###  Before the {#before-the .unnumbered}

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

)

In the Matter of )

)

**Digital Audio Broadcasting Systems** ) MM Docket No. 99-325

**And Their Impact on the Terrestrial** )

**Radio Broadcast Service.** )

)

)

**FIRST REPORT AND ORDER**

**Adopted:** October 10, 2002 **Released:** October 11, 2002

By the Commission: Commissioners Abernathy and Martin issuing a joint
statement; Commissioner Copps issuing a statement.

> **[TABLE OF CONTENTS]{.underline}**

**[Topic]{.underline} [Paragraph No.]{.underline}**

> **I. INTRODUCTION** 1
>
> **II. BACKGROUND** 2
>
> **III. DISCUSSION** 7
>
> **A.** **DAB POLICY GOALS** 7
>
> **B.** **FM IBOC PERFORMANCE** 12
>
> **C.** **AM IBOC PERFORMANCE** 19
>
> **D. SELECTION OF IBOC** 32
>
> **E**. **INTERIM IBOC OPERATIONS** 41

### IV. ADOPTION OF IBOC AM AND FM STANDARDS 44 {#iv.-adoption-of-iboc-am-and-fm-standards-44 .unnumbered}

> **V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS** 45
>
> **VI. ORDERING CLAUSES** 53

**List of Parties Appendix A**

**FM IBOC Specification Appendix B**

**AM IBOC Specification Appendix C**

# INTRODUCTION

1.  By this *Report and Order*, we select in-band, on-channel (IBOC) as
    the technology that will permit AM and FM radio broadcasters to
    introduce digital operations efficiently and rapidly. We announce
    notification procedures that will allow operating AM and FM stations
    to commence digital transmissions immediately on an interim basis
    using the IBOC systems developed by iBiquity Digital Corporation. We
    conclude that the adoption of a single IBOC transmission standard
    will facilitate the development and commercialization of digital
    services for terrestrial broadcasters, and solicit industry
    assistance in the development of a formal standard. We defer
    consideration of formal standard-setting procedures and related
    broadcast licensing and service rule changes to a future *Further
    Notice of Proposed Rule Making.*

# BACKGROUND

2.  After opening a proceeding in 1990 to consider both satellite and
    terrestrial digital radio services, the Commission concluded that
    the IBOC systems under consideration for terrestrial service still
    were in early stages of development and that it would be premature
    to consider terrestrial digital audio broadcasting (DAB).[^1]
    Development of IBOC systems by several U.S. proponents and of the
    Eureka 147 system by a European consortium proceeded. In the
    mid-1990s, the National Radio Systems Committee (NRSC)[^2] formed a
    DAB Subcommittee which, in collaboration with a Consumer Electronics
    Manufacturing Association (CEMA) Digital Audio Radio Subcommittee,
    conducted extensive laboratory tests of several DAB systems. CEMA's
    1997 Final Report concluded that the IBOC FM system had two major
    deficiencies---poor audio performance under impaired signal
    conditions, and incompatibility with analog FM service. Although the
    Eureka 147 system performed well, many U.S. broadcasters continued
    to support the IBOC approach, subject to further development. On the
    other hand, CEMA, National Public Radio, Inc. (NPR) and others urged
    the Commission to give careful consideration to non-IBOC systems
    such as Eureka 147.

3.  The Commission initiated this proceeding in November 1999 to advance
    the development of DAB in the terrestrial radio service.[^3]
    Although our radio broadcast services continue to serve as a
    mainstay of mass communications, broadcasters now face significant
    technical limitations and competitive challenges. Technical
    developments and regulatory actions over the past decade have
    allowed many communications systems to evolve from analog to digital
    transmissions, including over-the-air television broadcasting, and
    satellite digital audio radio service (SDARS) now competes with
    terrestrial radio. Many terrestrial radio broadcasters view DAB not
    only as a technical opportunity, but as a competitive necessity. The
    transition to DAB promises the benefits that have generally
    accompanied digitalization---better audio fidelity, more robust
    transmission systems, and the possibility of new auxiliary services.

4.  In the *NPRM*, we sought comment on alternatives for introducing DAB
    to the American public. The *NPRM* was prompted by the continuing
    development and promising preliminary test results of IBOC DAB
    systems that 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 *NPRM* noted that, although the IBOC
    approach held great promise of a seamless transition from analog to
    digital, the technology was still unproven. We also sought comment
    on allocating new spectrum for a terrestrial DAB system. Finally, we
    asked for comment on whether the spectrum from 82 to 88 MHz,
    currently used for TV channel 6, might be reallocated to DAB, either
    for new DAB service or to supplement IBOC operations in the existing
    AM and FM radio bands.

5.  IBOC developers have made significant progress since the *NPRM* was
    adopted. In ­August 2000, two IBOC proponents, Lucent Digital Radio,
    Inc. and USA Digital Radio, Inc., merged to create iBiquity Digital
    Corporation (iBiquity). iBiquity is now the only active IBOC system
    developer. Among its strategic partners, iBiquity lists most of the
    largest broadcast group owners, as well as manufacturers of
    broadcast equipment, consumer electronics, and semiconductors. The
    Consumer Electronics Association, the successor organization to
    CEMA, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), and NPR filed
    comments in support of iBiquity's IBOC system. The report of the DAB
    subcommittee of the NRSC released on December 3, 2001, evaluates
    comprehensive field and laboratory tests of the FM IBOC system
    developed by iBiquity.[^4]

6.  The NRSC FM report concluded that

> \[a\]fter nearly a decade of encouraging the development of IBOC DAB
> and now culminating with the formulation and execution of a
> comprehensive test program, the NRSC believes that the iBiquity FM
> IBOC system as tested by the NRSC should be authorized by the FCC as
> an enhancement to FM broadcasting in the U.S., charting the course for
> an efficient transition to digital broadcasting with minimal impact on
> existing analog FM reception and no new spectrum requirements.[^5]

The NAB concurs, stating simply, "\[i\]t works; it's ready."[^6] We
sought comment on the NRSC FM report and its conclusions with respect to
the Commission's stated DAB policy goals and selection criteria.[^7]
Thereafter, on April 16, 2002, the NRSC filed its evaluation of
iBiquity's AM hybrid system,[^8] on which we sought comment in a
subsequent public notice.[^9] The NRSC AM report concludes that iBiquity
"has developed an attractive solution to improve AM listening based on
the best of today's available technology."[^10] NRSC recommends that
iBiquity IBOC should be authorized as a daytime-only enhancement to AM
broadcasting, pending further study of AM IBOC performance under
nighttime propagation conditions. Based on the record developed in this
proceeding, iBiquity and other commenters urge the Commission to permit
broadcasters to initiate IBOC transmission on an interim basis prior to
the adoption of new licensing rules and procedures. These commenters
contend that this approach will facilitate the development of consumer
demand for new digital-ready receivers.[^11]

# DISCUSSION

## DAB Policy Goals

7.  We remain committed to the DAB policy goals the Commission set forth
    more than a decade ago. We intend to foster the development of "a
    vibrant and vital terrestrial radio service for the public," and to
    ensure to the extent possible that existing broadcasters have the
    opportunity to implement DAB.[^12] We favor the rapid implementation
    of DAB in a manner that will not disrupt existing service.
    Accordingly, the *NPRM* outlined ten criteria that we will use to
    evaluate a candidate DAB system: 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 capability; 7)
    extensibility; 8) accommodation for existing broadcasters; 9)
    coverage; and 10) implementation costs/affordability of equipment.

8.  *Out-of-band options.* We solicited comment in the NPRM on the
    possible use of other spectrum for DAB, particularly TV channel 6.
    The NPRM specifically noted that a workable IBOC system would be
    superior to a new spectrum option in a number of respects.[^13]
    However, we sought comment on out-of-band options, in part, because
    the technical viability of the IBOC approach was unproven. Several
    parties, including NPR, filed comments advocating the use of TV
    channel 6 spectrum for DAB. It now appears that television stations
    may continue to use channel 6 beyond the December 31, 2006, target
    date for the cessation of analog broadcasts. No commenter identified
    other viable spectrum options. It is clear that, unlike IBOC, an
    out-of-band DAB approach is no more viable a near-term option today
    than it was when we first sought comment in this proceeding.

9.  The Amherst Alliance, the Virginia Center for the Public Press
    (VCPP), and many individual commenters support selection of the
    Eureka 147 system, an approach that would require the allocation of
    additional spectrum for radio broadcasting. This is not a feasible
    alternative. In dramatic contrast to IBOC, Eureka 147 has no active
    domestic proponent and no appreciable support within the broadcast
    industry. It is a technology that would require significant
    broadcaster investments in new transmission facilities and impose
    major service area changes on incumbent broadcasters.[^14] VCPP and
    several other commenters suggest that the frequencies between
    1452-1492 MHz ("L-band" frequencies) could accommodate DAB
    operations using Eureka 147.[^15] This spectrum currently is used
    for flight test telemetry.[^16] It would take years to clear this
    spectrum for DAB, even if we were to decide today that such a step
    is warranted. We conclude, therefore, that the selection of any DAB
    system, including Eureka 147, which would require new spectrum,
    including channel 6, would impede the rapid development of DAB.
    Moreover, without a specific spectrum allotment and a specific
    technology, we simply do not have a defined out-of-band option to
    consider, much less to evaluate against the DAB criteria enumerated
    in the NPRM. Accordingly, we will no longer consider this approach
    in this proceeding. We emphasize, however, that we are not today
    categorically foreclosing new spectrum options. In the event that
    new spectrum is identified for broadcast use, further consideration
    of both IBOC and non-IBOC out-of-band DAB approaches may be
    warranted.

10. *NRSC IBOC test program*. In sharp contrast to the out-of-band
    approach, iBiquity has made steady progress toward a practical DAB
    implementation. iBiquity has continued to develop its IBOC
    technology and to cooperate fully in an extensive and independent
    testing and evaluation program during the past several years. In the
    NPRM, we stated that it was appropriate to rely on the expertise of
    the private sector in testing and evaluating DAB systems. The NRSC,
    through its DAB subcommittee, has accomplished this task with a
    comprehensive test program, thoroughly documented in the NRSC FM and
    AM reports cited above. NRSC members spent more than two years
    crafting test procedures, analyzing test results, and developing
    recommendations. The sustained efforts of the NRSC and its many
    expert volunteers have provided the Commission with a wealth of
    information about IBOC. The NRSC AM and FM reports present the
    results of extensive laboratory and field tests which address most
    of the evaluation criteria set forth in the NPRM. The NRSC's tests
    may be divided into two general categories: tests assessing the
    performance of the IBOC digital signal itself, and tests of the IBOC
    signal's effect on existing analog radio. The iBiquity FM IBOC
    system performed well in both areas. Laboratory and field tests were
    also performed for the AM IBOC system; however, field tests of the
    AM system were conducted only for daytime propagation conditions,
    with significant consequences to be discussed in later paragraphs.
    The AM test results show that the iBiquity IBOC system performed
    well in both laboratory and daytime field conditions.

11. *Brief description of IBOC design.* The iBiquity IBOC systems tested
    by the NRSC are "hybrids" in that they permit the transmission of
    both the analog and digital signals within the spectral emission
    mask of a single AM or FM channel.[^17] In the hybrid mode, the
    iBiquity system places digital information on frequencies
    immediately adjacent to the analog signal. The digital signals are
    transmitted using orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM).
    The digital system uses perceptual coding to discard information
    that the human ear cannot hear. This reduces the amount of digital
    information, and therefore the frequency bandwidth, required to
    transmit a high-quality digital audio signal.

## FM IBOC Performance

12. *The NRSC FM report.* The NRSC tested the iBiquity hybrid FM system
    both in the laboratory and in field trials on eight FM radio
    stations selected to represent a variety of reception environments.
    Testing included objective measures, such as signal-to-noise ratio
    and bit error rates, and subjective measures in which listeners
    rated audio recordings.

13. *Audio quality.* The NRSC audio quality tests compare the quality of
    the unimpaired IBOC FM digital signal to that of unimpaired analog
    FM, and demonstrate that the unimpaired digital signal performed
    better. In its comments, iBiquity asserts that the FM IBOC system
    "will exceed the quality of the best possible analog and will
    deliver CD-quality sound."[^18] NPR claims, however, that the
    improvement over analog FM is modest, and speculates that new
    program services would be necessary to interest the public in buying
    digital receivers.[^19] The NRSC also compared the performance of
    analog and digital FM signals subject to impairments such as
    multipath interference, co- and adjacent-channel interference, and
    various types of noise. Some of the impairments were simulated in
    the laboratory; in addition, field tests recorded impairments under
    mobile reception conditions. The NRSC concluded that the FM IBOC
    system was more robust than analog in most cases, and performed
    markedly better in overcoming multipath interference. The NRSC also
    found that "the 'digital' service area of a radio station
    broadcasting FM IBOC should be an improvement with respect to
    existing analog service."[^20] The iBiquity hybrid system is
    designed to "blend" to FM analog when digital reception fails. This
    "blending" feature eliminates a digital "cliff effect," the complete
    and abrupt loss of reception at locations where the digital signal
    fails.

14. *Compatibility with analog FM.* The digital portion of the hybrid
    IBOC signal is transmitted on frequencies immediately adjacent to
    the main analog signal. Consequently, minimizing interference to
    stations on first- and, to a lesser extent, second-adjacent channels
    poses the most serious analog compatibility challenge. The NRSC
    concluded that "listeners within the protected contour \[of the
    first-adjacent analog station\] should not perceive an impact, but a
    limited number of listeners may perceive an impact outside of the
    protected contour under certain conditions."[^21] Most commenters,
    including all of the broadcasters that address the issue, agree that
    this is a reasonable tradeoff. VCPP, the Amherst Alliance, and many
    individual commenters, however, object to any increase in
    interference. VCPP insists that many listeners "with large
    investments in high quality, extra sensitive and extra selective
    receivers, routinely listen to distant stations."[^22] VCPP also
    asserts that "the public deserves 25 years notice" of the adoption
    of systems that would render existing radios obsolete.[^23]

15. The iBiquity system, which allows the introduction of DAB service
    with no additional allocation of spectrum, represents a remarkable
    technical achievement. IBOC, however, cannot be implemented without
    some service ramifications. Under the circumstances, we agree with
    the NRSC and the majority of commenters that some additional
    interference outside a station's protected contour is an acceptable
    tradeoff given the larger public interest benefits at stake.
    Spectrum management necessarily involves tradeoffs between
    interference and service. Our AM and FM technical regulatory schemes
    are designed, with certain minor exceptions not relevant here, to
    protect the reception of analog signals only where those signals
    meet or exceed certain signal strengths, *i.e.*, within a station's
    protected service contour (or interference-free contour). This
    methodology does not ensure reception at every location within these
    contours and treats interference outside these contours as not
    objectionable. With mature services, such as AM and FM broadcasting,
    the introduction of additional RF energy into these heavily used
    bands can affect the reception of distant stations. Historically, as
    more stations have been added to the AM and FM bands, the ability to
    receive individual stations beyond their protected service contours
    has diminished. We conclude that the tradeoffs that hybrid mode
    operations may require are consistent with well-established
    broadcast interference policies. We reject as unworkable and
    unreasonable VCPP's contention that the public should have 25 years'
    notice of the adoption of new radio broadcast technologies.

16. *Compatibility with FM subcarriers.* All FM stations are authorized
    to transmit secondary services via an automatic subsidiary
    communications authorization (SCA),[^24] employing subcarriers that
    place information at specified frequencies within the radio channel.
    These secondary communications services are normally used for GPS
    services, utility load management, foreign language programming,
    traffic information, and radio reading services. Some FM
    broadcasters currently provide digital Radio Broadcast Data System
    (RBDS) subcarrier services to identify the host station's call sign
    and format, and provide Emergency Alert System notifications and
    paging functions. The NRSC performed limited tests of the effect of
    IBOC operations on FM subcarriers, and concluded that hybrid IBOC
    should not adversely affect the most common digital subcarrier
    services. The NRSC FM report stated, however, that "some questions
    still remain as to the impact of IBOC on \[analog SCA\]
    services."[^25] NPR and the International Association of Audio
    Information Services (IAAIS) expressed concern that reading services
    for the blind, now transmitted via analog subcarrier on many FM
    stations, would suffer interference from IBOC.[^26]

17. In response to these concerns, iBiquity agreed to additional FM
    system tests. Test procedures were developed jointly by NPR, IAAIS,
    and the Advanced Television Technology Center (ATTC).[^27] iBiquity
    filed these test results, which show that, in some circumstances,
    analog SCA receivers may receive significant new interference from
    IBOC stations operating on second-adjacent channels. Following the
    tests, NPR commissioned a study using average receiver performance
    to estimate the number of listeners potentially affected by
    additional interference from IBOC in the top 16 radio markets. The
    results show that, on average, additional interference from IBOC
    could affect 2.6 percent of eligible receivers within an FM
    station's service area.[^28] We are concerned about this level of
    interference and its potential impact on radio reading services. We
    will seek specific comment on measures to protect established SCA
    services in a subsequent *Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* in
    this docket. However, based on the likelihood that many instances of
    interference can be eliminated by replacing susceptible receivers
    with better models, and on the Commission's expertise in
    satisfactorily managing blanketing and other interference
    allegations, we believe we can develop procedures to resolve
    successfully interference complaints on a case-by-case basis. During
    the period of interim operations, we expect broadcasters to work
    closely with complainants to resolve allegations of interference to
    radio reading services. We reserve the right to require specific
    remedial measures when the parties are unable to agree on corrective
    action.

18. *FM tests with alternate audio compression technology.* The NRSC FM
    IBOC tests were done on a version of the iBiquity FM system that
    used MPEG-2 AAC perceptual audio coding. Because iBiquity intends to
    use its proprietary PAC^TM^ coding in the commercial version of its
    system, the NRSC recommended--and iBiquity agreed--to repeat some
    tests with the PAC^TM^ coding to verify the NRSC's conclusions. ATTC
    repeated a subset of the NRSC's audio quality tests with both
    "generation 1" hardware using MPEG coding and "generation 2"
    hardware using PAC^TM^ coding. Objective and subjective tests of
    audio quality in the presence of noise and multipath interference
    show little difference between the two versions.[^29] No commenters
    dispute the results of the "generation 2" tests. In these
    circumstances, we conclude that further audio quality testing using
    PAC^TM^ coding is unnecessary.

## AM IBOC Performance

19. *Background.* Two characteristics of the AM service have made the
    development of AM IBOC extremely challenging. First, the nominal
    audio bandwidth is insufficient to pass a full-fidelity monaural
    audio signal. Second, AM propagation characteristics vary
    drastically between day and night, resulting in two completely
    different allocation schemes (and, consequently, different daytime
    and nighttime facilities for most AM stations). During daytime
    hours, AM signals propagate principally via currents conducted by
    the earth, called groundwave propagation. Useful groundwave signals
    have a range of only about 200 miles for the most powerful AM
    stations, and less than 50 miles for many stations. After sunset,
    changes in the upper atmosphere cause the reflection of AM signals
    back to earth, resulting in the transmission of skywave signals over
    paths that may extend thousands of miles. Nighttime skywave
    propagation results in a much greater potential for interstation
    interference. With the exception of powerful clear channel stations
    and relatively low-power local stations, many AM stations are
    required to cease operation at sunset. Most of those that remain on
    the air at night must reduce power or use directional antenna
    systems, or both.

20. *The NRSC AM Report.* The NRSC tested the iBiquity hybrid AM system
    both in the laboratory and in field trials at 4 AM radio stations
    selected to represent a variety of reception environments. The test
    program included performance tests of the IBOC digital system
    itself, and compatibility tests, which evaluated the effect of the
    IBOC digital signal on existing analog signals. Both performance and
    compatibility tests were comprised of objective measures and
    subjective listener evaluations.

21. The NRSC recommends that iBiquity IBOC should be authorized on a
    daytime-only basis. Comments from the broadcast industry generally
    support the NRSC report and the authorization of interim hybrid AM
    IBOC operations during daytime hours. However, the NRSC expresses
    concern about first adjacent channel interference under nighttime
    propagation conditions. Because skywave propagation was not included
    in the test program, the NRSC states that additional testing is
    necessary to evaluate the nighttime compatibility of hybrid AM IBOC.

22. *Audio quality.* The NRSC assessed the audio quality of the digital
    AM IBOC signal to determine whether IBOC offered an improvement over
    current analog AM. The tests compared the quality of the unimpaired
    AM digital signal to that of unimpaired analog AM, and concluded
    that \"IBOC offers a chance to revitalize AM broadcasting - offering
    near FM-quality stereo reception.\"[^30] Comments from broadcasters
    were almost universally enthusiastic about IBOC\'s potential for
    improving existing AM audio quality. Greater Media, Inc. claims that
    \"initiation of IBOC service during daytime hours presages the
    dramatic transformation of AM radio from its current status as a
    largely poor-quality/voice-only medium to a digital service with
    audio quality on a par with today\'s analog FM.\"[^31] Susquehanna
    Radio Corporation predicts that \"IBOC can bring back high quality
    music to the AM band.\"[^32] We agree that the record in this
    proceeding presents compelling evidence that AM IBOC has the
    potential to significantly improve the audio quality of AM
    broadcasting.

23. *Robustness.* The NRSC AM report concluded that the \"test results
    demonstrate that the iBiquity hybrid AM IBOC system, compared to
    analog AM, is substantially more robust under impulse noise and
    co-and adjacent channel interference conditions.\"[^33] Broadcaster
    comments generally support this conclusion. NPR comments that
    \"\[t\]he improvement in audio fidelity and robustness is especially
    important for the AM band.\"[^34] We agree. The test results clearly
    demonstrate that AM IBOC is significantly more robust than analog AM
    under impulse noise and most common interference conditions. The
    increased immunity to impulse noise alone promises long-awaited
    relief from the annoying \"static\" that has plagued AM broadcasting
    since its inception over 80 years ago.

24. *Compatibility with analog AM.* NRSC notes that \"\[t\]he design of
    the AM IBOC system is such that its addition to an AM broadcast
    signal will cause a reduction in the host analog signal-to-noise
    performance \[*i.e.*, an increase in background noise, perceived as
    degradation in audio quality\] at the receiver.\"[^35] The NRSC
    states that if the passband of the receiver extends beyond 5
    kHz,[^36] the receiver will detect the secondary digital carriers,
    which extend from approximately 5 kHz to 10 kHz above and below the
    AM carrier frequency.[^37] The test results indicate, however, that
    audio quality should not be degraded sufficiently to impact
    listening.[^38] With regard to the effect on other stations, the
    NRSC concludes that introduction of hybrid AM IBOC should not cause
    additional co-channel interference. Because the IBOC digital signal
    shares spectrum with the analog signal of a first adjacent AM
    station, however, the NRSC concludes that first adjacent channel
    compatibility is a significant issue for AM IBOC. [^39] The
    introduction of AM IBOC will, undoubtedly, result in some additional
    interference, both to the host station and to other stations.
    However, as we concluded regarding FM IBOC, the potential benefits
    of digital AM IBOC far outweigh the small possible increase in
    interference. We are confident that, on balance, the hybrid AM IBOC
    system proposed by iBiquity has the potential to provide the
    benefits of digital broadcasting within the framework of our
    existing AM allocation scheme. Even so, we agree with the NRSC that
    significant uncertainty remains with respect to the potential for
    first adjacent channel interference under nighttime skywave
    propagation conditions. We will therefore defer authorizing
    nighttime use of AM IBOC until further testing has been completed.

25. *Preservation of current AM service.* Because of the narrow
    bandwidth of the nominal AM channel, iBiquity found it necessary to
    reduce the audio bandwidth of the hybrid-mode analog AM signal from
    10 kHz to 5 kHz in order to accommodate the digital signal.
    Moreover, the IBOC system is not compatible with use of analog
    C-QUAM AM stereo[^40] by the host station. Several commenters object
    to the bandwidth reduction; C. Crane Company, Inc., which
    manufactures and distributes wide-band AM receivers, states that AM
    receivers with bandwidths in excess of 6.5 kHz will be adversely
    affected. However, virtually all broadcast industry commenters agree
    that the analog bandwidth reduction would be unnoticeable to most
    listeners, since most AM receivers in use today are designed to
    capture only that portion of the AM signal that is within 5 kHz of
    the station's licensed frequency, *i.e.*, no more than 10 kHz of the
    AM channel's bandwidth. In contrast, virtually all the individuals
    who commented express concern about the loss of analog bandwidth.
    Each of the 35 individual commenters oppose adoption of the iBiquity
    IBOC system; 12 favor retention of analog AM stereo, 6 express a
    preference for the Eureka 147 system, and the remaining 17 express
    various concerns such as adjacent channel interference,
    uncertainties regarding nighttime operation, and the cost of
    replacing existing receivers. Many of the individual commenters
    complain about the narrow bandwidth and poor quality of existing AM
    receivers; several call on the Commission to adopt the AMaX receiver
    standard[^41] and to implement rules for receiver standards. CEA, in
    reply, argues that it is "disingenuous" to claim that the shortfalls
    of analog AM broadcasting are due to consumer electronics equipment.
    CEA argues that if significant consumer demand existed for
    technologies such as C-QUAM AM stereo and AMaX, these products would
    be widely available in the marketplace.

26. Although we are sympathetic to the concerns of those commenters who
    object to the loss of the "legacy" AM analog service, our action
    today leaves with each broadcaster the voluntary option of
    implementing IBOC. The technical limitations of the analog
    technology, including narrow bandwidth and susceptibility to manmade
    and natural noise, continue to undermine its viability. The number
    of active AM stations in the United States reached a peak of
    approximately 5000 in 1991 and has steadily declined since that
    time. Currently, only about 4700 AM stations remain in operation,
    and these account for only 20 percent of estimated radio advertising
    revenues.[^42] The record in this proceeding presents compelling
    evidence that AM IBOC---the only feasible, near-term digital
    technology option---has the potential to revitalize AM broadcasting
    and substantially enhance radio service for the listening public. We
    anticipate that many broadcasters will conclude that the dramatic
    improvement in digital audio quality, including stereo operations,
    will outweigh the requirements to cease analog stereo and limit
    analog bandwidth. Those broadcasters concerned about the loss of
    analog stereo or reduced bandwidth may continue, of course, to
    operate in an analog-only mode.

27. *Power reduction for primary AM digital carriers*. Clear Channel
    Communications, Inc. expresses concern about the potential for IBOC
    signals to cause interference to the reception of analog AM stations
    operating on the first adjacent channel, and proposes that, in the
    event the Commission authorizes stations to implement IBOC
    operations on an interim basis, such operations should be conducted
    with the primary digital carriers reduced 6 dB from the level
    employed in the IBOC tests.[^43] Reply comments by iBiquity, The
    Walt Disney Company and ABC, Inc., and James Crystal support Clear
    Channel's proposal. However, NAB, Susquehanna, and Greater Media
    oppose the 6 dB reduction, expressing concern over the loss of IBOC
    signal coverage. NAB recommends that the Commission establish power
    reduction procedures for resolving analog interference, but
    emphasizes that any interim power reduction should be temporary in
    nature.[^44] Greater Media, in opposing the power reduction, argues
    that coverage for most AM stations today is critical, that most face
    substantial challenges in providing service to their respective
    markets, and that the impact of a 6 dB power reduction "will be
    devastating."[^45] Susquehanna argues that an across-the-board
    reduction of 6 dB will result in a substantial loss of digital
    coverage for every AM station, which "could be extremely detrimental
    to smaller stations attempting to replicate their analog coverage
    and overcome man-made interference in their ever-expanding core
    marketing area."[^46]

28. The NRSC AM report recommends that the Commission authorize daytime
    operation with the hybrid AM IBOC system as developed by iBiquity.
    This system has been designed to conform to the AM emission mask
    specified in Section 73.44 of the Commission's rules. The emission
    mask is integrally related to the Commission's AM allocations rules
    (principally Sections 73.37 and 73.182) which, in turn, rest on
    certain assumptions concerning tradeoffs between coverage and
    interference. Thus, the AM IBOC system confines the digital signal
    within the station's existing authorization. Based on the testing
    record and this system design, we agree with the NRSC and will
    presumptively permit all stations to operate with the digital power
    levels developed by iBiquity and tested by the NRSC.

29. In the interest of striking a balance between interference concerns
    raised by Clear Channel and certain other broadcasters and the
    strong interest of other commenters in maximizing coverage, we will
    adopt a three-pronged approach to the issue of primary sideband
    power levels. This approach is designed to provide a streamlined
    process to safeguard current reception of analog signals. First, we
    will authorize AM stations to commence operation with the hybrid AM
    IBOC system tested by the NRSC, in accordance with the special
    temporary authorization (STA) and notification procedures described
    below. When interference problems are anticipated prior to
    commencement of interim IBOC operations, or when actual interference
    occurs, we will permit licensees to adjust the power level of the
    primary digital subcarriers downward by as much as 6 dB. Licensees
    are required to notify the Commission of any such power
    adjustments.[^47] We expect that, by use of this mechanism, most
    cases of interference will be resolved when interim operations
    commence. Finally, in cases in which the hybrid AM IBOC operation of
    one station results in complaints of actual interference within
    another station's protected service contour and the respective
    licensees are unable to reach agreement on a voluntary power
    reduction, the Commission staff may order power reductions for the
    primary digital carriers or, in extreme cases, termination of
    interim IBOC operation. In a case in which licensees fail to reach
    agreement on a voluntary power reduction, an affected station may
    file an interference complaint with the Commission. This complaint
    must describe any test measures used to identify IBOC-related
    interference and fully document the extent of such interference. The
    Media Bureau shall resolve each complaint within ninety days of
    filing. In the event the Bureau fails to issue a decision within
    ninety days of the date on which a complaint is filed, the
    interfering station shall reduce immediately its primary digital
    subcarrier power level by 6 dB.[^48]

30. *Interim AM Operating Hours.* Because of skywave propagation,
    nighttime interference-free service for most stations is
    significantly more limited than their authorized daytime service
    contours. Class A clear channel stations---the one significant
    exception---enjoy protected nighttime skywave service to a distance
    of approximately 750 miles. Given the lack of nighttime test
    results, the NRSC concluded that it would be imprudent to permit
    IBOC operation during nighttime hours until it had completed
    testing. No commenter suggests that interim AM IBOC operation be
    permitted during nighttime hours. We agree with the NRSC's
    conclusion, and will not authorize interim AM IBOC operation during
    nighttime hours. The Media Bureau is authorized, however, to issue
    experimental authorizations to continue the ongoing test program.

31. We modify the NRSC's recommendation in one respect, however. During
    winter months, daytime begins after morning drive time and ends
    before evening drive time in most markets, especially in the
    northern regions of the country. The Commission has long recognized
    the need for AM station operation between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and
    local sunrise (the "pre-sunrise" hours) and between local sunset and
    6:00 p.m. (the "post-sunset" hours). Section 73.99 of the rules
    provides for reduced-power pre-sunrise and post-sunset operation by
    AM stations where such operation will not cause impermissible
    interference to other stations. In view of the relatively low power
    to be employed for IBOC AM signals, we will permit AM stations
    currently authorized to operate during the pre-sunrise and/or
    post-sunset periods to transmit IBOC signals during those times.
    Stations transmitting IBOC signals during pre-sunrise or post-sunset
    hours shall operate with the power and antenna pattern authorized
    for the time period.[^49] We believe that the potential for skywave
    interference during the pre-sunrise and post-sunset hours is small,
    and that the benefit to the public by permitting broadcasters to
    implement IBOC operations between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. during the
    winter months outweighs any potential interference impact.

## SELECTION OF IBOC

32. *IBOC system performance*. The record in this proceeding
    demonstrates that IBOC is the best way to advance the Commission's
    DAB policy goals. This technology enjoys strong support from the
    broadcast industry and is the only approach that could be
    implemented in the near future. The iBiquity IBOC system is
    spectrum-efficient in that it can accommodate digital operations for
    all existing AM and FM radio stations with no additional allocation
    of spectrum. The NRSC tests show that both AM and FM IBOC systems
    offer enhanced audio fidelity and increased robustness to
    interference and other signal impairments. Coverage for both systems
    would be at least comparable to analog coverage. Considering that
    iBiquity's IBOC systems achieve these objectives in the hybrid mode,
    in which the relatively low-powered digital signal must coexist with
    more powerful analog signals, we expect that audio fidelity and
    robustness will improve greatly with all-digital operation. The NRSC
    performed extensive tests to assess the iBiquity systems' effects on
    existing analog radio. We agree with the NRSC and the majority of
    commenters that the potential for new interference from IBOC
    operations is insignificant when compared with the advantages and
    opportunities inherent in this digital technology.

33. Relatively few commenters discuss two of the evaluation
    criteria--the flexibility and extensibility of the iBiquity IBOC
    systems. According to iBiquity, its systems provide extensibility in
    that the first-generation receivers are designed to operate both in
    the interim hybrid and in all-digital modes.[^50] This is an area,
    however, where definitive evaluations can only be undertaken after
    the Commission resolves a number of all-digital issues, such as
    issues relating to signal architecture. We are encouraged, even
    here, by the fact that the IBOC technology provides the first
    opportunity to use software to modify legacy digital radio
    receivers. The IBOC systems show flexibility, iBiquity states, in
    allowing tradeoffs between audio quality and the amount of data
    devoted to auxiliary services.[^51] CEA expresses some concern with
    the extent of this flexibility, and suggests that we mandate that
    digital audio broadcasts include a main audio program.[^52] At this
    stage, it is sufficient to recognize that the iBiquity system does
    offer the broadcaster the option of providing auxiliary services and
    flexibility in their configuration, in keeping with our DAB goals.
    We will address these issues in more detail when a formal standard
    is considered.

34. Regarding costs, many commenters state that adoption of iBiquity's
    IBOC system would require the use of certain patented technologies.
    They express concern that the Commission's endorsement of the
    iBiquity system will create an opportunity for these patent holders
    to impose excessive licensing fees on broadcasters and listeners who
    have no alternative source for the technology. In its response,
    iBiquity agrees to abide by the guidelines common to open standards,
    which require that licenses be available to all parties on fair
    terms. iBiquity also states that it will adhere to the Commission's
    patent policy.[^53] Our decision to permit interim operations during
    the pendency of this proceeding provides an excellent opportunity to
    assess whether iBiquity and other patent holders are entering into
    licensing agreements under reasonable terms and conditions that are
    demonstrably free of unfair discrimination. The Commission will
    monitor this situation and seek additional comment as warranted.

35. Although we share commenters' concerns about costs, we believe for
    the reasons discussed below that it is necessary to define a single
    DAB standard to ensure the rapid and efficient development of DAB
    service. According to iBiquity, the estimated costs of implementing
    its hybrid IBOC system range from \$30,000 to \$200,000, with an
    average cost of \$75,000.[^54] Conversion costs vary depending on
    the age and other characteristics of a station's transmitter plant
    and studio equipment.[^55] For example, most new broadcast
    transmitters are IBOC-compatible. In contrast, some stations may
    need to replace older transmitters, studio-transmitter links, or
    studio equipment in order to transmit IBOC. The cost estimates
    provided by iBiquity do not seem unreasonable when compared with
    digital conversion costs in other services. Radio broadcasters can
    implement IBOC using their existing towers, antennas, and
    transmission line, making the technology inherently less costly
    than, for example, the digital television conversion. In addition,
    broadcasters may begin interim IBOC operations on a voluntary basis,
    deferring costs as they deem appropriate. Finally, it is important
    to recognize that the endorsement of the hybrid IBOC transmission
    systems does not compel any broadcaster to make the investments
    necessary to initiate digital transmissions. Accordingly, the
    Commission selects IBOC as the digital transmission technology for
    terrestrial broadcasters.

36. *Possible uses of auxiliary digital capacity.* Many commenters raise
    issues related to the possible uses of the auxiliary capacity within
    a digital signal. For example, NPR suggests that a formal standard
    for digital audio should ensure the availability of secondary audio
    programs, as well as the text and data services commercial
    broadcasters are likely to favor.[^56] IAAIS agrees with NPR's
    suggestion, and adds that new radios should allow the listener to
    receive secondary audio programs in addition to main channel
    programming, eliminating the need for the special receivers now
    required for SCA services such as reading services for the
    blind.[^57] The National Institute of Standards and Technology
    proposes that a digital standard should designate a slot for
    transmission of accurate time.[^58] We recognize that one of the
    most significant benefits of digital technology is its potential to
    enhance existing auxiliary services such as reading for the blind
    and foreign language programming. Entirely new auxiliary services
    may also be possible--­ for example, multiple audio programming
    channels, audio-on-demand services, and interactive features. During
    the initial period of hybrid IBOC operation, we expect that these
    new auxiliary services will be in the early phase of development. We
    will invite further consideration of these issues and related
    comments as part of the development of digital standards in a
    *Further Notice* in this proceeding.

37. *All-digital operations.* As noted above, iBiquity has developed
    all-digital transmission systems for AM and FM. These systems would
    occupy the same spectral emission mask now occupied by the
    corresponding analog facilities, and are intended to replace the
    analog operations once the digital service is introduced and
    established via hybrid IBOC operation. iBiquity submitted test
    results for both AM and FM all-digital modes. The all-digital tests
    were not performed under the auspices of the NRSC, unlike the tests
    on iBiquity's hybrid IBOC systems. iBiquity requests that the
    Commission endorse its all-digital systems as well as the hybrid
    systems. Although we recognize that a fully digital terrestrial
    radio service is the ultimate goal, it would be premature to endorse
    systems that have not been subject to comprehensive and impartial
    testing. Moreover, adoption of an all-digital standard requires the
    consideration of novel and more complex technical and policy issues
    that arise only when the constraints of "designing around" the
    legacy analog transmission standard are eliminated, *e.g.*,
    placement of the main digital signal, power levels, interference
    standards, etc. Accordingly, we will defer any action on these
    matters until a complete record has been developed.

38. *Use of IBOC by FM translator and FM booster stations*. FM booster
    and FM translator stations provide important service to many
    mountainous and rural areas of the country, where few other radio
    signals are available. By their nature, the translator and booster
    services present unique challenges for IBOC operation. An FM
    translator station receives a signal from its primary FM station and
    converts the signal for rebroadcasting on a different FM frequency.
    An FM booster station relays the primary station's programming on
    the same FM frequency. The implementation of IBOC should not affect
    the ability of translator and booster stations to continue the
    analog service they now provide. The record in this proceeding does
    not yet clearly establish, however, whether booster and translator
    stations will be able to relay the digital portion of IBOC signals.
    Tests performed by iBiquity indicate that an FM booster station will
    be able to relay the primary station's hybrid IBOC signal provided
    the booster is within 14 miles of the primary station.[^59] We
    received no test results or comments regarding use of IBOC by FM
    translator stations. Although some translator stations may be able
    to retransmit the digital component of an IBOC signal, we expect
    that many translator stations will need equipment modifications to
    do so. We therefore will solicit comment on issues relating to FM
    translator and booster stations in a *Further Notice* in this
    proceeding.

39. *Other Matters*. The Amherst Alliance, VCPP, and others request that
    the Commission prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on
    the iBiquity IBOC systems on the theory that the introduction of
    IBOC operations would constitute a "major federal action" which
    holds the potential for "significantly affecting the quality of the
    human environment under the National Environmental Policy Act of
    1969" (NEPA).[^60] We decline, for the following reasons.

40. The statutory scheme that Congress established in NEPA, as
    implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ),[^61]
    mandates the submission of an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an
    EIS only for those major federal actions that may or will
    significantly affect the environment.[^62] CEQ regulations provide
    for a three-tiered approach to environmental analysis, which is
    intended to identify covered actions. In accordance with this
    approach, the Commission's rules (1) require the Commission to
    prepare an EIS for an action that will have a significant impact
    upon the environment; (2) require the preparation and submission of
    an EA for an action that may have a significant environmental
    effect; and (3) exclude certain actions categorically from
    environmental processing.[^63] In this case, the initiation of
    interim IBOC operations normally will require no construction or
    tower lighting, and thus, is categorically excluded from
    environmental processing under 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1306(a) and (b). To
    the extent that IBOC systems raise environmental concerns regarding
    exposure of members of the public to radiofrequency (RF) radiation
    under 47 C.F.R. §1.1307(b), our existing RF standards adequately
    address those concerns.[^64] The introduction of IBOC transmissions
    will add approximately one percent to a station's total RF radiation
    output. Accordingly, interim IBOC operations by a compliant analog
    station rarely will jeopardize the station's overall compliance with
    RF standards. On this basis, we conclude that the Commission is not
    required to prepare an EIS and that a procedure that permits
    licensees to certify compliance with RF exposure standards satisfies
    any environmental requirements.[^65]

## Interim IBOC Operations

41. As of the release of this *Report and Order*, stations may request
    authority to operate on an interim basis with the hybrid IBOC
    facilities described in Appendices B and C herein.[^66] During
    interim IBOC operations, stations shall broadcast the same main
    channel program material in both analog and digital modes. Interim
    IBOC facilities must use the station's authorized antenna system. As
    a safeguard against interference, we will not allow use of a second
    antenna for transmitting the digital portion of the hybrid IBOC
    signal. Further, pending a favorable evaluation of AM IBOC under
    nighttime propagation conditions, AM stations shall transmit IBOC
    signals during local daytime only. AM stations authorized to operate
    during the pre-sunrise or post-sunset periods may continue IBOC
    operation during those times.[^67] AM stations implementing IBOC
    digital transmissions may not simultaneously transmit analog C-QUAM
    AM stereo. An AM expanded band station that implements IBOC
    transmissions is released from its commitment to operate in analog
    stereo. During the interim period, we realize that many FM
    stations will need to increase transmitter power output in order to
    compensate for losses associated with analog/digital combiner
    networks.  As part of the notification process, stations
    implementing IBOC shall indicate transmitter power output (for both
    analog and digital transmitters, if applicable) and shall certify
    that the analog effective radiated power remains consistent with the
    station's authorization.  Calculations used to determine the
    transmitter power shall be retained and made available to the
    Commission upon request.  

42. Interim operations will require notification to the Commission.
    Before initiating new information collection procedures, the
    Commission must demonstrate compliance with the information
    collection provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public
    Law 104-13.[^68] Following approval by the Office of Management and
    Budget (OMB), notifications shall be filed within ten days of the
    commencement of interim IBOC operations. The Media Bureau will issue
    a Public Notice announcing that OMB approval has been received and
    the effective date of the IBOC notification procedures.[^69] This
    notification shall contain the following information:

a\) the date that interim operation commenced, or if the applicant is
seeking an STA, the date planned for commencement of IBOC operation;

b\) a certification that the IBOC facilities conform to the iBiquity
hybrid specifications;

c\) the name and telephone number of a technical representative the
Commission can call in the event of interference;

d\) transmitter power output; if separate analog and digital
transmitters are used, the power output for each transmitter;

e\) a certification that analog effective radiated power remains as
authorized;

f\) a certification that the interim operation would not cause human
exposure to levels of radiofrequency radiation in excess of Section
1.1310 of the Commission's rules and is therefore categorically excluded
from environmental processing pursuant to Section 1.1306(b). Any station
that cannot certify compliance must submit an environmental assessment
(EA) pursuant to Section 1.1311 and may not commence interim operation
until such EA is ruled upon by the Commission;[^70] and

g\) if applicable, any power reduction in an AM station's primary
digital carriers.[^71]

43. Notifications shall be sent to the Federal Communications
    Commission, Digital Radio Notification, 445 12th Street SW, Room
    2-B450, Washington, DC, 20554. A copy of the notification shall be
    posted next to the station license and a copy retained in the
    station's public inspection file. Until the adoption of final rules
    in this proceeding, a licensee's authorization to transmit IBOC
    signals may be modified or cancelled by the Commission without prior
    notice or right to hearing.[^72]

# ADOPTION OF IBOC AM AND FM STANDARDS

44. The record of NRSC test results, combined with the industry
    consensus reflected in the comments, demonstrates that IBOC provides
    a technical path forward to digital operations for radio
    broadcasters. By our action today, we select the hybrid AM and FM
    IBOC systems tested by the NRSC as *de facto* standards for interim
    digital operation. As of the effective date of this *Report and
    Order*, the Commission will no longer entertain in this proceeding
    any proposal for digital radio broadcasting other than IBOC. We
    agree with the many commenters who advocate the adoption of a single
    DAB transmission standard. Although this is not a situation in which
    competing technologies pose a risk of market splintering, we believe
    the adoption of a standard will facilitate an efficient and orderly
    transition to digital radio. This approach is particularly warranted
    at a time when broadcasters face competitive challenges from various
    digital media and when many station owners link their continued
    viability to the prompt introduction of a digital transmission
    technology. The Commission's support of a standard-setting process
    is designed to provide regulatory clarity and to compress the
    timeframe for finalizing the rules and policies that will affect the
    ultimate success of this service. We solicit the assistance of a
    broad cross-section of interested parties in developing a formal AM
    and FM IBOC standard through a public and open standard-setting
    process. In this regard, we are encouraged by the recent action of
    the NRSC to form an IBOC standards development working group,
    formally initiating a process designed to establish AM and FM IBOC
    standards.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification

45. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),[^73]
    requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for
    notice and comment rule making proceedings, unless the agency
    certifies that "the rule will not, if promulgated, have a
    significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
    entities."[^74] The RFA generally defines the term "small entity" as
    having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small
    organization," and "small governmental jurisdiction."[^75] In
    addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as the term
    "small business concern" under the Small Business Act.[^76] 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).[^77]

46. As required by the RFA, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    (IRFA) was incorporated in the *NPRM* in MM Docket No. 99-325. The
    Commission sought written public comments on the proposals in the
    *NPRM* including comments on the IRFA. The Office of Advocacy, U.S.
    Small Business Administration (SBA) filed comments asserting that
    the Commission, in the IRFA, failed to adequately consider the
    potential impact of digital transition on small business and did not
    discuss alternatives designed to minimize regulatory burdens on
    small entities.[^78] Specifically, SBA states that "\[B\]efore
    concluding that analog systems must sunset, the Commission should
    provide data on the cost of transition and should ensure that DAB
    will not burden small business."[^79] SBA further states that the
    Commission should make the results of the IBOC tests public to
    determine viability and compatibility including any interference
    concerns. It suggests that "... a better course of action might be
    to permit stations to install digital systems but only if they do
    not cause interference to analog systems. In this scenario, digital
    and analog systems would operate concurrently."[^80] According to
    SBA, the Commission "... should issue additional notices of proposed
    rulemaking as it gleans additional information regarding the
    feasibility and desirability of DAB transition."[^81] Finally, SBA
    states that the Commission failed to discuss alternatives that would
    minimize the regulatory burden on small entities.[^82]

47. Although, in this *First Report and Order* the Commission takes two
    actions, neither of which will have a significant impact on small
    entities, our approach to digital implementation is consistent with
    that advocated by SBA. First, the Commission endorses IBOC
    technology for use by AM and FM digital audio broadcasting
    operations. Second, the Commission authorizes interim, voluntary
    digital broadcasting operations for both AM and FM licensees. Only
    those broadcasters wishing to take advantage of this opportunity to
    begin digital broadcasting need comply with any notification or
    technical requirements. Those broadcasters choosing not to initiate
    such digital operations will not be materially affected. The
    Commission will issue a *Further* *Notice* proposing final rules for
    digital audio broadcasting and will consider the impact of any final
    rules on small entities in connection with that further proceeding.
    We therefore certify that the requirements of this *First Report and
    Order* will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
    number of small entities.

48. In adopting this approach, we carefully analyzed the results of the
    IBOC tests and we conclude that any minimal interference that might
    be caused is outweighed by the benefits of digital service.[^83]
    Such benefits will accrue to small entities as well as large
    businesses should they choose to implement digital operation. In
    addition, we adopt procedures for these voluntary operations to
    assure that any interference complaints are resolved quickly.[^84]
    Under this plan, analog and digital systems will operate
    concurrently, a result advocated by SBA. With respect to the
    potential cost of implementation, preliminary estimates indicate
    that that IBOC costs are not unreasonable and that use of IBOC is
    inherently less costly than other systems.[^85] Again, we emphasize
    that the interim operations adopted here are strictly voluntary and
    thus no broadcaster will be compelled to incur any costs. Finally,
    as SBA suggests, we will issue a *Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking* to solicit comment on any final digital transition
    rules.

49. The Commission will send a copy of the *First Report and Order*,
    including a copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification,
    in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review
    Act.[^86] In addition, the *First Report and Order* and this final
    certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
    SBA, and will be published in the Federal Register.[^87]

50. This document is available in alternative formats (computer
    diskette, large print, audio record, and Braille). Persons with
    disabilities who need documents in these formats may contact Brian
    Millin at (202) 418-7426 (voice), (202) 418-7365 (TTY), or via email
    at bmillin@ fcc. gov.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
B.  **Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
51. This *First Report and Order* contains proposed new and modified
    information collections. As part of its continuing effort to reduce
    paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of
    Management and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on
    the information collections contained in this Order, as required by
    the Paperwork Reduction Act. 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.

52. Written comments on the proposed new and modified information
    collections must be submitted on or before 60 days after date of
    publication the Federal Register. A copy of any comments on the
    information collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy
    Boley Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445
    12^th^ Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554, or via the Internet to
    jboley@fcc.gov. Copies should also be submitted to Kim Johnson, OMB
    Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17^th^ Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
    20503, or via the Internet to <Kim._A._Johnson@omb.eop.gov> (spaces
    are underscores).

# ORDERING CLAUSES

53. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in
    Sections 4(i) and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
    47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303, this *First Report and Order* IS ADOPTED.

54. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Media Bureau, effective with the
    release of this *First Report and Order,* is delegated authority to
    grant special temporary FM and AM daytime authorizations to licensed
    stations to commence in-band, on-channel digital transmissions.

55. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the policies adopted in this *First
    Report and Order* shall become effective upon OMB approval. The
    Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register as soon
    as practicable thereafter announcing the effective date of these
    policies.

56. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Consumer and Governmental Affairs
    Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this
    *First Report and Order*, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility
    Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

> Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

**Appendix A**

**[LIST OF PARTIES]{.underline}**

**[Comments -- November 1, 1999, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking]{.underline}:**

1.  Amherst Alliance

2.  Arkansas Educational Telecommunications Commission

3.  Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc.

4.  Association of America\'s Public Television Stations

5.  Association of Radio Industries and Businesses/Digital Broadcasting
    Experts Group

6.  Brandy Communications

7.  Chase Capital Partners

8.  Clarkston Broadcasters, Inc.

9.  Consumer Electronics Association

10. Cordillera Communications, Inc.

11. Cox Radio, Inc.

12. Cue Corporation

13. Digital Radio Express, Inc.

14. Entercom Communications Corp.

15. Forum Communications Company

16. Freedom Communications, Inc.

17. Gannett Co., Inc.

18. Greater Media, Inc.

19. Grupo Televisa, S.A.

20. Gulf Coast Broadcasting Company, Inc.

21. Hearst-Argyle Television, Inc.

22. Hispanic Broadcasting Corporation

23. Infinity Broadcasting Corporation

24. KMSO(FM)

25. K-W TV, Inc.

26. LA Radio

27. Lucent Digital Radio, Inc.

28. National Association of Broadcasters

29. National Institute of Standards and Technology

30. National Public Radio, Inc

31. National Radio Systems Committee

32. Nautel Ltd./Nautel Maine Inc.

33. Olmstead County Broadcasting Company

34. Perception Media Group, Inc.

35. Picture Radio Communications

36. QEI Corporation

37. REC Networks

38. Resort Radio Systems, Inc.

39. Sony Electronics, Inc.

40. Station Resource Group

41. Susquehanna Radio Corp.

42. U.S. Small Business Administration

43. USA Digital Radio, Inc.

44. Visteon Automotive Systems

45. W & B Broadcasting

46. WAJI-FM and WLDE-FM

47. Willis Broadcasting Company

48. Wright Broadcasting Systems, Inc.

49. WTRW Incorporated

50. Blair Alper

51. Kenneth W. Bowles

52. Ted M. Coopman

53. David S. Forsman

54. Richard Hartnett

55. Erich Loepke

56. Jack L. Messmer

57. Alan Ricotta

58. Scott Todd

59. Pete Tridish

**[Reply Comments]{.underline}:**

1.  Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc.

2.  Broadcast Signal Lab, LLP

3.  Channel 6, Inc.

4.  Grupo Televisa, S.A.

5.  Lucent Digital Radio, Inc.

6.  Lucent Digital Radio, Inc. (Errata)

7.  Minority Media and Telecommunications Company

8.  National Association of Broadcasters

9.  National Public Radio, Inc.

10. Providence Community Radio, Inc.

11. Radio One, Inc.

12. REC Networks

13. Shively Labs

14. Texas Instruments

15. USA Digital Radio, Inc.

16. Virginia Center for the Public Press

17. Robert Bornkamp

18. Ted M. Coopman

19. Erich Loepke

20. Scott Todd

[**Late/Ex Parte Comments**:]{.underline}

1.  USA Digital Radio, Inc.

2.  Lucent Digital Radio, Inc.

3.  National Radio Standards Committee

4.  iBiquity Digital Corporation

5.  National Association of Broadcasters

**[Comments - December 19, 2001, Public Notice:]{.underline}**

1.  ABC, Inc./The Walt Disney Company

2.  Amherst Alliance

3.  Bonneville International Corporation

4.  Chalk Hill Educational Media, Inc.

5.  Clear Channel Communications, Inc.

6.  Consumer Electronics Association

7.  Cox Radio, Inc.

8.  Emmis Communications

9.  Evangelistic Alaska Missionary Fellowship

10. iBiquity Digital Corporation

11. Impulse Radio

12. Infinity Broadcasting Corporation

13. International Association of Audio Information Services

14. Journal Broadcast Corporation

15. National Association of Broadcasters

16. National Public Radio, Inc.

17. Nautel Maine Inc.

18. PAMAL Broadcasting, Ltd.

19. Pinwheel, Inc. (KWED)

20. Radio One, Inc.

21. Shively Labs

22. Susquehanna Radio Corp.

23. Texas Instruments

24. Victor Company of Japan Ltd. (JVC)

25. Virginia Center for Public Press

26. Anthony Hunt

27. David Hale

28. Reid Ashbaucher

29. William Cordell

**[Reply Comments:]{.underline}**

1.  Alps Electric (USA), Inc.

2.  American Council of the Blind

3.  Amherst Alliance

4.  Harris Corporation

5.  iBiquity Digital Corporation

6.  International Association of Audio Information Services

7.  Kenwood Corporation

8.  National Association of Broadcasters

9.  National Public Radio, Inc.

10. Radio Kings Bay, Inc.

11. Radio Pacific, Inc.

12. Redhawk Community Radio

13. Rocky Mountain CPB

14. Visteon Corporation

15. Stephen Burt

16. Garrett Clevenger

17. Ted M. Coopman

18. Chuck Conrad

19. Matthew Hayes

20. Brandon David Lunsford

21. Nicholas P. Merrill

22. Donald E. Niccum

23. Jenka Soderberg

24. Dana J. Woods

**[Late or Ex Parte Comments:]{.underline}**

1.  Amherst Alliance

2.  Consumer Electronics Association

3.  Equipoise -for Balance in Media

4.  iBiquity Digital Corporation (additional test results)

5.  International Association of Audio Information Services

6.  LA Media

7.  Media Access Project

8.  National Association of Broadcasters

9.  National Federation of Community Broadcasters

10. National Public Radio, Inc.

11. Radio Free Moscow, Inc.

12. Station Resource Group, Inc.

13. Virginia Center for the Public Press

14. John Anderson

15. David W. Belknap

16. Dan Brown

17. Lisa Brunner

18. Michael Bugaj

19. John Chidester

20. Chuck Conrad

21. Ted M. Coopman

22. Caroline Cox

23. Edward Czelada

24. Maria Denitto

25. David Devereaux-Weber

26. Joseph Fela

27. Leslie Gold

28. George Grandits

29. Jan Harris

30. Kent Harrison

31. Gerald Richard Haussler

32. Jim Kysela

33. Mahlia Lindquist

34. Carol Maddox

35. Zachary Manganello

36. Glenn Martin

37. Philipp E. Meyer

38. Roger Moore

39. Mark Nagel

40. Mark Newton

41. Sallie Ortha

42. Rick Potthoff

43. Bob Riley

44. John M. Roberts

45. Barbara Ruether

46. Larry Siegel

47. William Stribling

48. Ted Trujillo

49. Duane Whittingham

**[Comments - April 19, 2002, Public Notice:]{.underline}**

1.  AM Broadcasters Association, Inc.

2.  Amherst Alliance

3.  C. Crane Company, Inc.

4.  Clear Channel Communications, Inc.

5.  Cox Radio, Inc.

6.  Greater Media, Inc.

7.  Harris Corporation

8.  iBiquity

9.  Infinity Broadcasting Corporation

10. Journal Broadcast Corporation

11. National Association of Broadcasters

12. National Public Radio, Inc.

13. REC Networks (webcaster; LPFM advocate)

14. Susquehanna Radio Co.

15. WGAI-AM 560

16. WGUL-FM, Inc.

17. WMTA** **

18. Tom Bryant

19. Bob Carter

20. Bruce A. Conti

21. David Coons

22. Christopher Cuff

23. Ian R. Davidson

24. Michael Erickson

25. Guy T. Falsetti

26. Joseph Fela

27. David S. Forsman

28. Robert Foxworth

29. J. S. Gilstrap, Jr.

30. Juan C. Gualda

31. Glenn Hauser

32. Harry L. Helms

33. Charles L. Hutton

34. Richard W. Kenneally

35. Robert Meuser

36. Thomas R. Mourgos

37. Neal Newman

38. John Pavlica, Jr.

39. Philip J. Rafuse

40. Kevin Redding

41. J. Redding

42. Michael J. Richard

43. John J. Rieger

44. Jay Rogers

45. Kit Sage

46. Russell Skadl

47. Kevin Tekel

48. Donn Tillman

49. Scott A. Todd

50. Frederick R. Vobbe

51. Citizen from Novi, Michigan

**[Reply Comments:]{.underline}**

1.  Amherst Alliance

2.  Bonneville International Corporation

3.  Consumer Electronics Association

4.  Fanfare Electronics, Ltd.

5.  Glen Clark & Associates

6.  Greater Media, Inc.

7.  iBiquityDigital Corporation

8.  James Crystal Enterprises, LLC.

9.  National Association of Broadcasters

10. National Public Radio, Inc.

11. Nautel Limited and Nautel Maine Inc.

12. REC Networks

13. Susquehanna Radio Co.

14. Virginia Center for the Public Press

15. Walt Disney Company and ABC, Inc.

16. John Olson

17. John Pavlica, Jr.

18. Scott A. Todd

19. Lawrence Waldbillig

**[Late/Ex Parte Comments:]{.underline}**

1.  Amherst Alliance

2.  National Radio Systems Committee

3.  iBiquity Digital Corporation

4.  Robert Meuser

5.  Kevin Redding

    **JOINT STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONERS**

    **KATHLEEN Q. ABERNATHY AND KEVIN J. MARTIN**

> Re: *Digital Audio Broadcasting Systems and Their Impact on
> Terrestrial Radio Broadcast Service, MM Docket No. 99-325*

We support today's decision selecting in-band, on-channel (IBOC) as the
technology to be used by AM and FM broadcasters for the introduction of
digital broadcasting. We commend the work of the industry for developing
a model that will not require allocation of additional spectrum and will
allow for an efficient transition to digital radio, during which time
consumers will be able to receive their current services without
disruption. Today's order allows broadcasters to initiate IBOC
transmission on an interim basis, thus ensuring that the radio industry
can begin to take advantage of the advancements that digital
broadcasting has to offer.

As broadcasters face technological limitations and competitive
challenges, the ability to move quickly toward digital audio
broadcasting has become increasingly important. Digital radio will allow
the industry to respond in a timely manner to the competition that they
face from satellite radio services and holds great promise for the
revitalization of AM service. In addition, the iBiquity system gives
broadcasters the flexibility of providing auxiliary services. Thus,
consumers will be able to receive a better quality audio signal now and
may ultimately benefit from the development of innovative offerings,
such as multiple audio streams and data and interactive services.

We do recognize that there may be some interference with existing
services, but we believe that the impact will be minimal and is
outweighed by the benefits of digital audio broadcasting. We are,
however, particularly concerned about the potential for interference to
some receivers used for radio reading services for the blind or visually
impaired. We are pleased that the Commission will seek comment on
measures to protect these established subcarrier services in its FNPRM.
In the interim, we expect that broadcasters will work closely with the
affected parties to resolve these issues without intervention from the
Commission. We are optimistic that, in the short-term, interference
issues can be resolved and, in the long-term, the quality and
availability of radio reading services will benefit from the
technological advancements of digital audio radio service.

**SEPARATE STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

*Re: In the Matter of Digital Audio Broadcasting Systems and Their
Impact on the Terrestrial Radio Broadcast Service, MM Docket No. 99-325*

I am very pleased to support this item, which selects in-band,
on-channel ("IBOC") as the technology to advance audio broadcasting into
the digital future. Digital radio presents a tremendous opportunity for
terrestrial radio broadcasters to compete with new technologies. It
holds forth the promise of better quality sound -- CD quality for FM,
and FM quality for AM -- which will enhance audio service generally and
may well reanimate AM radio. But that's just for starters. Going beyond
sound quality there will be multiple broadcaster opportunities in the
provision of new auxiliary services, such as multiple audio programming
channels, audio-on-demand services, and interactive features, too. All
these, and perhaps more, will, I believe, enhance audio broadcasting
measurably and in the process advance the public interest.

I want to congratulate industry for putting aside traditional
competitive rivalries and working together toward the common goal of
bringing the benefits of digital audio technology to the American
people. It's a splendid example of private sector partnering, but it
went even beyond that to include close cooperation and partnering with
the public sector, too. The FCC also played a role here, and my hat is
off to our Commission team members who put their shoulders to this task.
To my mind, that's what makes this system of ours work best, with
everyone working toward a common goal and the common good. It's a great
model, and I would recommend it heartily for full application in other
challenging areas, such as, for one example, the transition to digital
television. I hope all the parties involved there will take note and
follow suit. As I've said before, I am a believer, a true believer, in
this kind of cooperative endeavor. In the competitive global economy we
all inhabit, we work far more effectively when we work together.

A few questions remain to be settled, including how the IBOC system will
function in the real world; what is the potential for and extent of
interference that IBOC could cause to existing services; and the
technical feasibility of nighttime AM IBOC transmissions. I believe the
procedures put in place through this *Order* for resolving any
interference issues that arise once interim transmissions begin are
reasonable and effective and will enable the industry to address
adequately and efficiently any and all such problems.

I look forward to the commencement of interim IBOC operations and to
continuing to work with the industry to develop and finalize digital
audio broadcasting standards. In Seattle, at the recent Radio Show, I
saw first-hand some of the technology and equipment that will soon be
available to bring digital radio to all of us. It's truly exciting.

Finally, my thanks to the Bureau for the hard work and dedication that
went into making this happen.

[^1]: *Amendment of the Rules with Regard to the Establishment and
    Regulation of New Digital Audio Radio Services,* 5 FCC Rcd 5237
    (1990).

[^2]: The NRSC is an industry group jointly sponsored by the National
    Association of Broadcasters and the Consumer Electronics
    Association.

[^3]: *In the Matter of Digital Audio Broadcasting Systems And Their
    Impact On the Terrestrial Radio Service,* 15 FCC Rcd 1722 (1999)(
    the "*NPRM*").

[^4]: National Radio Systems Committee DAB Subcommittee report,
    "*Evaluation of the iBiquity Digital Corporation IBOC System: Part 1
    -- FM IBOC,"* submitted in the December 4, 2001, comments of
    iBiquity Digital Corporation ("NRSC FM report").

[^5]: NRSC FM report at 9.

[^6]: February 19, 2002, comments of the NAB at 2.

[^7]: *See Public Notice:* MM Docket No. 99-325; Comment Sought on
    National Radio Systems Committee DAB Subcommittee's "Evaluation of
    the iBiquity Digital Corporation IBOC System," DA 01-2932 (Dec. 19,
    2001) ("December 2001 Public Notice").

[^8]: National Radio Systems Committee DAB Subcommittee report,
    "*Evaluation of the iBiquity Digital Corporation IBOC System: Part 2
    -- AM IBOC*," submitted in April 16, 2002, comments of NRSC ("NRSC
    AM report").

[^9]: *See Public Notice:* MM Docket No. 99-325; Comment Sought on
    National Radio Systems Committee DAB Subcommittee's "Evaluation of
    the iBiquity Digital Corporation IBOC System," DA 02-899 (Apr. 19,
    2002) ("April 2002 Public Notice").

[^10]: NRSC AM report at 9.

[^11]: March 21, 2002, reply comments of iBiquity at 5. S*ee also,
    e.g.,* February 19, 2002, comments of Clear Channel Communications,
    Inc.; February 20, 2002, comments of Kenwood USA Corporation.

[^12]: *Amendment of the Rules with Regard to the Establishment and
    Regulation of New Digital Audio Radio Services,* MO&O, 12 FCC Rcd at
    5769; also R & O, 10 FCC Rcd at 2310*.*

[^13]: NPRM at 37.

[^14]: The Eureka 147 system typically spreads six high-quality stereo
    signals over a bandwidth of 1.5 megahertz. The package of combined
    signals, called an ensemble, can also be configured to include more
    than six programs with lower audio quality. The ensemble requires
    consolidated transmission facilities and would give all signals
    identical coverage areas, resulting in a transmission system
    infrastructure substantially different from that of our existing
    radio service.

[^15]: July 18, 2002, reply comments of the Amherst Alliance; *see also*
    late-filed (Mar. 22, 2002) comments of VCPP.

[^16]: *Amendment of the Rules with Regard to the Establishment and
    Regulation of New Digital Audio Radio Services,* 12 FCC Rcd at
    5770-71.

[^17]: The iBiquity system also includes all-digital AM and FM modes,
    which stations would implement in the event that analog systems are
    terminated. The FM IBOC system has an extended hybrid mode, with
    greater digital capacity than the hybrid mode. Neither the extended
    hybrid FM system nor the all-digital systems have been tested by the
    NRSC.

[^18]: February 19, 2002, comments of iBiquity at 6.

[^19]: February 19, 2002, comments of NPR at 8.

[^20]: NRSC FM report at 31.

[^21]: *Id.* at 11.

[^22]: February 20, 2002, comments of VCPP at 4.

[^23]: Late-filed (March 22, 2002) reply comments of VCPP at 7.

[^24]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.295.

[^25]: NRSC FM report at 11.

[^26]: February 19, 2002, comments of NPR at 4; *see also* March 19,
    2002, reply comments of IAAIS.

[^27]: Advanced Television Technology Center report, "Digital Audio
    Broadcasting: Supplementary Analog SCA Compatibility Tests -- Test
    Plan and Procedures. Document No.02-15 April 2002," filed May 13,
    2002, in comments of iBiquity.

[^28]: "Further Report on Analog SCA Compatibility with iBiquity
    Digital's FM-IBOC System," filed May 24, 2002, in comments of NPR
    and IAAIS.

[^29]: Advanced Television Technology Center report, "Digital Audio
    Broadcasting: Digital Performance Regression Tests of the iBiquity
    Digital IBOC System in the FM Band -- Summary of Test Results,
    Document #02-10, April 2002" filed April 17, 2002, in comments of
    iBiquity.

[^30]: NRSC AM report at 8.

[^31]: June 18, 2002, comments of Greater Media, Inc. at 2; *see also*
    June 18, 2002, comments of NAB at 4.

[^32]: June 17, 2002, comments of Susquehanna Radio Corp. at 3; *see
    also* June 18, 2002, comments of NPR at 3.

[^33]: NRSC AM report at 31.

[^34]: June 18, 2002, comments of NPR at 4.

[^35]: NRSC AM report at 50.

[^36]: The radio frequency bandwidth of an analog AM signal is twice the
    audio bandwidth. For example, modulation of a carrier with a 10-kHz
    audio tone generates sidebands at +10 kHz and -10 kHz of the carrier
    frequency, for a total radio frequency bandwidth of 20 kHz. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 73.44.

[^37]: NRSC AM report at 50.

[^38]: *Id.* at 51.

[^39]: *Id.* at 54.

[^40]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.128.

[^41]: AMaX is a standard for advanced AM radio performance developed in
    1991 by the Electronic Industries Association and the NAB.

[^42]: BIA Media Access Pro database, August 16, 2002. BIA Financial
    Network, Inc. (BIAfn) is a merchant banking and investment firm
    specializing in broadcasting, telecommunications, and related
    industries. BIA provides strategic funding, consulting, and
    financial services to the telecommunications, Internet, and
    media/entertainment industries.

[^43]: June 18, 2002, comments of Clear Channel Communications, Inc. at
    4.

[^44]: July 18, 2002, reply comments of NAB at 5,6.

[^45]: July 18, 2002, reply comments of Greater Media, Inc*.* at 5.

[^46]: July 18, 2002, reply comments of Susquehanna at 2.

[^47]: In order to preserve the integrity of the hybrid AM IBOC system,
    power reductions greater than 6 dB will not be permitted without
    prior authority from the Commission. A licensee desiring such a
    reduction must file an informal letter request, setting forth its
    justification for the nonstandard operation.

[^48]: This automatic power reduction requirement is without prejudice
    to any subsequent Bureau action on the pending complaint.

[^49]: For example, a station that normally switches to its nighttime
    pattern at 5:00 during November would continue to do so; between
    5:00 and 6:00, the station may transmit IBOC in its authorized night
    mode. Similarly, an AM station with pre-sunrise or post-sunset
    authority may transmit IBOC at the authorized power level.

[^50]: February 19, 2002, comments of iBiquity at 11.

[^51]: *Id.* at 10; *see also* June 18, 2002, comments of iBiquity at 9.

[^52]: February 19, 2002, comments of CEA at 2.

[^53]: "Revised Patent Procedures of the Federal Communications
    Commission," *Public Notice* (December 1961), reprinted at 3 FCC 2d
    (1966).

[^54]: February 19, 2002, comments of iBiquity at 14.

[^55]: iBiquity's website offers broadcasters a free assessment of the
    compatibility of their existing equipment with IBOC as part of
    iBiquity's EASE program to encourage broadcasters to convert to
    digital operation (http://www.iBiquity.com).

[^56]: February 19, 2002, comments of NPR.

[^57]: March 19, 2002, reply comments of IAAIS.

[^58]: January 24, 2000, comments of National Institute for Standards
    and Technology.

[^59]: Appendix B, FM IBOC Specification at 15-16.

[^60]: *See* 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500-1508.28.

[^61]: NEPA created the CEQ to oversee the environmental programs and
    activities of the federal government in order to determine the
    extent to which these programs are contributing to the national
    achievement of U.S. environmental policy. 42 U.S.C. § 4344(3). CEQ
    published rules "tell\[ing\] federal agencies what they must do to
    comply with the procedures and achieve the goals of \[NEPA\]." 40
    C.F.R.§ 1500.1(a).

[^62]: 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.4(a)-(b) (a federal agency shall determine
    whether a proposal normally requires an environmental impact
    statement or normally is categorically excluded and, if neither is
    applicable, the agency shall prepare an environmental assessment);
    1507.3(b)(2)(i) (agency shall identify typical classes of action
    requiring environmental impact statements); 1507.3(b)(2)(ii) (agency
    shall identify typical classes of action not requiring either an
    environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment);
    1507.3(b)(2)(iii) (agency shall identify typical classes of action
    requiring environmental assessments but not necessarily
    environmental impact statements).

[^63]: *In the Matter of Public Employees for Environmental
    Responsibility*, 16 FCC Rcd 21439, 21445 (2001) ("*PEER*"); *see
    also* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1312 (a) (in the case of facilities for which no
    preconstruction authorization is required, the licensee or applicant
    must initially ascertain whether or not the proposed facility may
    have a significant environmental impact as defined in 47 C.F.R. §
    1.1307).

[^64]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1307(b), 1.1310.

[^65]: *In the Matter of Promotion of Competitive Networks in Local
    Telecommunications Markets*, 15 FCC Rcd 22983, 23037 (2000) (EIS not
    required when existing requirements provide adequate protection or
    where environmental effects would be "minimal").

[^66]: *See* Appendix B, FM IBOC Specification; *see also* Appendix C,
    AM IBOC Specification.

[^67]: *See* paragraph 31, *supra.*

[^68]: 44 U.S.C. 3501, *et seq*. ("the Paperwork Reduction Act").

[^69]: Until the release of the Public Notice announcing the
    notification procedures, stations wishing to implement IBOC
    transmission must file an STA request. The STA request must include
    all the information specified in paragraph 42 herein. The STA
    request must be accompanied by a certification pursuant to the
    Anti-Drug Act of 1988, and by FCC form 159 and the appropriate
    filing fee (*see* 47 C.F.R. §1.1104). Licensees should submit their
    STA requests ten days before the date they intend to initiate IBOC
    transmissions.

[^70]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §1.1312(b).

[^71]: *See* paragraph 29, *supra.*

[^72]: Test results indicate that hybrid IBOC operation is consistent
    with our present allocation rules. It is anticipated that hybrid
    operation would also conform to the allocation standards contained
    in our international agreements governing AM and FM stations. During
    the period of interim IBOC operation, all relevant international
    agreements will be reviewed and any necessary modifications will be
    addressed.

[^73]: The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 -- 612, has been amended by the
    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA),
    Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).

[^74]: 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

[^75]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^76]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. §
    632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), 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."

[^77]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^78]: SBA comments at 2.

[^79]: *Id* at 3.

[^80]: *Id* at 4.

[^81]: *Id.* at 4.

[^82]: *Id. a*t 5.

[^83]: S*ee* paragraph 15, *supra.*.

[^84]: *See* paragraph 29, *supra.*

[^85]: *See* paragraph 35, *supra.*

[^86]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^87]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).