*Pages 1--27 from  Microsoft Word - 22044.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  286 
 Before  the  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 
 Topic  Paragraph  No. 
 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  V.  PROCEDURAL  MATTERS  .......................................................................................................  45 
 VI.  ORDERING  CLAUSES  ..............................................................................................................  53  List  of  Parties  Appendix  A 
 FM  IBOC  Specification  Appendix  B  AM  IBOC  Specification  Appendix  C 


 I.  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. 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  286 
 2 
 II.  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.  CEMAs  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 


 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). 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  286 
 3 
 NPR  filed  comments  in  support  of  iBiquitys  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;  its  ready.  6  We  sought  comment  on  the  NRSC  FM  report  and  its  conclusions  with  respect  to  the  Commissions  stated  DAB  policy  goals  and  selection  criteria.  7 
 Thereafter,  on  April  16,  2002,  the  NRSC  filed  its  evaluation  of  iBiquitys  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  todays  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 
 III.  DISCUSSION 
 A.  DAB  Policy  Goals 
 7.  We  remain  committed  to  the  DAB  policy  goals  the  Commission  set  forth  more  than  a  decade 
 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 
 Subcommittees  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 
 Subcommittees  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.  See  also,  e.  g.,  February  19,  2002,  comments  of  Clear  Channel 
 Communications,  Inc.;  February  20,  2002,  comments  of  Kenwood  USA  Corporation. 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  286 
 4 
 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. 


 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. 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  286 
 5 
 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  NRSCs  tests  may  be  divided  into  two  general  categories:  tests  assessing  the  performance  of  the  IBOC  digital  signal  itself,  and  tests  of  the  IBOC  signals  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. 
 B.  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 


 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. 
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  286 
 6 
 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  stations  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  stations  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  VCPPs  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  stations  call  sign  and  format,  and 


 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. 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  286 
 7 
 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  stations  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  Commissions  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  NRSCs 
 conclusions.  ATTC  repeated  a  subset  of  the  NRSCs  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. 


 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  Digitals  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. 
7
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  286 
 8 
 C.  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 
 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. 
8
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  286 
 9 
 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  stations  licensed  frequency,  i.  e.,  no  more  than  10  kHz  of  the  AM  channels  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 
 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. 
9
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  286 
 10 
 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 
 Channels  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 


 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. 
10
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  286 
 11 
 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  Commissions  rules.  The  emission  mask  is  integrally  related  to  the  Commissions  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  stations  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  stations  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  NRSCs  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. 
 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. 
11
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  286 
 12 
 31.  We  modify  the  NRSCs  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. 


 D.  SELECTION  OF  IBOC 
 32.  IBOC  system  performance.  The  record  in  this  proceeding  demonstrates  that  IBOC  is  the  best  way  to  advance  the  Commissions  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  iBiquitys  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 


 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. 
12
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  286 
 13 
 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  iBiquitys  IBOC  system  would  require  the  use  of  certain  patented  technologies.  They  express  concern  that  the  Commissions 


 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 
 Commissions  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  stations  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  NPRs  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 


 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  iBiquitys  website  offers  broadcasters  a  free  assessment  of  the  compatibility  of  their  existing  equipment  with 
 IBOC  as  part  of  iBiquitys  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. 
13
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  286 
 14 
 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  iBiquitys  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  stations  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  stations  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 


 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. 
14
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  286 
 15 
 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  Commissions  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 
 stations  total  RF  radiation  output.  Accordingly,  interim  IBOC  operations  by  a  compliant  analog  station  rarely  will  jeopardize  the  stations  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 


 E.  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  stations  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 
 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. 
15
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  286 
 16 
 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  stations  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  Commissions  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  stations  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 


 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. 
16
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  286 
 17 
 shall  be  posted  next  to  the  station  license  and  a  copy  retained  in  the  stations  public  inspection  file.  Until  the  adoption  of  final  rules  in  this  proceeding,  a  licensees  authorization  to  transmit  IBOC  signals  may  be 
 modified  or  cancelled  by  the  Commission  without  prior  notice  or  right  to  hearing.  72 


 IV.  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  Commissions  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. 


 V.  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 


 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). 
17
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  286 
 18 
 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 
 (Continued  from  previous  page)  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.  at  5. 
 83  See  paragraph  15,  supra.. 
18
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  286 
 19 
 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. 


 B.  Paperwork  Reduction  Act  Analysis 
 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 
 Commissions  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). 


 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). 
19
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  286 
 20 
 VI.  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 
20
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  286 
 21 
 Appendix  A 
 LIST  OF  PARTIES 
 Comments    November  1,  1999,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking: 
 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: 
 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 
21
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  286 
 22 
 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: 
 1.  USA  Digital  Radio,  Inc.  2.  Lucent  Digital  Radio,  Inc. 
 3.  National  Radio  Standards  Committee  4.  iBiquity  Digital  Corporation 
 5.  National  Association  of  Broadcasters 
22
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  286 
 23 
 Comments  -  December  19,  2001,  Public  Notice: 
 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: 
 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 
23
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  286 
 24 
 Late  or  Ex  Parte  Comments: 
 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 
24
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  286 
 25 
 Comments  -  April  19,  2002,  Public  Notice: 
 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: 
 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: 
 1.  Amherst  Alliance  2.  National  Radio  Systems  Committee 
 3.  iBiquity  Digital  Corporation  4.  Robert  Meuser 
 5.  Kevin  Redding 
25
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  286 
 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  todays  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.  Todays  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. 
26
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  286 
 27 
 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  thats  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.  Its  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,  thats  what  makes  this  system  of  ours  work  best,  with 
 everyone  working  toward  a  common  goal  and  the  common  good.  Its  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  Ive  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.  Its  truly  exciting. 


 Finally,  my  thanks  to  the  Bureau  for  the  hard  work  and  dedication  that  went  into  making  this  happen. 
27