do
    not require burdensome investments in new broadcast transmission
    equipment. Additionally, we recognize that a viable DAB model should
    provide broadcasters with sufficient incentives to convert to DAB so
    that the American public receives the benefits of this new
    technology as soon as possible. A non-disruptive transition for
    consumers must protect listeners' investment in over one-half
    billion radio receivers.[^59] Thus, a transition period of some
    reasonable duration appears necessary to permit the graceful
    obsolescence of this equipment. It is equally important that the
    Commission's DAB technical rules make it possible for manufacturers
    to produce reasonably-priced digital receivers.

19. One other issue warrants mention at this point. The Commission
    previously has noted the advantages of an IBOC DAB approach.[^60] As
    explained in more detail below, we continue to believe that IBOC
    systems hold great promise. These systems may be able to facilitate
    a seamless transition to an all-digital radio broadcast environment
    by affording all broadcasters a concurrent digital and analog
    broadcast opportunity. Moreover, IBOC is the only approach that, to
    date, has attracted a substantial number of adherents. Nevertheless,
    this *Notice* should not be construed as the start of an IBOC
    rulemaking. CEMA correctly frames the issue: the Commission's
    challenge is to craft a terrestrial DAB service that meets both
    demanding performance objectives and the public's expectations.[^61]
    We agree with NPR that at this time it is not possible to definitely
    settle this issue in favor of IBOC.[^62]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
B.  **Tentative Selection Criteria for a DAB System.**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
20. We seek to determine which DAB model and/or system would best
    promote our above-stated public policy objectives. In reaching this
    fundamental determination, we propose to apply the following
    evaluative criteria: (1) enhanced audio fidelity; (2) robustness to
    interference and other signal impairments; (3) compatibility with
    existing analog service; (4) spectrum efficiency; (5)
    flexibility, (6) auxiliary capacity; (7) extensibility; (8)
    accommodation for existing broadcasters; (9) coverage; and (10)
    implementation costs/affordability of equipment. The order of these
    proposed criteria is not intended to imply a hierarchy among them.

21. *(1), (2) Enhanced audio fidelity/robustness.* Consumer demand for
    improved audio fidelity is undeniable.[^63] Access to superior
    digital audio technologies, such as compact discs and -- in the near
    future -- satellite DARS, and the perceived benefits of
    digitalization generally, fuel such demand. We believe that an
    important benefit of DAB will be enhanced sound quality. DAB
    technology should permit significant improvements in audio fidelity
    and robustness over our current analog service. For example, USADR
    and Lucent anticipate that AM hybrid IBOC DAB systems will offer
    sound quality comparable to today's stereo FM systems, and that FM
    hybrid IBOC DAB systems will deliver near-CD quality sound.[^64] As
    to robustness, DAB systems may improve reception by using techniques
    that protect digital signals from many forms of impairment that
    affect analog signals. We seek comment on these selection criteria,
    including the specific standards that should be used to compare
    competing systems.

22. IBOC systems are designed to operate in two fundamentally different
    RF environments. In the hybrid mode, an IBOC system must make
    certain trade-offs to avoid interference to in-band analog
    transmissions. Although the sharing of spectrum may facilitate a
    transition to DAB, it may also result in lesser digital performance
    during the transition period. Accordingly, a comparison of IBOC and
    new-spectrum alternatives must consider the time frame within which
    either system could achieve all-digital operations and the
    short-term performance advantages, if any, of hybrid IBOC digital
    systems over the current analog service. We seek comment on this
    issue. A related question is whether the trade-offs necessary to
    permit IBOC digital transmissions in the hybrid mode would extend
    into the all-digital world, *i.e.,* limit the potential for enhanced
    audio fidelity and robustness in comparison to non-IBOC
    alternatives. We seek comment on the appropriate ways of comparing
    IBOC and new-spectrum DAB alternatives under these selection
    criteria.

23. *(3) Compatibility*. A DAB system must be compatible with the
    continued operation of existing radio broadcast stations. This
    appears to be a criterion of relevance primarily to in-band
    systems.[^65] Most commenters agree with NAB's position that "the
    implementation of an IBOC DAB service that causes significant
    impairment to existing analog service would raise serious questions
    as to the suitability of the system."[^66] We tentatively conclude
    that IBOC systems should minimize interference to reception of host
    and adjacent-channel analog signals during hybrid mode operations
    including, for FM stations, interference to subcarriers.

24. To a significant extent, the opportunity to introduce new ancillary
    services in both the USADR and Lucent systems is tied to the
    initiation of all-digital operations. In this regard, however, it
    appears that the Lucent and USADR systems differ in one important
    respect. Unlike Lucent's, USADR's all-digital mode transmissions
    could interfere with an adjacent channel station transmitting an
    analog signal. As a result, initiation of all-digital operations
    under USADR's system would not be possible until a fixed analog
    "sunset" date, *i.e.,* a date when stations transmitting analog
    signals would lose their current interference protection. A system
    that permits stations to implement rapidly an all-digital radio
    service may serve the public interest better than one that delays
    the opportunity to fully realize the benefits of DAB until the end
    of what is likely to be an extended transition period. On the other
    hand, we recognize the potential benefit of a fixed analog "sunset"
    date in fostering a transition to an all-digital service.[^67] We
    seek comment on whether, with regard to an IBOC system, all-digital
    compatibility with analog signals should be an evaluative criterion.

25. We also seek comment on the compatibility of IBOC systems and the
    proposed low power FM ("LPFM") service. In our *LPFM Notice*, we
    recognized the importance of taking into consideration "the
    implications of 2^nd^-adjacent channel protection for the possible
    conversion" to a DAB system.[^68] We asked whether we should impose
    a 2^nd^ adjacent channel protection requirement on LPFM stations
    "for the purpose of protecting a possible future digital radio
    technology, considering that creating opportunities for new radio
    service is also an important Commission goal."[^69] Similarly, we
    ask here how a DAB system could be designed to protect a possible
    future LPFM service. Both Lucent and USADR expressed concern about
    the impact of LPFM on DAB but it appears that the possible
    relaxation of 3^rd^ adjacent channel protection standards for LPFM
    would have no material impact on digital signal reception. "Because
    of the design of the USADR IBOC system, digital reception is
    essentially not susceptible to third adjacent channel interference;
    nor is IBOC likely to increase the potential for causing such
    interference to analog stations."[^70] Specifically, we seek comment
    on the potential for enhancing the robustness of IBOC systems to
    reject undesired 2^nd^ and 3^rd^ adjacent channel signals, and the
    likely impact of such modifications.

26. *(4) Spectrum efficiency.* The Commission is committed to
    establishing a spectrally-efficient terrestrial DAB service. We
    recognize that certain basic design and regulatory trade-offs are
    inherent in all analog and digital systems. As Lucent observes,
    "there are multiple different pairings of attributes possible that
    would be capable of delivering digital audio in an IBOC
    configuration."[^71] Lucent and USADR assert that IBOC is spectrum
    efficient in the sense of not requiring additional spectrum to
    implement digital transmissions. They also contend that IBOC would
    not encumber additional spectrum because the IBOC signal would be
    contained by the emission masks for the analog channels and has been
    developed around the existing analog interference protection
    criteria. However, spectrum efficiency as a selective criterion also
    concerns the additional value that results from the transition from
    an analog to a digital transmission service. In the instant context,
    the added value of spectrum is the product of several factors. These
    include the capacity of digital technologies to transmit greater
    amounts of data per hertz, enhanced flexibility, the ability to
    design digital systems that are less likely to cause interference,
    less susceptible to interference, and more robust with respect to
    multipath fading and non-radio noise sources, and the capacity to
    provide a listenable service at relatively low signal strength
    levels.

27. This proceeding also presents an opportunity to consider the
    spectral efficiencies that could be realized by advances in receiver
    technology over the decades since the analog interference standards
    were established. We note that analog receivers can now be designed
    with improved frequency selectivity to better reject potentially
    interfering signals on adjacent channels.[^72] Although IBOC systems
    are based on existing analog protection criteria,[^73] we wish to
    examine the extent to which state-of-the-art receiver technology may
    provide additional protection against interference, and thereby
    facilitate more intensive spectrum utilization. What would be the
    additional cost to consumers of receivers with state-of-the-art
    immunity? Are there design considerations other than cost that would
    practically limit interference immunity?

28. At this preliminary stage, it is clear that the Commission needs
    additional information about the specific mix of DAB design
    attributes that could best meet the current and future needs of
    *all* stakeholders in our free, over-the-air broadcasting system.
    Therefore, we seek comment on possible DAB spectrum efficiency
    standards. Are any of the Eureka-147 DAB and/or satellite DARS
    signal bandwidth and interference protection standards relevant in
    establishing DAB spectrum efficiency standards for IBOC and/or
    non-IBOC DAB systems? What bandwidth is necessary for DAB systems to
    achieve CD-quality audio signals? What are the spectrum implications
    of recent advances in coding and multistreaming technologies on the
    ability to deliver CD-like audio quality? With regard to each
    proponent's DAB system, what are the quantifiable trade-offs between
    bandwidth and signal robustness? What power, interference, and
    bandwidth trade-offs should the Commission consider in balancing the
    needs of incumbents and potential new entrants? Should there be
    different data capacity criteria during and after the transition to
    all-digital operations? Would the transition to all-digital service
    be slowed if incumbents were assigned less bandwidth for all-digital
    operations than their current channel assignments? Is preserving (or
    expanding) current AM and FM bandwidth assignments necessary for
    consumers to receive the full benefits of DAB, including a rapid
    implementation of an all-digital DAB system?

29. *(5), (6) Flexibility/auxiliary capacity*. Flexibility is one of the
    principal benefits of digital technology. Many commenters believe
    that increasing radio broadcasters' capacity to provide auxiliary
    services will be an important benefit of DAB technology. The
    Commission is committed to encouraging a DAB system design that
    would permit the flexible and dynamic development of new broadcast
    and non-broadcast services and features and allow broadcasters to
    realize specific service opportunities. We currently provide
    broadcasters with a great deal of freedom with regard to subcarrier
    usage and believe that a similar approach to regulating augmented
    auxiliary capacity would likewise be in the public interest.[^74]

30. In this regard, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the
    Commission to permit DTV licensees to provide ancillary or
    supplemental services, so long as such services do not derogate the
    free television broadcast service, and to assess and collect a fee
    for such use when the licensee receives fees or other compensation
    from third parties.[^75] We tentatively conclude that the provision
    of new and innovative ancillary services must not technically impair
    the reception of DAB programming. We seek comment on whether an
    analogous regulatory framework would be appropriate for the radio
    broadcast service and the limits, if any, we should establish for
    ancillary services.

31. *(7) Extensibility*. We believe that a DAB system design also must
    be adaptable to future technological advances. As Lucent puts it, a
    DAB system should be structured "with 'headroom' to allow
    incorporation of future technological advances."[^76] We tentatively
    conclude that extensibility is crucial to preserving a strong and
    competitive free, over-the-air broadcast system in a digital
    communications environment, and to ensuring that listeners receive
    the full benefits of DAB. We seek comment on this view.

32. *(8) Accommodation for existing broadcasters*. We tentatively
    conclude that any DAB system should, to the maximum extent possible,
    accommodate all existing broadcasters that desire to initiate DAB
    system transmissions. A digital service that permits both AM and FM
    stations to provide the same level of enhanced audio quality also
    would be of significant benefit to broadcasters and listeners. We
    tentatively conclude, however, that placing AM and FM broadcasters
    on equal footing in terms of signal quality is not an essential DAB
    technical requirement. A digital AM service that would provide
    "FM-like" audio quality would create important new format choices
    for AM stations and could help revitalize this service. We seek
    comment on these views.

33. *(9)* *Coverage.* Broadcasters argue that any DAB system should be
    capable of replicating existing coverage areas. Such coverage areas
    tend to be greater than the "interference-free" areas protected
    under the Commission's rules.[^77] We recognize that preserving
    existing coverage areas may be an important aspect of ensuring a
    non-disruptive transition to DAB.[^78] Nevertheless, we tentatively
    conclude that the public interest is best served through the
    development of a digital radio assignment policy that adopts current
    analog protected service contours for DAB. The Commission has
    recognized in several different contexts that stations generally
    provide useful service beyond their service contours in the absence
    of interference. However, service contours are not merely a function
    of the distance at which adequate reception is possible. Rather,
    these contours reflect a balance between providing adequate service
    areas and expanding the potential number of station
    assignments.[^79] We believe that this longstanding policy is
    applicable here. We request comments on these views.

34. *(10) Implementation costs/affordability of transmission and
    receiver equipment.* Minimizing implementation costs of any DAB
    model and/or system is a fundamental means of ensuring a rapid and
    non-disruptive transition to DAB. One important benefit of an IBOC
    model appears to be its ability to allow broadcasters to build on
    the existing broadcast infrastructure in transitioning to a DAB
    system. With regard to affordability, the *Petition* points out that
    the relatively low cost of receivers contributes to the radio
    broadcast service's unmatched penetration.[^80] We wish to consider
    the costs to consumers of digital receivers as well, including the
    trade-offs between receiver performance and cost.

35. We seek comment on all of these proposed evaluative criteria. As is
    the case with our public policy objectives, we recognize that these
    criteria conflict in certain respects, and that the Commission will
    be required to balance competing interests. We also recognize that
    the IBOC model and other possible models have specific benefits and
    drawbacks with regard to the various criteria. In applying these
    criteria, we seek to identify the DAB model or models that best
    would serve the public interest.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
C.  **IBOC DAB Model.**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
36. Proponents contend that IBOC technology represents the best means of
    implementing DAB in the United States. They note its promise of
    superior audio fidelity, signal robustness, and new and improved
    ancillary services. They also contend that IBOC technology would be
    spectrally efficient, in that it would not require a new spectrum
    allocation,[^81] and consequently, "administratively efficient"
    because this approach would not raise new spectrum allocation and
    licensing issues.[^82] Moreover, they argue that IBOC technology
    would ensure a fast and seamless transition from analog to digital
    by providing a digital opportunity for all existing broadcasters.
    According to proponents, broadcasters could introduce digital
    service immediately without disrupting existing analog service, but
    also would have the flexibility to "upgrade to digital at their own
    pace" based on "the economic needs of local stations and local
    listener demand\[.\]"[^83] Listeners would enjoy uninterrupted
    service with their analog receivers. IBOC proponents also contend
    that DAB implementation costs would be minimized because IBOC
    transmission systems could be integrated into the existing broadcast
    infrastructure in accordance with "the normal life and maintenance
    cycle of radio broadcasting equipment.[^84] Finally, they contend
    that IBOC would enable stations to preserve their current frequency
    identities and coverage areas, service features that are important
    to broadcasters and would promote a non-disruptive transition to DAB
    service.[^85]

37. We believe that these arguments have merit and that a workable IBOC
    system would be superior to a new-spectrum DAB system in several
    respects. It would not require new spectrum. It would permit a fast
    transition to DAB that preserves the benefits of the existing radio
    broadcast service while leveraging the considerable resources and
    expertise of the radio broadcast industry.[^86] IBOC systems also
    may achieve certain spectrum efficiencies. They may be able to
    provide enhanced sound quality, permit significant expansions in
    station service areas, and create opportunities to introduce a broad
    range of ancillary services. Continuing advances in compression
    technology may permit even greater levels of information
    transmission, and thus, the introduction of new broadcaster
    services. Moreover, if proponents' claims are correct, the enhanced
    robustness of IBOC systems could help eliminate or ameliorate
    interference now experienced by grandfathered short-spaced radio
    stations and the other types of signal degradation suffered by many
    stations operating in difficult or congested RF environments. To
    ensure the smooth initiation of DAB service by existing
    broadcasters, we tentatively conclude that if IBOC is adopted, IBOC
    DAB licenses will not count as distinct authorizations for purposes
    of our local radio ownership restrictions. We seek comment on these
    views.

38. However, an IBOC approach also raises spectrum efficiency concerns.
    Current IBOC system designs are premised on doubling the bandwidth
    licensed to AM and FM stations to 20 kHz and 400 kHz, respectively,
    spectrum which is currently included under current "emission masks."
    We recognize that the additional bandwidth for digital sidebands is
    an inherent feature of the IBOC hybrid mode. However, the IBOC
    system proponents envision that AM and FM stations would retain the
    additional bandwidth in an all-digital operating environment.[^87] A
    permanent expansion of the channel bandwidth might constitute a
    fundamental change in spectrum assignment principles. We note that,
    on the other hand, current use of the frequencies to be occupied by
    the digital sidebands is effectively precluded by analog
    transmission technology and radio receivers now in service. We seek
    comment on the spectrum efficiency of the current IBOC system
    designs generally and, in particular, on using 400-kHz FM and 20-kHz
    AM channel bandwidths in the all-digital IBOC mode. We also seek
    comment as to whether a signal architecture that shifts audio
    carriage from sidebands to a center band in an all-digital
    environment is inherently more spectrally efficient than one which
    continues to operate on the basis of sidebands. We invite the IBOC
    system proponents to comment on the need for the sidebands in the
    all-digital mode.[^88] We also seek comment on whether spectrum may
    be returned at the end of the licensees' IBOC transition to
    all-digital broadcasting.

39. The claimed advantages of the IBOC technology---to maintain coverage
    at lower power levels, to permit significant power increases when
    all-digital operations are initiated, and to provide substantially
    enhanced robustness from interference and signal
    degradation---create possibilities for existing broadcasters to
    increase service areas significantly and for new station
    opportunities which are not possible within the current analog
    technical and regulatory framework. We recognize that the current
    IBOC model may provide incumbent broadcasters with a strong
    incentive for a rapid transition to all-digital service. We seek
    comment on this model. How do we balance the need to provide
    broadcasters with sufficient incentives to transition rapidly to DAB
    with the need to respond to the unmet demand for new entrants? We
    seek analyses of the minimum power levels that would preserve
    service within protected service areas in an all-digital
    environment, and alternatively, the levels that would not result in
    significant disruptions to current listening patterns. Commenters
    should consider the different implications of an IBOC approach over
    the short-term transition period, when hybrid transmissions require
    greater bandwidth, and the long-term, when the absence of analog
    transmissions could open up spectrum for new entrants.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
D.  **Alternative DAB Model Utilizing New Spectrum.**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
40. In GEN Docket No. 90-357, we also considered the potential for
    allocating new spectrum for terrestrial digital audio broadcasting.
    We stated that while we wished to encourage technical innovation and
    the development of new services, such as DAB, we must weigh these
    factors against competing demands for use of the spectrum.[^89] We
    further stated that we must judge the benefits of DAB service
    against the needs of other existing and proposed new services. We
    indicated that we intended to consider whether a new frequency
    allocation should be provided for terrestrial DAB and specifically
    whether to use a portion of the existing television band for this
    service. At that time, however, we also raised the concern about
    whether such a DAB allocation would impact our desire to accommodate
    the implementation of digital television services. Now, with the
    completion of the plan for the introduction of DTV, we believe that
    it may be possible to use a portion of the television spectrum for
    DAB.

41. We therefore request comment on whether the six megahertz of
    spectrum at 82-88 MHz, currently used for TV Channel 6, could be
    reallocated to DAB service at the end of the DTV transition. We seek
    comment on whether this spectrum could be reallocated without
    adversely affecting the broadcast television service. We also
    recognize, however, that a Channel 6 allocation could significantly
    delay the introduction of DAB. The earliest this spectrum will be
    available in many areas is 2007. However, the exact date of spectrum
    availability, which is tied to the end of the DTV transition period,
    could be significantly later.[^90] Thus, it appears that proven IBOC
    systems could be operational significantly sooner than an approach
    which relies on the availability of spectrum at 82-88 MHz. We
    request comment on all aspects of this new-spectrum DAB approach and
    ask interested parties whether there are other frequency bands that
    might be more desirable for new DAB spectrum. We note that the IBOC
    and new-spectrum DAB options need not be mutually exclusive and, in
    fact, could be complementary.

42. The new spectrum approach would permit the use of a DAB system that
    is completely independent of the existing analog AM and FM radio
    systems. We request comment on whether independence from existing AM
    and FM radio systems would provide greater flexibility in planning
    and implementing DAB service. An independent DAB transmission system
    might operate at a higher data rate and thereby support higher audio
    quality and enhanced ancillary services as compared to an IBOC
    system operating in hybrid mode. We seek comment on these
    matters.[^91]

43. Any reallocation of the 82-88 MHz band for DAB service should
    facilitate the transition to a final DAB spectrum plan that would
    include the existing FM radio spectrum. For example, when DAB is
    accepted by consumers and proves successful, the existing adjacent
    FM spectrum at 88-108 MHz could be converted to DAB. Under such a
    plan, all existing analog FM stations would be permitted to switch
    their operations to digital service on their existing channels.
    However, such a transition could result in significant service
    disruptions. It would require broadcasters to choose between serving
    listeners with analog receivers or listeners with digital receivers.
    Significant listener dislocations could occur at the point of a
    "hard" transition to digital transmissions unless everyone has
    acquired a digital radio, which in turn depends on the
    cost-effective manufacture of digital receivers and widespread
    consumer acceptance of these devices. We seek comment on these
    transition issues.

44. We note that the DTV Table of Allotments includes only one Channel 6
    allotment for the United States.[^92] There are 57 existing analog
    television stations on Channel 6. These analog stations are
    scheduled to cease operation after 2006 or the end of the DTV
    transition period. We seek comment on whether this reallocation
    would adversely impact DTV implementation or broadcast television
    service in general.[^93]

45. We request comment on the appropriate bandwidth for DAB channels in
    a new spectrum context. Should any new spectrum assignments reflect
    the same channel assignment scheme currently used with the FM
    service? Would using the FM channel plan facilitate the eventual
    conversion of the existing FM stations to DAB operation, and a
    common FM/DAB radio receiver design across the entire 26 MHz of
    spectrum from 82-108 MHz? We also seek comment on whether a common
    FM/DAB channel scheme and receiver design would facilitate a
    transition plan in which existing FM stations could determine on
    their own when to switch to digital operation without regulatory
    intervention. We also invite interested parties' suggestions for
    alternative DAB channel plans.

46. If we adopt a new-spectrum option, should we adopt a service area
    approach that would follow the plan of the existing classes of FM
    stations, *i.e.,* Class A, B1, B, C3, C2, C1, and C, or should all
    DAB stations be provided a common service area? Parties favoring
    different size services areas are also requested to comment on how
    channels should be apportioned among the various classes.

47. Should all AM and FM broadcasters be eligible for a DAB license in
    any new spectrum made available? Should we exclude DAB licenses in
    the new spectrum from the local ownership limits that apply to
    analog stations? To what extent should new channels be reserved for
    educational use and new entrants? Should we limit each applicant to
    a maximum number of DAB licenses in each market? How would the
    issuance of these licenses implicate our statutory requirements with
    respect to auctions?[^94]

48. We also request comment on what approach or approaches could be used
    to specify the initial DAB channel allotments under a new spectrum
    approach. One approach could be to allot DAB channels to communities
    in proportion to the number of AM and FM channels operating in each
    community using allotment software similar to that used in creating
    the initial DTV channel allotments.[^95] Another approach could be
    to allot DAB channels to communities based on an initial expression
    of interest by applicants. We seek comment on whether these
    approaches would be consistent with the requirement for the fair,
    efficient and equitable distribution of radio service in Section
    307(b) of the Communications Act, as amended.[^96] We also request
    comment with regard to how to assess the technical acceptability of
    new DAB allotments and modifications of DAB allotments.
    Specifically, we request comment on whether to use an approach that
    uses minimum geographic spacing distances similar to what is now
    used for FM stations[^97] or an approach that that uses engineering
    criteria to show that an allotment does not cause additional
    interference to other allotments.

49. As a further alternative, we seek comment on whether Channel 6
    spectrum should be used to ensure adequate new entrant DAB
    opportunities. We seek comment on whether we may give preferences to
    LPFM licensees in assigning this Channel 6 spectrum, and if so,
    whether we should do so in the event we authorize an LPFM service.
    As we stated above,[^98] we are concerned about the interrelation
    between DAB and the proposed LPFM service, including a DAB system
    that utilizes Channel 6. Although we "do not intend to create a low
    power radio service on any spectrum beyond that which is currently
    allocated for FM use,"[^99] we seek comment on the extent to which a
    DAB system established on Channel 6 could ensure adequate new
    entrant opportunities. We note that the Channel 6 LPFM and IBOC
    proposals could be treated as complementary digital transition
    strategies.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
E.  **Standards and Testing.**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  **DAB Transmission Standard.**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
50. In its *Petition*, USADR asked the Commission to adopt a DAB
    transmission standard, and submitted a report arguing both that
    there is a need for such a standard and that the radio broadcast
    industry is unlikely to be able to develop one on its own.[^100]
    Most commenters agreed that a single standard is necessary and that
    the Commission has a critical role in establishing one.[^101] Among
    other things, commenters argued that a single standard is necessary
    to provide the certainty that consumers, licensees and equipment
    manufacturers would need to justify their investment in DAB
    technology.[^102] They also predicted that industry attempts to
    reach a consensus on a voluntary standard would be impeded by the
    number of parties involved and their differing interests and
    agendas.[^103] Several pointed to the AM stereo experience as an
    example where similar circumstances prevented the implementation of
    a single, voluntary standard.[^104] In addition, a number of
    commenters cited the Commission's adoption of a DTV transmission
    standard as precedent for a similar action in this proceeding.

51. In the DTV proceeding, we observed that the traditional rationale
    for mandating a standard arises when two conditions are met: first,
    there would be a substantial public benefit from a standard; second,
    private industry either will not, or cannot, achieve a standard
    because the private costs of participating in the standard-setting
    process outweigh the private benefits, or a number of different
    standards have been developed and private industry cannot reach
    consensus on a single standard.[^105] The Commission, in fact, did
    identify the same kind of considerations in support of adopting a
    mandatory DTV standard that commenters now argue support the
    adoption of a mandatory DAB transmission standard. We noted that
    mandated standards might provide needed certainty to consumers,
    licensees, and equipment manufacturers, particularly where the
    launch of a new technology is involved.[^106] Moreover, we reasoned
    that standard-setting would help obviate the \"chicken and egg\"
    dilemma that can impede the introduction and acceptance of new
    technology and impose additional costs on consumers. We also
    recognized, however, that mandatory standards can have drawbacks,
    including potential deterrence of technical
    innovation---particularly where a technology is new and further
    development can reasonably be anticipated to occur---and curtailment
    of some forms of competition.[^107]

52. We tentatively conclude, as we previously found in the DTV
    proceeding, that the public interest compels a Commission role in
    the development of DAB transmission standards, "with the advice and
    involvement of all sectors of the industry."[^108] We lack
    sufficient information at this time, however, to conclude that a
    Commission-mandated DAB transmission standard is necessary. With
    regard to the first of the above-stated conditions for establishing
    a standard, the Commission seeks further comment on the desirability
    of a single DAB transmission standard. For example, it may be the
    case that there is a high degree of compatibility among the several
    DAB systems. Thus, there may be little public benefit derived from a
    mandated standard. In addition, developments in digital signal
    processors ("DSPs") may have obviated the need for a DAB standard or
    may justify a voluntary or technically narrower approach. We seek
    comment on these matters. Is an "open architecture" approach
    feasible? What technical and economic impacts would such an approach
    have on the development and manufacture of DAB receivers? Have
    advances in DSP chip technology made a standard unnecessary?

53. With regard to the second of the above-stated conditions, it is too
    early to predict whether private industry can or will be able to
    achieve a voluntary DAB transmission standard. Nevertheless, this
    *Notice* identifies numerous public policy issues concerning both
    terrestrial DAB and its potential impact on our vital radio
    broadcast service. Again, we seek further comment on this issue. How
    likely is the broadcast industry to establish a *de facto* standard
    in the absence of Commission action? Can the Commission take actions
    short of mandating a standard in order to help the industry
    establish a standard, for example by conferring benefits to
    licensees utilizing the standard? Furthermore, should we decide that
    a Commission-mandated standard is necessary, what should be the
    constituent elements of such a standard?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  **Decision-Making Models for DAB System Testing, Evaluation and
    Transmission Standard Selection.**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
54. In response to the USADR *Petition*, commenters suggested a number
    of models for DAB system testing, evaluation and transmission
    standard selection. The NAB, for example, proposed an industry-based
    model, whereby the NRSC would test and evaluate competing IBOC
    systems, select a transmission standard based on industry consensus,
    and make recommendations for the Commission to adopt.[^109] Lucent
    argued that the Commission must actively participate to ensure a
    fair and unbiased decision-making process.[^110] Ford proposed the
    creation of a public-private committee with open membership, which
    would achieve consensus and even recommend a specific transmission
    standard for adoption by the Commission.[^111] Ford argued that this
    model would enable the Commission to conserve its own resources and
    utilize private sector expertise.

55. A committee similar to that proposed by Ford played an important
    role in the adoption of a DTV standard in Docket No. 87-268.[^112]
    The Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service ("ACATS") was
    established to assist the Commission \"in considering the issues
    surrounding the introduction of advanced television service in the
    United States\[,\]\" and its charter specified that it would
    \"recommend policies, standards and regulations that would
    facilitate the orderly and timely introduction of advanced
    television services.\"[^113] We relied heavily on the ACATS to test
    and evaluate competing advanced television ("ATV") systems in the
    first instance. It also proved to be effective in facilitating
    participation by a broad range of stakeholders and achieving
    industry consensus on a transmission standard. There are important
    differences between Docket No. 87-268 and this proceeding, however,
    that must be considered in connection with the possible
    establishment of an advisory committee. Docket 87-268 considered a
    wide array of ATV technologies, including DTV, in their early stages
    of development. In contrast, DAB systems now are being deployed in
    Europe and Canada, and IBOC systems, according to proponents, are in
    the final stages of development. Moreover, it may be possible to
    implement DAB service much more rapidly than DTV service, due to
    IBOC systems' promised compatibility with existing analog signals.
    Thus, there may be a question as to whether an advisory committee
    would be capable of acting with due speed in the context of this
    proceeding.

56. With regard to the narrower issue of IBOC DAB system testing, USADR
    and Lucent have asserted in recent *ex parte* meetings with staff
    and in written submissions that the Commission should establish
    certain procedures immediately. They disagree, however, as to the
    specifics of such procedures. USADR urges us to endorse the NRSC
    testing program and to request that proponents file their NRSC test
    reports with the Commission on the NRSC deadline of December
    15, 1999. USADR contends that the reports will enable us to identify
    the field of proponents and address threshold performance questions
    such as improved audio quality, compatibility with existing analog
    service and equal coverage. Lucent, on the other hand, criticizes
    the NRSC testing program as potentially subject to manipulation
    because of the lack of a common testing platform, and argues that
    the data it yields will be insufficient to meaningfully evaluate the
    performance of different system designs. Lucent proposes that the
    Commission convene a meeting of USADR, Lucent and DRE (the three
    known IBOC system proponents) to facilitate agreement on a revised
    testing program that, in Lucent's view, should be conducted by a
    common entity, observed by the Commission staff, and sufficient to
    permit us to comprehensively evaluate the proponent systems in the
    context of this proceeding. In short, rather than a multi-step
    process, Lucent envisions a single round of tests sufficient to
    enable us not only to determine the viability of IBOC systems but to
    select a superior system. However, Lucent reportedly has reached an
    agreement with the NRSC recently which provides for a second stage
    of comparative testing of each IBOC system on a common testing
    platform.

57. In GEN Docket No. 90-357, the Commission relied on the NRSC and CEMA
    to test IBOC and other DAB systems. This proved to be a wise course:
    tests proved that IBOC technology was not yet viable, so that
    Commission action would have been premature. We applaud the recent
    efforts of these groups to develop testing guidelines, and will
    continue to rely on them to facilitate and evaluate the development
    of IBOC DAB systems. We anticipate that the first stage of the
    NRSC's current program will serve a useful, if limited, purpose. We
    request each proponent to submit a copy of its test reports to the
    Commission as part of the record in this proceeding. We emphasize
    that all test data relevant to our evaluation of IBOC and/or other
    DAB systems will be subject to public comment and close staff
    scrutiny. We also see merit in a second stage of comparative testing
    of IBOC systems on a common testing platform.

58. We believe that it is necessary and appropriate to rely to some
    degree on the expertise of the private sector for DAB system
    evaluations and, ultimately, recommendations for a transmission
    standard. Each of the testing models discussed above would help
    facilitate broad participation in this process. However, we conclude
    that it is premature to commit ourselves to any particular approach.
    This decision is based on both the limited information we have on
    the performance capabilities of the competing systems and the fact
    that system proponents appear to be actively working toward a
    consensus on comparative testing issues. Nevertheless, we note that
    the NRSC brings substantial experience, expertise, and credibility
    to the testing process. Their current initiatives may provide the
    best opportunity for the rapid introduction of DAB. Moreover, the
    Commission would give great weight to any industry compromise the
    NRSC may achieve. We plan to monitor this testing process closely
    for fairness, thoroughness, and timeliness. While we are encouraged
    by the NRSC's efforts to date, we will act promptly to provide an
    alternative mechanism if subsequent events undermine our confidence
    in the current testing process. In this regard, we expect to revisit
    the effectiveness and appropriateness of the NRSC approach once the
    Commission has reviewed the NRSC report regarding IBOC tests, which
    we expect to be some time in the first quarter of 2000. In the
    meantime, we wish to develop a complete record on these issues in
    order to be in a position to take informed and expeditious action at
    the proper time. We therefore seek comment on the evaluative models
    discussed above and any others that may merit consideration.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
59. *Filing of Comments and Reply Comments.* Pursuant to Sections 1.415
    and 1.419 of the Commission\'s Rules,[^114] interested parties may
    file comments within seventy-five (75) days of the date of
    publication of this *Notice* in the Federal Register, and reply
    comments within one hundred and five (105) days of the date of
    publication of this *Notice* in the Federal Register. Comments may
    be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System
    ("ECFS") or by filing paper copies.[^115]

60. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file
    via the Internet to
    \<http://[www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html](http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html)\>.
    In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include
    their full name, postal service mailing address, and the applicable
    docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic
    comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail
    comments, commenters should send an e-mail to <ecfs@fcc.gov>, and
    should include the following words in the body of the message, \"get
    form \<your e-mail address.\" A sample form and directions will be
    sent in reply.

61. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four
    copies of each filing. If you want each Commissioner to receive a
    personal copy of your comments, you must file an original plus
    eleven copies. All filings must be sent to the Commission\'s
    Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, TW‑A306,
    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W.,
    Washington, D.C. 20554. The Mass Media Bureau contacts for this
    proceeding are Peter Doyle and William J. Scher at (202) 418-2780 or
    <pdoyle@fcc.gov> and <wscher@fcc.gov>. Parties who choose to file by
    paper should also submit their comments on diskette. These diskettes
    should be submitted to: William J. Scher, Federal Communications
    Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 2-A445, Washington,
    DC 20554. Such submissions should be on a 3.5 inch diskette
    formatted in an IBM-compatible format using Microsoft Word or
    compatible software. The diskette should be accompanied by a cover
    letter and should be submitted in \"read only\" mode. The diskette
    should be clearly labeled with the commenter\'s name, proceeding
    (including the docket number), type of pleading (comment or reply
    comment), date of submission, and the name of the electronic file on
    the diskette. The label should also include the following phrase
    \"Disk Copy ‑ Not an Original.\" Each diskette should contain only
    one party\'s pleadings, preferably in a single electronic file. In
    addition, commenters must send diskette copies to the Commission\'s
    copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231
    20th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

62. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection
    during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th
    Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Written comments by the public
    on the proposed and/or modified information collections are due on
    or before 75 days of the date of publication of this *Notice* in the
    Federal Register. Written comments must be submitted by the Office
    of Management and Budget ("OMB") on the proposed and/or modified
    information collections on or before 75 days of the date of
    publication of this Notice in the Federal Register. In addition to
    filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the
    information collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy
    Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room C‑1804, 445 12th
    Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, or via the Internet to
    <jboley@fcc.gov> and to Virginia Huth, OMB Desk Officer, 725 17th
    Street, NW, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, or via the
    Internet to <vhuth@omb.eop.gov>.

63. *Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis*. *Initial
    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis*. This *Notice* considers
    alternative approaches to introducing digital audio broadcasting
    service to the American public. The implementation of digital audio
    broadcasting service may involve an information collection
    requirement. As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork
    burdens, we invite the general public and OMB to take this
    opportunity to comment on the information collection contained in
    this *Notice*, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
    Pub. L. No. 104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the same
    time as other comments in this *Notice* (on or before 75 days of the
    date of publication of this *Notice* in the Federal Register); OMB
    comments also are due at that time. Comments should address: (a)
    whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the
    proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including
    whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the
    accuracy of the Commission\'s burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance
    the quality, utility and clarity of the information collected;
    and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information
    on the respondents, including the use of automated collection
    techniques or other forms of information technology. In addition to
    filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the
    information collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy
    Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room C‑1804, 445 12th
    Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to
    <jboley@fcc.gov> and to Virginia Huth, OMB Desk Officer, 725 17th
    Street, NW, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, or via the
    Internet to <vhuth@omb.eop.gov>.

64. *Ex Parte Rules.* This proceeding will be treated as a
    \"permit‑but‑disclose\" proceeding subject to the
    \"permit‑but‑disclose\" requirements under Section 1.1206(b) of the
    Commission's rules.[^116] Ex parte presentations are permissible if
    disclosed in accordance with Commission rules, except during the
    Sunshine Agenda period when presentations, ex parte or otherwise,
    are generally prohibited. Persons making oral ex parte presentations
    are reminded that a memorandum summarizing a presentation must
    contain a summary of the substance of the presentation and not
    merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one- or
    two-sentence description of the views and arguments presented is
    generally required.[^117] Additional rules pertaining to oral and
    written presentations are set forth in Section 1.1206(b).

65. *Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.* With respect to this
    Notice, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (\"IRFA\") under
    the Regulatory Flexibility Act[^118] is contained in Appendix A.
    Written public comments are requested on the IRFA, and must be filed
    in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on the
    *Notice*, with a distinct heading designating them as responses to
    the IRFA. The Commission will send a copy of this *Notice*,
    including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration.

66. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That pursuant to the authority contained
    in Sections 1, 4(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 303, this *Notice of Proposed
    Rule Making* IS ADOPTED.

67. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the Commission\'s Office of Public
    Affairs, Reference Operations Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this
    *Notice*, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to
    the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration

68. Additional Information. For additional information on this
    proceeding, please contact Peter Doyle or William J. Scher, Audio
    Services Division, Mass Media Bureau at (202) 418-2780 or
    <pdoyle@fcc.gov> or <wscher@fcc.gov>.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

Appendix A

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

**As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act ("RFA"),**[^119] **the
Commission has prepared th**e **present Initial** Regulatory
**Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA") of the possible significant economic
impact on small entities** by **the policies and rules proposed in this
*Notice of Proposed Rule Making* ("*Notice*"). Written and
electronically**-**filed public comments are requested on this IRFA.
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments** set forth in paragraph 61 of **the
*Notice*. The Commission will send a copy of the *Notice*, including
this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration. *See*** **5 U.S.C. § 603(a). In addition, the *Notice*
and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal
Register. *See id.***

I.  **Need For and Objectives of the Proposed Rules:**

T**his rulemaking proceeding is initiated to obtain comments concerning
the Commission's proposals to foster the development and implementation
of terrestrial digital audio broadcasting ("DAB").** In the
***Notice***, the Commission (1) reaffirms its commitment to providing
radio broadcasters with the opportunity to take advantage of DAB
technology; (2) identifies Commission public policy objectives for the
introduction of DAB service; (3) proposes criteria for the evaluation of
DAB models and systems; (4) evaluates IBOC and new-spectrum DAB models;
(5) inquires as to the need for a mandatory DAB transmission standard;
and (6) considers certain DAB system testing, evaluation and standard
selection issues.

II. **Legal Basis:**

**Authority for the actions proposed in this *Notice* may be found in
Sections** 1, **4(i)** and **303** **of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 15**1, 15**4(i),** 303**.**

III. **Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
     the Proposed Rules Will Apply:**

The **RFA generally defines the term "small entity " as having the same
meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization," and
"small** governmental **jurisdiction."**[^120] **In addition, the term
"small business" has the same meaning as the term "small business
concern" under the Small Business Act.**[^121] **A small business
concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is
not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional
criteria established by the Small Business Administration
(**"**SBA**\"**).**[^122] **A small organization is generally "any
not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field."**[^123] **Nationwide, as of 1992, there
were approximately 275,801 small organizations.**[^124] **"Small
governmental jurisdiction" generally means "governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than 50,000."**[^125] **As of 1992,
there were approximately 85,006 such jurisdictions in the United
States.**[^126] **This number includes 38,978 counties, cities, and
towns; of these, 37,566, or 96 percent, have populations of fewer than
50,000.**[^127] **The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio is
approximately accurate for all governmental entities. Thus, of the
85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 81,600 (91 percent) are
small entities.**

**The proposed rules and policies potentially will apply to all AM and
FM radio broadcasting licensees and potential licensees. The SBA defines
a radio broadcasting station that has no more than \$5 million in annual
receipts as a small business.**[^128] **A radio broadcasting station is
an establishment primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by
radio to the public.**[^129] **Included in this industry are**
commercial, religious**, educational, and other radio stations.**[^130]
**Radio broadcasting stations which primarily are engaged in radio
broadcasting and which produce radio program materials are similarly
included.**[^131] **However, radio stations which are separate
establishments and are primarily engaged in producing radio program
material are classified under another SIC number.**[^132] **The 1992
Census indicates that 96 percent (5,861 of 6,127)** of **radio station
establishments produced less than \$5 million in revenue in
1992.**[^133] **Official Commission records indicate that 11,334
individual radio stations were operating in 1992.**[^134] **As of
December 31, 1998, official Commission records indicate that 12,472
radio stations were operating, of which 4**,**793 were AM
station**s.[^135] **Thus, the proposed rules will affect 12,472 radio
stations, 11,973 of which are small businesses.**[^136] **These
estimates may overstate the number of** small **entities since the
revenue figures on which they are based do not include or aggregate
revenues from non-radio affiliated companies.** **In addition to owners
of operating radio stations, any entity that seeks or desires to obtain
a DAB license may be affected by the** proposals contained **in this
item. The number of entities that may seek to obtain a** DAB **radio
broadcast license is unknown. We invite comment as to such number.**

IV. **Description of Projected Recording, Recordkeeping, and Other
    Compliance Requirements:**

None**.**

V.  **Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
    Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered:**

**Th**e ***Notice*** sets forth policy objectives and proposes criteria
for the selection of alternative DAB models and/or systems that will
promote the interests of small entities and minimize the economic impact
on such entities of a transition to DAB service. For example, the
*Notice* sets forth as a policy objective a non-disruptive transition to
DAB service that does not require burdensome investments in new
broadcast transmission equipment. Proposed selection criteria include
minimization of implementation costs and affordability of transmission
and receiver equipment.

VI. **Federal Rules that Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict with the
    Proposed Rules:**

None**.**

[^1]: Comments of Lucent Technologies Inc. ("Lucent") at 5. All comments
    cited in this *Notice*, unless otherwise specified, were filed in
    response to USA Digital Radio, Inc.'s ("USADR") *Petition for
    Rulemaking* ("*Petition*") to permit the introduction of DAB service
    in the AM and FM radio bands, which was placed on public notice on
    November 6, 1998 (RM-9395). USADR's *Petition* is discussed below.

[^2]: *See* Comments of Lucent at 6-7 (DAB's auxiliary applications may
    include "financial market information and breaking news,
    up-to-the-minute traffic and road conditions (including suggestions
    for alternate routes), transportation and travel updates (flight and
    train arrivals and departures as well as hotel vacancies and room
    prices), and electronic newspapers. . . . \[and\] an automated and
    feature-rich digital EAS \[Emergency Alert System.\]").

[^3]: *See infra,* ¶ 10. At this time we know of three IBOC system
    proponents: USADR, Lucent and Digital Radio Express, Inc. ("DRE").

[^4]: For these reasons, we disagree with the commenters who argued in
    response to USADR's *Petition* that the Commission should wait until
    IBOC systems are demonstrated to be fully viable before initiating a
    proceeding. *See, e.g.,* Comments of Big City Radio, Inc. at 2;
    Comments of Lucent at 25.

[^5]: *See, e.g.,* *Establishment of Rules and Policies for the Digital
    Audio Radio Satellite Service in the 2310-2360 MHz Frequency Band,
    Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking* in GEN Docket No. 90-357, 12 FCC Rcd 5754, 5769
    (1997) ("*Docket No. 90-357 MO&O*").

[^6]: *See Petition*, Appendix D.

[^7]: *See, e.g., 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review---Streamlining of
    Radio Technical Rules in Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission's Rules,
    Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order* in MM Docket No. 98-93, 13
    FCC Rcd 14849, 14857 (1998).

[^8]: *Creation of a Low Power Radio Service, Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making* in MM Docket No. 99-25, 14 FCC Rcd 2471, 2489 (1999) ("*LPFM
    Notice*"). The Commission proposed the LPFM service to "address
    unmet needs for community-oriented radio broadcasting, foster
    opportunities for new radio broadcast ownership, and promote
    additional diversity in radio voices and program services." *Id.* at
    2471.

[^9]: *Id.* at 2478 (citations omitted). According to USADR, AM stations
    nationwide "capture only 18% of local commercial share" due in large
    part to their inability to provide high quality sound. *Petition* at
    5.

[^10]: *See Docket No. 90-357 MO&O*, 12 FCC Rcd at 5756; *Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making and Further Notice of Inquiry* in GEN Docket
    No. 90-357, 7 FCC Rcd 7776, 7778 (1992) ("*Docket No. 90-357
    NPRM*").

[^11]: *See infra*, ¶¶ 12-13.

[^12]: *Notice of Inquiry* in GEN Docket No. 90-357, 5 FCC Rcd 5237
    (1990).

[^13]: *Report and Order* in GEN Docket No. 90-357, 10 FCC Rcd 2310
    (1995) ("*Docket No. 90-357 R&O*") (citations omitted); *see Docket
    No. 90-357 MO&O*, 12 FCC Rcd at 5769.

[^14]: *Docket No. 90-357 R&O,* 10 FCC Rcd at 2315.

[^15]: *Id.*; *see Docket No. 90-357 MO&O*, 12 FCC Rcd at 5769.

[^16]: *Docket No. 90-357 NPRM,* 7 FCC Rcd at 7793 (Separate Statement
    of Commissioner Ervin S. Duggan).

[^17]: *Docket No. 90-357 MO&*O, 12 FCC Rcd at 5767.

[^18]: *Id.* at 5768-69.

[^19]: *See id.* at 5760; *Docket No. 90-357 R&O*, 10 FCC Rcd at 2314.

[^20]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.44, 73.317.

[^21]: The IBOC FM 70-kHz digital sidebands would be positioned in the
    upper and lower 1^st^ adjacent channels between +/-129 kHz and
    +/-199 kHz from the carrier frequency. *See Petition* at 47-48. The
    IBOC AM 5-kHz digital sidebands would be positioned between +/-5 kHz
    and +/-10 kHz from the carrier frequency. *Id.* at 70-71.

[^22]: *Id.* at 51.

[^23]: We do not have specific information regarding DRE's IBOC system;
    *see supra*, n. 3.

[^24]: *See* Comments of Lucent at 13.

[^25]: The NRSC is an industry group jointly sponsored by the National
    Association of Broadcasters ("NAB") and the Electronic Industries
    Association's Consumer Electronics Manufacturing Association.

[^26]: *See infra*, ¶ 11. The NRSC did not oversee the testing of
    non-IBOC systems to accommodate the concerns of radio broadcasters
    about "appearing to encourage \[digital audio radio\]
    implementations other than IBOC\[.\]" *See* Comments of CEMA,
    Appendix B at 1.

[^27]: *See id.* at 24.

[^28]: *See* *Petition* at 61-67, 76-80; *see also* Comments of CEMA,
    Appendix A at 3-11 (assessing simulation results).

[^29]: *See* Reply Comments of USADR at 9.

[^30]: Comments of USADR in MM Docket No. 99-25 (August 2, 1999) at 4.

[^31]: Comments of Lucent in MM Docket No. 99-25 (August 2, 1999) at ii.

[^32]: The NRSC's laboratory test guidelines were submitted to the
    Commission on December 14, 1998. *Joint Letter from the NAB and the
    CEMA to Magalie Roman Salas*, *NRSC, DAB Subcommittee*, *IBOC DAB
    System Test Guidelines, Part I---Laboratory Tests* (December 3,
    1998). The NRSC DAB Subcommittee also adopted field test guidelines
    in March, 1999 and certain evaluation guidelines in April, 1999, but
    neither has been submitted to the Commission.

[^33]: *See* *id.* at 2.

[^34]: According to the Website of the World DAB Forum, "\[c\]ommercial
    DAB receivers have now been on the market since summer 1998. . . .
    \[A\]s well as all European countries, other non-European countries
    including Canada, Singapore and Australia have launched operational
    or pilot services." *See*
    [www.worlddab.org](http://www.worlddab.org/). The World DAB Forum
    describes itself as "an international non-governmental organization
    whose objective is to promote, harmonize and co-ordinate the
    implementation of Digital Radio services based on the Eureka 147 DAB
    system." *Id.*

[^35]: For example, the system tested by CEMA in its Final Report
    occupied a bandwidth of 1.5 MHz, was capable of transmitting five
    stereo channels, and was designed to operate throughout the 30-3,000
    MHz range. Comments of CEMA, Appendix B at 3 and Attachment 1
    (Further System Descriptions). CEMA tested the system at the
    frequency of 1470 MHz in the "L-Band" (1452-1492 MHz). *Id.* at 3.

[^36]: *See id.* The World DAB Forum Website states that DAB receivers
    currently on the market can receive both L-Band and Band III
    transmissions. *See supra*, n. 34.

[^37]: *See Docket No. 90-357 MO&O,* 12 FCC Rcd at 5770-71; *see also*
    Reply Comments of Aerospace & Flight Test Radio Coordinating Council
    at 2-3.

[^38]: Comments of CEMA, Appendix B at ii.

[^39]: *But see* Comments of Ford Motor Company ("Ford") at 2, n. 4
    ("There is a consortium of companies examining the Eureka-147
    system."); *see also infra*, n. 42 and accompanying text.

[^40]: *Petition* at ii-v.

[^41]: *See* Comments of CBS, Chase Capital Partners, Clear Channel,
    Cumulus, Gannett, Greater Media, Inc., Heftel Broadcasting
    Corporation ("Heftel"), NAB, Radio One, Inc., Radio Operators
    Caucus, and Susquehanna Radio Corp. ("Susquehanna"). A number of
    commenters also urged that rapid DAB implementation is required for
    the radio broadcast service to remain competitive with other digital
    audio technologies. *See, e.g.,* Comments of Bonneville
    International Corporation at 3-4.

[^42]: *See* Comments of Amherst Alliance, CEMA, Citizens' Media Corps.,
    NPR, National Lawyers Guild, and Prometheus Radio Project.

[^43]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of Big City Radio, Inc. ("Big City"), CEMA,
    Cumulus, DRE, Greater Media, Inc., Lucent, NAB, NPR, Radio Operators
    Caucus and Susquehanna.

[^44]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of DRE at 2 (stating that AM analog audio
    bandwidth restriction proposed by USADR "is not required for other
    AM-band IBOC systems").

[^45]: *See supra*, ¶ 8.

[^46]: *See, e.g.*, Comments of Ford at 5; Comments of Lucent at 6-9;
    *see also infra*, ¶¶ 54-56.

[^47]: *See* Comments of CBS, CEMA, Clear Channel, Cumulus, DRE, Ford,
    Gannett, Greater Media, Inc., Heftel, Lucent, NAB, Radio One, Inc.,
    Radio Operators Caucus, Susquehanna and Walt Disney Company.

[^48]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 303(g) (The Commission shall "encourage the
    larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest.")

[^49]: *See supra*, ¶¶ 5-6.

[^50]: *Docket No. 90-357 MO&O,* 12 FCC Rcd at 5769; *see Docket No.
    90-357 RO&O,* 10 FCC Rcd at 2310.

[^51]: *See Turner Broadcasting Systems, Inc. v. FCC,* 520 U.S. 180, 181
    (1996); *see also Docket No. 90-357 MO&*O, 12 FCC Rcd at 5767-68.

[^52]: *Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact on the Existing
    Television Broadcast Service, Tentative Decision and Further Notice
    of Inquiry* in MM Docket No. 87-268, 3 FCC Rcd 6520, 6525 (1988)
    ("*ATV Tentative Decision"*); *see Second Report and Order and
    Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making* in MM Docket No. 87-268, 7
    FCC Rcd 3340, 3342 (1992).

[^53]: *ATV Tentative Decision*, 3 FCC Rcd at 6525.

[^54]: *Id.* at 6530.

[^55]: *See, e.g., Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* in MM
    Docket No. 87-268, 11 FCC Rcd 6235, 6236 (1990) ("*Fifth Further
    NPRM*"); *ATV Tentative Decision*, 3 FCC Rcd at 6521.

[^56]: *See infra*, ¶ 22.

[^57]: *See, e.g., Fifth Further NPRM,* 11 FCC Rcd at 6235.

[^58]: This appears to be an issue of particular concern for IBOC
    systems. *See infra*, ¶ 23.

[^59]: *See Petition* at 3-4 ("It is estimated that there are over 550
    million radio receivers in use today in the United States. Over 70
    million new receivers are sold each year.") (citations omitted).

[^60]: *See Docket No. 90-357 R&O,* 10 FCC Rcd at 2315 (expressing
    support for the development of IBOC AM and FM systems); *Docket No.
    90-357 NPRM,* 7 FCC Rcd at 7780-81 (Commission "continue(s) to
    support efforts to implement terrestrial in-band DARS technology").

[^61]: Comments of CEMA at 10.

[^62]: Comments of NPR at 3.

[^63]: *See Docket No. 90-357 NPRM*, 7 FCC Rcd at 7778 (discussing rapid
    consumer acceptance of new digital audio technologies). Lucent cites
    a consumer study it commissioned which "shows that over two-thirds
    of the radio buying population between the ages of 16-52 is
    interested in digital radios for the audio content-related
    innovations offered by enhanced AM and FM systems." Comments of
    Lucent at 5; *see also* Comments of CEMA at 4 ("Although radio
    continues to be a strong medium, it is clear that there is consumer
    demand for improved service and enhanced audio quality."); *cf.
    Inquiry Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of
    1996, Report* in CC Docket No. 98-146, 14 FCC Rcd 2398, 2400 (1999)
    ("Increasingly, all electronic communications are becoming
    digital.").

[^64]: *Petition* at 13-16; Comments of Lucent at 5-6. The maximum
    signal rates of the digital coding schemes in USADR's and Lucent's
    hybrid FM and AM systems are 96 and 48 kilobytes per second
    ("kb/s"), respectively.

[^65]: We note that a new-spectrum DAB approach would be compatible with
    the continued operation of existing analog radio broadcast stations.

[^66]: Comments of NAB at 10.

[^67]: *See supra*, ¶ 17.

[^68]: *LPFM Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 2490.

[^69]: *Id.* at 2492.

[^70]: *Petition*, Appendix D at 3.

[^71]: Comments of Lucent at 8.

[^72]: *See* Comments of Ford at 8.

[^73]: For example, USADR states that its system is susceptible to a
    2^nd^ adjacent channel interfering signal that is 39 dB stronger
    than the desired IBOC signal. *See* Comments of USADR in MM Docket
    No. 99-25 at 7.

[^74]: *See Notice of Inquiry* in MM Docket No. 87-268, 2 FCC Rcd 5125,
    5137 (1987).

[^75]: *See Fees for Ancillary or Supplementary Use of Digital
    Television Spectrum*, *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* in MM Docket
    No. 97-247, 12 FCC Rcd 22821 (1997). We note that Eureka-147 systems
    evidently allow broadcasters to offer subscription services such as
    concerts.

[^76]: Comments of Lucent at 15.

[^77]: The Commission's rules protect commercial FM stations from
    interference within specified service contours based on class
    maximum facilities. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.207. A USADR-commissioned
    study of the FM interference environment found that "within the
    protected contour the majority of stations---approximately 90
    percent---lose less than 10 percent of their predicted coverage to
    interference . . . The median station serves approximately 60
    percent of its potential noise limited coverage area \[defined in
    the study as the predicted 44 dBu service area\]." *Petition*,
    Appendix D at 28. Ford states that service also has been extended
    during the past 30 years by improvements in the sensitivity and
    selectivity of receivers. *See* Comments of Ford at 8.

[^78]: Ford and other commenters urge the Commission to take steps to
    protect the current radio service performance "geography" following
    the introduction of any new IBOC system. *See id.* at 10.

[^79]: *See Report and Order* in BC Docket 80-90*,* 94 FCC 2d at
    161-163.

[^80]: *Petition* at 4 ("Although audiophiles can spend considerable
    sums on a high-end receiver, radio can also serve the listener who
    can only afford a basic portable or clock radio.").

[^81]: *See, e.g., id.* at 19-20. USADR also contends that a migration
    to new spectrum "could create tremendous turmoil in the radio
    industry, disrupting service to the public, and impose significant
    administrative burden on regulatory authorities." *Id.* at 18; *see*
    Reply Comments of USADR at 4-6.

[^82]: *Petition* at 21; *see* Comments of NAB at 7.

[^83]: *Petition* at 20.

[^84]: *Id.* at 22.

[^85]: *See, e.g.,* *id.* at 21 ("\[IBOC\] will also allow listeners to
    maintain their patterns of radio use; listeners will continue to
    find stations at their existing dial position.").

[^86]: *See ATV Tentative Decision*, 3 FCC Rcd at 6525 ("initiating an
    advanced television system within the existing framework of local
    broadcasting will uniquely benefit the public and may be necessary
    to preserve the benefits of the existing system. Also, we believe
    that the benefits of these new technological developments will be
    made available to the public in the quickest and most efficacious
    manner if existing broadcasters are permitted to implement ATV.").

[^87]: The USADR all-digital system would use the middle 200 kHz of each
    channel for low-power auxiliary signals. *See supra*, ¶ 8. USADR
    concedes that these signals would be susceptible to interference
    from higher power adjacent channel sidebands, and thus would serve
    smaller areas than the sideband signals. *Petition* at 54.

[^88]: *See id.* at 50. USADR states, among other things, that the split
    sidebands will help overcome multipath fading and interference and,
    "as a natural extension of the hybrid mode," will facilitate
    receiver design.

[^89]: *See Notice of Inquiry* in GEN Docket No. 90-357, 5 FCC Rcd at
    5237.

[^90]: Under the provisions of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 ("Act"),
    the DTV transition is currently scheduled to be completed on
    December 31, 2006. At that time, all analog broadcast television
    service will end and all broadcast television service will be DTV.
    However, provisions of the Act also provide for extending the date
    for terminating analog service for any television station that
    requests such an extension in any television market if the
    Commission finds that: (*i*) one or more of the stations in such
    market that are licensed to or affiliated with one of the four
    largest national television networks are not broadcasting a DTV
    service signal, and the Commission finds that each such station has
    exercised due diligence and satisfies the conditions for an
    extension of the Commission's applicable construction deadlines for
    DTV service in that market; (*ii*) digital-to-analog converter
    technology is not generally available in such market; or (*iii*) in
    any market in which an extension is not available under clause (*i*)
    or (*ii*), 15 percent or more of the television households in such
    market (*I*) do not subscribe to a multichannel video programming
    distributor that carries one of the DTV service programming channels
    of each of the television stations broadcasting such a channel in
    such market, and (*II*) do not have either (*a*) at least one
    television receiver capable of receiving the DTV service signals of
    the television stations in such market, or (*b*) at least one
    television receiver of analog television service signals equipped
    with digital-to-analog converter technology capable of receiving the
    DTV service signals of the television stations licensed in such
    market. *See* Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33, 111
    Stat. 251, § 3003, as codified in the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended, 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(14)(B).

[^91]: Reallocation of the 82-88 MHz band to radio broadcasting would
    also address concerns that have been raised over the years by NPR
    and other noncommercial FM broadcast interests about potential
    interference and requirements for protection of television services
    on Channel 6. *See* *Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration
    of Sixth Report and Order* in MM Docket No. 87-268, 13 FCC Rcd 7418,
    7435 (1998).

[^92]: The only DTV Channel 6 allotment is at New Haven, Connecticut. We
    believe that in the process of identifying final DTV channels for
    existing broadcasters in the post-transition period, it will be
    possible to identify a new channel for this station. This process
    will be carried out under our DTV two-year reviews. *See Fifth
    Report and Order* in MM Docket 87-268, 12 FCC Rcd 12809, 12856-57
    (1997).

[^93]: Although analog television licensees that received a "paired" DTV
    channel assignment may elect to keep their existing analog channel
    when they convert to all-digital service, this election is subject
    to Commission review and approval. If we pursue a DAB service at
    82-88 MHz, we would, clearly, not permit Channel 6 television
    licensees to make such an election.

[^94]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 309(j).

[^95]: *See Sixth Report and Order* in MM Docket No. 87-268, 12 FCC Rcd
    14588 (1997).

[^96]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 307(b).

[^97]: *See* 47 CFR § 73.207.

[^98]: *See supra*, ¶ 25.

[^99]: *LPFM Notice*, 14 FCC Rcd at 2477.

[^100]: *See Petition* at 92-101 and Appendix B.

[^101]: *See supra*, n. 44 and accompanying text.

[^102]: *See, e.g.*, Comments of CBS at 8 and 11; Comments of CEMA at
    11-12; Comments of NAB at 8-9. CEMA notes that broadcasters do not
    operate on a subscription basis where the service provider may
    supply reception equipment, making certainty and reliability more
    significant in broadcasting than it would be in other,
    subscription-based services. Comments of CEMA at 12.

[^103]: *See, e.g.,* Comments of CBS at 12; Comments of Cumulus at 8;
    Comments of Ford at 4.

[^104]: *See, e.g.*, Comments of CBS at 9-10; Comments of Greater Media,
    Inc. at 9.

[^105]: *Fifth Further NPRM*, 11 FCC Rcd at 6247.

[^106]: *Id.* at 6247-48.

[^107]: *Id.* at 6248-49.

[^108]: *ATV Tentative Decision*, 3 FCC Rcd at 6534.

[^109]: *See* Comments of NAB at 8. The NAB's comments, like those of a
    number of commenters who firmly supported an IBOC DAB model,
    pertained solely to IBOC system testing, evaluation, and standard
    selection.

[^110]: *See* Comments of Lucent at 6-8 and Appendix; *see also*
    Comments of CEMA at 13-14; Comments of NPR at 6.

[^111]: Comments of Ford at 5-6.

[^112]: The Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service was
    created pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 86 Stat.
    770, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 2 § 1, *et seq.* (1982 ed. and Supp.
    V) ("FACA"). Ford suggested that its proposed committee would not be
    subject to FACA. *See* Comments of Ford at 5.

[^113]: *Notice*, 52 Fed. Reg. 38523 (October 16, 1987).

[^114]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415 and 1.419.

[^115]: *See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings*,
    63 Fed. Reg. 24121 (1998).

[^116]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b), as revised.

[^117]: *See* *id.* at § 1.1206(b)(2).

[^118]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603.

[^119]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* *id.* at § 601 et. seq.,
    has been amended by the Contract with America Advancement Act of
    1996, Pub. L. No. 194-12, 110 Stat. 848 (1996) (\"CWAA\"). Title II
    of the CWAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (\"SBREFA\").

[^120]: *Id.* at § 601(6).

[^121]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    \"small business concern\" in 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to the RFA,
    the statutory definition of a small business applies \"unless an
    agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment,
    establishes one or more definitions of such term which are
    appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
    definition(s) in the Federal Register.\" 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^122]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).

[^123]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

[^124]: 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 6
    (special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of
    the U.S. Small Business Administration).

[^125]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^126]: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, \"1992 Census of
    Governments.\"

[^127]: Id.

[^128]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC 4832.

[^129]: Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and
    Budget, Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987), SIC 4832.

[^130]: *Id.*

[^131]: *Id.*

[^132]: *Id.*

[^133]: The Census Bureau counts radio stations located at the same
    facility as one establishment. Therefore, each co-located AM/FM
    combination counts as one establishment.

[^134]: FCC News Release No. 31327, Jan. 13, 1993.

[^135]: FCC News Release No. 85488, \"Broadcast Station Totals as of
    September 11, 1998.\"

[^136]: We use the 96% figure of radio station establishments with less
    than \$5 million revenue from the Census data and apply it to the
    1916 radio stations using directional antennas to arrive at 1839
    individual AM stations as small businesses.