Review of the Emergency Alert System, 4760-4768 [2010-1941]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 19 (Friday, January 29, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4760-4768]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1941]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 11

[EB Docket No. 04-296; FCC 10-11]


Review of the Emergency Alert System

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission adopted a document seeking 
comment on its proposal to amend the Commission's rules governing the 
Emergency Alert System (EAS) rules to provide for national EAS testing 
and collection of data from such tests. The purpose of this testing and 
data collection is to determine whether the EAS will function as 
required should the President issue a national alert.

DATES: Comments are due on or before March 1, 2010 and reply comments 
are due on or before March 30, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by EB Docket No. 04-296 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web site: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger 
delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or 
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues 
to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All 
filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the Commission to 
request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign 
language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 
202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Fowlkes, Deputy Bureau Chief, 
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 418-7452, or by e-
mail at Lisa.Fowlkes@fcc.gov. For additional information concerning the 
Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained 
in this document, contact Judy Boley Hermann at (202) 418-0214 or send 
an e-mail to PRA@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Federal 
Communication Commission's Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(Second FNPRM) in EB Docket No. 04-296, FCC 10-11, adopted on January 
12, 2010, and released on January 14, 2010. This document is available 
to the public at https://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-11A1.doc.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This document contains proposed information collection 
requirements. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, 109 Stat. 163 (1995). 
The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork 
burdens, invites the general public and OMB to comment on the 
information collection requirements contained in

[[Page 4761]]

this document, as required by the PRA. Public and agency comments on 
the PRA proposed information collection requirements are due March 30, 
2010. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on the respondents, including the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In 
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 
Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks 
specific comment on how it might ``further reduce the information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees.''
    OMB Control Number: 3060-0207.
    Title: Emergency Alert System Information Collection.
    Form Number: Not applicable.
    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; State, Local or 
Tribal Governments; Non-profit entities.
    Number of Respondents: 3,569,028.
    Estimated Time per Response: .034--20 hours.
    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirements; reporting 
requirements; third party disclosure requirement.
    Obligation to Respond: Mandatory.
    Total Annual Burden: 82,008 hours.
    Total Annual Cost: $3,086,044.
    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).
    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for 
confidentiality required for this information collection.
    Needs and Uses: In the Second FNPRM in EB Docket No. 04-296, FCC 
09-10, the Commission proposed a new rule obligating entities required 
to participate in EAS (EAS Participants) to gather and submit 
information on the operation of their EAS equipment during a national 
test of the EAS. Specifically, the Commission proposed requiring that 
EAS Participants record and submit to the Commission the following 
test-related diagnostic information: (1) Whether they received the 
alert message during the designated test; (2) whether they 
retransmitted the alert; and (3) if they were not able to receive and/
or transmit the alert, their `best effort' diagnostic analysis 
regarding the cause or causes for such failure. The Commission 
anticipates asking EAS Participants to provide it with the date/time of 
receipt of the EAN message by all stations; and the date/time of 
receipt of the EAT message by all stations. The gathering of all of the 
foregoing information is covered by an existing OMB authorized 
information collection. (OMB Control Number 3060-0207, expiration date 
8/31/11). However, EAS participants are presently only required to log 
the foregoing information. The Commission's new rule requires EAS 
Participants to send this information to its Public Safety and Homeland 
Security Bureau. The Commission seeks authorization for this change. In 
addition, the Commission also anticipates asking EAS Participants to 
provide it with a description of their station identification and level 
of designation (PEP, LP-1, etc.); who they were monitoring at the time 
of the test, and the make and model number of the EAS equipment that 
they utilized. OMB has not yet authorized the collection of this 
information.

Synopsis of the Second FNPRM

    1. In this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the 
Commission proposes to amend its Part 11 rules governing the Emergency 
Alert System (EAS) to provide for national testing of the EAS and 
collection of data from such tests.
    2. The EAS is a national alert and warning system that exists 
primarily to enable the President of the United States to issue 
warnings to the American public during emergencies. To date, however, 
neither the EAS nor its predecessor national alerting systems have been 
used to deliver a national Presidential alert. Moreover, while the 
Commission's Part 11 rules provide for periodic testing of EAS at the 
state and local level, no systematic national test of the EAS has ever 
been conducted to determine whether the system would in fact function 
as required should the President issue a national alert, and, in their 
current form, the Commission's EAS rules do not mandate any such test.
    3. In the Second Report and Order in this docket, the Commission 
noted that it is vital that the EAS operate as designed. In the Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted concurrently with the Second 
Report and Order the Commission sought comment on various issues 
relating to maintaining the quality of the EAS, including additional 
testing. Finally, in the Chairman's recent 30-Day Review on FCC 
Preparedness for Major Public Emergencies, the Public Safety and 
Homeland Security Bureau noted that concerns had been raised regarding 
the frequency and scope of EAS testing. The Bureau recommended that the 
three Federal partners responsible for EAS--the Commission, the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Weather Service 
(NWS), review the testing regime to see where improvement could be 
made.
    4. Since the 30-Day Review was conducted, the Commission, FEMA, and 
NWS, along with the Executive Office of the President (EOP), have 
initiated discussions regarding testing of the EAS at the national 
level. The Commission and its Federal partners agree that it is vital 
that the EAS work as designed and we share concerns that existing 
testing may be insufficient to ensure its effective operation. In light 
of this, as described below, the Commission, FEMA, NWS and EOP have 
begun planning for a national EAS test, with subsequent tests to occur 
thereafter. To facilitate this test program, in this Second Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission proposes to amend its EAS 
rules to specifically provide for national EAS testing and data 
collection. The Commission seeks comment on all issues discussed 
herein, including whether its proposed rule would effectively ensure 
accurate EAS testing at the national level.

I. Background

    5. The EAS is a national public warning system that provides the 
President with the ability to rapidly and comprehensively communicate 
with the American public during a national crisis. The EAS is the 
successor to two prior national warning systems: CONELRAD (Control of 
Electromagnetic Radiation), established in 1951, and the Emergency 
Broadcast System (EBS), established in 1963.
    6. The Commission, in conjunction with FEMA and NWS, implements EAS 
at the federal level. The respective roles these agencies play are 
defined by a 1981 Memorandum of Understanding between FEMA, NWS, and 
the Commission; a 1984 Executive Order; a 1995 Presidential Statement 
of EAS Requirements; and a 2006 Public Alert and Warning System 
Executive Order. As a general matter, the Commission, FEMA, and NWS all 
work closely with radio and television broadcasters, cable providers, 
and other participants in EAS (EAS Participants) as well as with state, 
local, and tribal governments, to ensure the integrity and utility of 
EAS.
    7. The Commission's EAS regulations are set forth in Part 11 of the 
rules, which imposes requirements governing mandatory participation in 
the national EAS by all EAS Participants. Part 11

[[Page 4762]]

rules also govern EAS participation at the state and local level, 
although currently state and local EAS participation is voluntary. 
State Emergency Coordination Committees (SECCs) and Local Emergency 
Coordination Committees (LECCs) undertake the development of 
operational plans and procedures for implementing state and local EAS 
activations. These organizations prepare coordinated emergency 
communications plans utilizing the EAS (which may be combined with 
other emergency information distribution plans and methodologies). 
State and local EAS plans must comply with Part 11 requirements and are 
submitted to the Commission for review.
    8. Functionally considered, the present-day EAS is a hierarchical 
alert message distribution system. Initiating an EAS message, whether 
at the national, state, or local level, requires the message initiator 
(e.g., FEMA, which initiates EAS alerts at the national level on behalf 
of the President) to deliver specially-encoded messages to a broadcast 
station-based transmission network that, in turn, delivers the messages 
to individual broadcasters, cable operators, and other EAS Participants 
who maintain special encoding and decoding equipment that can receive 
the message for retransmission to other EAS Participants and to end 
users (broadcast listeners and cable and other service subscribers). 
Sections 11.32 and 11.33 of the Commission's rules set forth minimum 
requirements for these EAS encoders and decoders, respectively, the 
functions of which can be combined into a single unit that is commonly 
referred to as an Encoder/Decoder.
    9. The national EAS delivery/transmission system is commonly 
referred to as a ``daisy chain.'' At its initial level, it consists of 
various FEMA-designated radio broadcast stations--known as Primary 
Entry Point (PEP) stations--which are tasked with receiving and 
transmitting ``Presidential Level'' messages initiated by FEMA. As the 
entry point for national level EAS messages, these PEP stations are 
designated ``National Primary'' (NP). At the next level (i.e., below 
the PEP stations), designated ``State Primary'' stations monitor 
specifically-designated PEP stations and re-transmit the Presidential-
level alert, as well as state-level EAS messages originating from the 
Governor or a State Emergency Operations Center (EOC). At the level 
below the State Primary stations, Local Primary stations monitor the 
State Primary and PEP stations and are monitored, in turn, by all other 
EAS Participants (radio and television broadcasters, cable TV service 
providers, etc.). At present, the United States is divided into 
approximately 550 EAS local areas, each of which contains at least two 
Local Primary stations, designated ``Local Primary One'' (LP1), ``Local 
Primary Two'' (LP2), and so on. The LP stations must monitor at least 
two EAS sources for Presidential messages (including State Primary 
stations and in some cases a regional PEP station), and also can serve 
as the point of contact for state and local authorities and NWS to 
activate the EAS for localized events such as severe weather alerts. 
All other EAS Participants are designated Participating National (PN) 
stations and must monitor at least two EAS sources, including an LP1 
and an LP2 station as specified in the state's EAS plan.
    10. The White House, through FEMA, initiates a presidential-level 
EAS alert by transmission of a coded message sequence, which includes 
an Emergency Action Notification (EAN) event code. Immediately upon 
receipt of an EAN message, EAS Participants must begin monitoring two 
EAS sources, discontinue normal programming, follow the transmission 
procedures in the appropriate section of the EAS Operating Handbook, 
and undertake various other requirements, until receipt of an Emergency 
Action Termination (EAT) message. Essentially, receipt of an EAN is 
designed to ``seize'' broadcast transmission equipment for the 
transmission of a presidential message. The equipment is not freed for 
resumption of regular broadcasting until the EAT is received.
    11. State and local emergency operations managers also can request 
activation of the EAS by utilizing state-designated EAS entry points, 
such as the State Primary stations or State Relay stations. State Relay 
sources relay state-common emergency messages to local areas. Local 
Primary sources are responsible for coordinating the carriage of common 
emergency messages from sources such as the NWS or local emergency 
management offices as specified in EAS local area plans. State 
transmission systems vary from state to state, but can include ``daisy 
chain'' links between broadcast and other terrestrial communications 
facilities as well as satellite-based facilities.
    12. As noted above, although the EAS (and its EBS and CONELRAD 
predecessor warning systems) were designed primarily to carry a 
national warning issued by the President, no such warning has ever been 
issued. In fact, the great majority of EAS alerts issued to date have 
been localized weather-related alerts originated by the NWS.

II. Discussion

A. Present EAS Vulnerabilities

    13. Because of its daisy chain structure, the EAS is potentially 
vulnerable to ``single point of failure'' problems, i.e., where failure 
of a participating station results in system-wide failure for all 
points below that station on the daisy chain. The Commission was made 
aware of one such failure during an inadvertent issuance of a national 
alert during a testing operation conducted by FEMA. In June 2007, FEMA 
was testing a new satellite warning system in Illinois and FEMA 
contractors inadvertently triggered a national-level EAS alert. This 
event caused some confusion to broadcasters and other communications in 
the Ohio valley and beyond before the test/alert was terminated by a 
combination of EAS Participant intervention and equipment failure. It 
was subsequently discovered that some EAS Participant equipment simply 
did not pass on the alert. The Commission has also received numerous 
anecdotal reports from EAS Participants and state and local emergency 
managers of problems with state and local level alert delivery 
architectures, as well as reports indicating problems with PEP station 
readiness as tested by FEMA.
    14. As noted above, the EAS is administered and tested by multiple 
agencies at multiple levels of its operations, and this too may lead to 
vulnerabilities in functioning or gaps in nationwide coverage. For 
example, EAS PEP station operation and maintenance is the 
responsibility of FEMA, which tests the PEP stations but typically does 
not test other stations. The NWS tests its own National Weather Radio 
(NWR) facilities independently or as integrated with state and local 
level emergency alert delivery architectures, but again, its focus is 
solely on the proper operation of NWS/NWR facilities as those 
facilities interact with state and local EAS architectures. State EOC 
facilities are maintained and tested by their respective state 
officials. Thus, none of these entities have been responsible for 
``top-to-bottom'' national testing of EAS.
    15. Finally the Commission notes that the Government Accountability 
Office has recently testified before Congress on ``long-standing 
weaknesses'' that limit the reliability of the national-level EAS relay 
system. GAO specifically cited lack of redundancy, gaps in coverage, a 
lack of testing and training, and limitations on how alerts are

[[Page 4763]]

disseminated to the public. This too heightens our concern regarding 
potential EAS vulnerabilities.

B. Limitations of the Commission's EAS Testing Rules

    16. Currently, the Commission's Part 11 rules provide for mandatory 
weekly and monthly tests at the state and local level. The rules also 
provide for ``[p]eriodic [n]ational [t]ests'' and ``special tests.'' at 
the state or local level. See 47 CFR 11.61(a)(3) and (4). Section 
11.61(a) further states that in addition to the EAS testing at regular 
intervals prescribed by the rules ``additional tests may be performed 
anytime.'' However, Part 11 does not contain comparable rules for 
testing of EAS at the national level.
    17. While the current rules give the Commission broad authority 
over EAS testing, the rules generally focus on testing of components of 
the system rather than the system as a whole. Sections 11.61(a)(1) and 
(a)(2) specify in detail the requirements for mandatory weekly and 
monthly EAS tests that are conducted at the state and local level. 
However, these tests are designed to ascertain whether the EAS 
equipment belonging to individual EAS Participants is functioning 
properly; they do not test whether the national EAS infrastructure as a 
whole works well or at all. Similarly, while the rules authorize 
``additional tests'' and ``special tests,'' these typically are carried 
out at the state or local level, and are usually designed to test for 
readiness during specific warning situations, for example, child 
abduction cases covered by so-called Amber Alerts.
    18. The current Part 11 rules also require EAS participants to 
record data from EAS tests, but the data collected is limited in scope. 
Specifically, the rules require EAS Participants to log the dates/times 
that EAN and EAT messages are received, and to determine and log the 
cause of any failures in the reception of the required monthly and 
weekly tests. However, this data is not sufficient to provide an 
assessment of whether the EAS is capable of functioning nationally.
    19. Section 11.61(a)(3) of the rules is entitled ``Periodic 
National Tests,'' indicating that national EAS testing was at least 
contemplated when the rules were adopted. This rule, however, merely 
states that NP/PEP stations shall participate in such tests ``as 
appropriate,'' but does not elaborate upon who would conduct such 
tests, how they would be conducted, or how often. In any case, as noted 
above, no national test has ever been conducted, under this provision 
or otherwise.

C. Next Generation EAS Concerns

    20. The 2006 Presidential Executive Order requires provision of 
``as many communications pathways as practicable'' to reach the 
American people during crises. In this regard, the development of 
additional ``next generation'' alert distribution systems is already 
under way. FEMA is presently working to upgrade the existing EAS 
through its Integrated Public Alert and Warnings System (IPAWS), 
envisioned as a network of alert systems utilizing common or 
complementary delivery architectures. FEMA envisions IPAWS as 
supporting both the current EAS architecture and so-called ``Next 
Generation'' EAS.
    21. The Commission is also involved in the transition to Next 
Generation EAS, which will utilize state-of-the-art technologies and 
Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) to increase the amount and quality of 
alert and other emergency information delivered to the public. CAP is a 
standard alert message format that specifies data fields to facilitate 
data sharing across different distribution systems. In its May 2007 EAS 
Second Report and Order, the Commission adopted a requirement that all 
EAS Participants be able to accept CAP-formatted EAS messages no later 
than 180 days after FEMA publicly adopts a CAP standard. This 
requirement applies to EAS Participants regardless of whether they are 
utilizing existing EAS or Next Generation EAS. The Second Report and 
Order also required EAS Participants to adopt Next Generation EAS 
delivery systems no later than 180 days after FEMA publicly releases 
standards for those systems.
    22. While significant efforts are being made to transition to Next 
Generation EAS, testing of the existing EAS remains important because 
it is likely that the existing EAS will continue to function as a 
critical alerting system for the foreseeable future. Moreover, while we 
expect that FEMA's adoption of CAP as part of IPAWS will spur the 
development of Next Generation EAS, there is at yet no established 
timetable for the development of next generation systems that will 
completely replace the existing EAS architecture, either at the federal 
or the state and local levels. Thus, we expect that FEMA will rely on 
the existing EAS daisy chain structure for at least the initial stages 
of IPAWS development and implementation. The various states and 
localities also appear to be at different stages in their ability to 
adopt and utilize CAP-based EAS architecture. As a result, our ability 
to systematically test the existing EAS architecture is important to 
support Next Generation EAS--at least in its initial stages of 
deployment--as well as to ensure the continued effectiveness of the 
current EAS.

D. Multi-Agency Planning for a National EAS Test

    23. As noted above, concerns regarding the frequency and scope EAS 
testing raised in our recent 30-day review of emergency preparedness 
have led the Commission and its Federal partners to begin planning a 
program for annual EAS testing at the national level. Specifically, the 
Commission, FEMA, NWS, and EOP have formed a working group that is 
planning an initial national test of the Presidential-level EAS. As 
planned, this test will involve nationwide transmission of the EAN and 
associated messages and codes within the EAS. The purpose of the test 
is to assess for the first time the readiness and effectiveness of the 
EAS from top-to-bottom, i.e., from origination of an alert by the 
President and transmission through the entire EAS daisy chain, to 
reception by the American public. Following the conduct and evaluation 
of the initial national test, it is contemplated that the Commission 
and its Federal partners will continue to test EAS nationally.

E. Proposed Rule

    24. Given the potential vulnerabilities of EAS in the absence of 
national testing, the above-described multi-agency initiative to begin 
a national test program, and the lack of specific provisions in our 
Part 11 rules relating to national tests, the Commission proposes to 
amend its Part 11 rules to expressly require all EAS Participants to 
participate in national testing and to provide test results to the 
Commission. Specifically, it proposes to amend section 11.61(a)(3) of 
our rules to read as follows:

    National Tests. All EAS Participants shall participate in 
national tests as scheduled by the Commission in consultation with 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Such tests will 
consist of the delivery by FEMA to PEP/NP stations of a coded EAS 
message, including EAS header codes, Attention Signal, Test Script, 
and EOM code. The coded message shall utilize EAS test codes as 
designated by the Commission's rules or such other EAS codes as the 
agencies conducting the test deem appropriate. A national test shall 
replace the required monthly test for all EAS Participants in the 
month in which it occurs. Notice shall be provided to EAS 
Participants by the Commission at least two months prior to the 
conduct of any such national test. Test results as required by the 
Commission shall be logged by all EAS Participants and shall be 
provided to the Commission's Public

[[Page 4764]]

Safety and Homeland Security Bureau within thirty (30) days 
following the test.

    25. The Commission seeks comment on the specific language of its 
proposed rule and its sufficiency to ensure an adequate framework for 
the conduct of national tests implemented by this agency in 
collaboration with FEMA and our other Federal partners. It also seeks 
comment on whether the specific rule that we propose is, on balance, 
the best way to implement national testing of the EAS, or whether 
different provisions should be adopted.
    26. The Commission also proposes implementing the national test on 
a yearly basis. It seeks specific comment on this proposal. The 
Commission believes that regular testing of the EAS is necessary to 
ensure that it can function properly during emergencies. The Commission 
also believe that testing the EAS nationally at least once a year may 
be necessary to produce reliable results regarding the on-going 
operational readiness of the EAS. On the other hand, the Commission 
does not propose to require national testing more frequently than once 
a year, because it is concerned that more frequent testing could cause 
unnecessary disruption of regular broadcasting and other service 
transmission to the public. The Commission also wishes to minimize 
attendant costs. It seeks comment on this analysis.
    27. The Commission does not propose to specify a set time each year 
for the national EAS test to occur. The Commission believes that 
avoiding a set date will yield more realistic data about EAS 
reliability and performance, and will discourage complacency. On the 
other hand, the Commission believes it is essential to provide 
sufficient notice of such tests to EAS Participants so that they can 
prepare for the test and alert the public that a national-level EAS 
test is pending. The Commission believes that two months notice 
provides enough preparation time for EAS Participants. The Commission 
seeks comment on the sufficiency of a two-month notice period.
    28. The Commission envisions that national EAS testing will involve 
many of the same test elements that are already included in required 
monthly EAS testing at the state and local levels (e.g., EAS header 
codes, Attention Signal, Test Script and EOM code). Accordingly, the 
Commission proposes that the annual national test would replace the 
required monthly test for the month in which it occurs. The Commission 
sees no benefit to requiring EAS Participants to give up further 
broadcast time for a redundant test.
    29. In connection with national testing, the Commission proposes 
requiring that EAS Participants record and submit to it the following 
test-related diagnostic information for each alert received from each 
message source monitored at the time of the national test: (1) Whether 
they received the alert message during the designated test; (2) whether 
they retransmitted the alert; and (3) if they were not able to receive 
and/or transmit the alert, their `best effort' diagnostic analysis 
regarding the cause or causes for such failure. The Commission also 
anticipates asking EAS Participants to provide it with a description of 
their station identification and level of designation (PEP, LP-1, 
etc.); the date/time of receipt of the EAN message by all stations; the 
date/time of PEP station acknowledgement of receipt of the EAN message 
to FOC; the date/time of initiation of actual broadcast of the 
Presidential message; the date/time of receipt of the EAT message by 
all stations; who they were monitoring at the time of the test; and the 
make and model number of the EAS equipment that they utilized.
    30. The Commission proposes to require that this information be 
provided to it no more than thirty (30) days following the test date. 
It also anticipates making this information publicly available. The 
Commission foresees two related benefits from this data collection and 
its public release. First, it will provide the Commission and our 
Federal partners with necessary diagnostic information to assist our 
analysis of the readiness of the EAS. Second, it will provide state and 
local authorities with useful diagnostic information related to their 
evaluation of the system's regional and local performance. The 
Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Are there any concerns with 
making this data publicly available? Should the Commission instead 
limit availability to, for example, only its Federal partners and/or 
authorized personnel of state, tribal and local government emergency 
management agencies?
    31. The Commission also notes that it plans to coordinate with FEMA 
on a regular basis in the implementation of the national test. FEMA is 
the agency responsible for transmission of a presidential-level alert 
to the PEP stations, and for the implementation and maintenance of PEP 
stations. Moreover, FEMA is integrating EAS into IPAWS. Although the 
Commission believes it is unnecessary to specifically state in its 
proposed rule that it will coordinate with FEMA on a regular basis, it 
seeks comment on whether this should in fact be written into the rule.
    32. Finally, it has been brought to the Commission's attention that 
different ENDEC manufacturers may have programmed their devices to 
receive and transmit EANs in different ways, which may affect the 
ability of some ENDECs to properly relay an EAN. In its 2008 Closed 
Circuit Test Report, the Primary Entry Point Administrative Council 
noted that many ENDECs process EAN messages by ignoring a FIPS, i.e., 
location codes for national level messages on the assumption that a 
national message is intended for the entire nation. Accordingly, they 
transmit the message whether or not an EAN contains a FIPS code. At 
least one ENDEC manufacturer, however, has devices which require a FIPS 
code match. Thus in order to properly forward an EAN, the devices must 
receive a message that contains an appropriate FIPS code as authorized 
by Commission rules. As a result, there is some concern that such 
devices may not properly transmit an EAN message nationwide. The 
Commission seeks comment on this situation. Could the difference in how 
these ENDECs are programmed result in breaks in the ``EAS chain''? 
Could this impact the relay of an EAN test message during a national 
EAS test? If so, how? The Commission also seeks comment on what actions 
it should take to address this problem prior to a national test. Should 
the Commission, for example, adopt a requirement that all ENDECs relay 
an EAN message irrespective of any FIPS code? What would be the cost of 
implementing such a requirement prior to a national test? 
Alternatively, are there non-regulatory actions the Commission should 
take? Should the Commission designate a national-level FIPS code and, 
if so, what would the impact on the ENDEC manufacturers be?

III. Conclusion

    33. The EAS is intended to provide a reliable mechanism for the 
President to communicate with the country during emergencies. Yet the 
EAS has never been tested nationally in a systematic way, i.e., by use 
of a test methodology that can identify system flaws and failures 
comprehensively and on a nationwide basis. The Commission believes that 
development of such a test methodology is critically important to 
ensuring that the EAS works as intended, now and in the future. The 
Commission solicits comment on all issues, analysis, and proposals set 
out in this Notice, including our proposed rule. The Commission intends 
to move quickly to adopt any and all necessary

[[Page 4765]]

rule changes to ensure that it and other federal, state, local, and 
non-governmental EAS stakeholders have the necessary diagnostic tools 
to evaluate EAS performance and readiness nationwide.

IV. Procedural Matters

A. Ex Parte Presentations

    34. This matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons 
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda 
summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance 
of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects 
discussed. More than a one- or two-sentence description of the views 
and arguments presented is generally required. Other requirements 
pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in section 
1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules.

B. Comment Filing Procedures

    35. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this 
document. All filings related to this Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking should refer to EB Docket No. 04-296. Comments may be filed 
using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), 
(2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper 
copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 
63 FR 24121 (1998).
    36. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using 
the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the 
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Filers should 
follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting 
comments.
    37. For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers 
appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one 
electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number 
referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers 
should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, 
and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit 
an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, 
filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following 
words in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form and 
directions will be sent in response.
    38. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an 
original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or 
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    39. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in 
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to 
the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission.
    40. Effective December 28, 2009, all hand-delivered or messenger-
delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be 
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW., Room TW-A325, 
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 
p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or 
fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the 
building. Please Note: The Commission's former filing location at 236 
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., is permanently closed.
    41. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
    42. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

C. Accessible Formats

    43. To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), 
send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

V. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    44. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the 
policies and rules proposed in this Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (Second Further Notice). Written public comments are 
requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the 
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Second 
Further Notice provided in Section IV of the item. The Commission will 
send a copy of the Second Further Notice, including this IRFA, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). 
In addition, the Second Further Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) 
will be published in the Federal Register.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    45. Today's Second Further Notice seeks to ensure that the 
Commission's emergency alert services (``EAS'') rules better protect 
the life and property of all Americans. To further serve this goal, the 
Further Notice invites additional comment on a proposed rule to 
implement national testing of the Emergency Alert System (EAS) through 
use of a coded EAS message which will replace a required monthly test, 
and requiring logging and provision to the Commission of test-related 
diagnostic information within 30 days of the test.

Legal Basis

    46. Authority for the actions proposed in this Second Further 
Notice may be found in sections 1, 4(i), 4(o), 303(r), 403, 624(g) and 
706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), 47 U.S.C. 151, 
154(i), 154(j), 154(o), 303(r), 544(g) and 606.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules 
Will Apply
    47. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, 
where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may 
be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the 
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently 
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA'').
    48. A small organization is generally ``any not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field.'' Nationwide, as of 2002, there were 
approximately 1.6 million small organizations. The term ``small 
governmental jurisdiction'' is defined as ``governments of cities, 
towns, townships, villages, school districts, or

[[Page 4766]]

special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' As 
of 1997, there were approximately 87,453 governmental jurisdictions in 
the United States. This number includes 39,044 county governments, 
municipalities, and townships, of which 37,546 (approximately 96.2 
percent) have populations of fewer than 50,000, and of which 1,498 have 
populations of 50,000 or more. Thus, we estimate the number of small 
governmental jurisdictions overall to be 84,098 or fewer. Nationwide, 
there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small businesses, 
according to SBA data.
    49. Television Broadcasting. The SBA has developed a small business 
size standard for television broadcasting, which consists of all such 
firms having $14 million or less in annual receipts. Business concerns 
included in this industry are those ``primarily engaged in broadcasting 
images together with sound.'' According to Commission staff review of 
BIA Publications, Inc. Master Access Television Analyzer Database, as 
of May 16, 2003, about 814 of the 1,220 commercial television stations 
in the United States had revenues of $12 million or less. We note, 
however, that, in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as 
small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must 
be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of 
small entities that might be affected by our action, because the 
revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate 
revenues from affiliated companies. There are also 2,127 low power 
television stations (``LPTV''). Given the nature of this service, we 
will presume that all LPTV licensees qualify as small entities under 
the SBA size standard.
    50. Radio Stations. The revised rules and policies potentially will 
apply to all AM and commercial FM radio broadcasting licensees and 
potential licensees. The SBA defines a radio broadcasting station that 
has $7 million or less in annual receipts as a small business. A radio 
broadcasting station is an establishment primarily engaged in 
broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. Included in this 
industry are commercial, religious, educational, and other radio 
stations. Radio broadcasting stations which primarily are engaged in 
radio broadcasting and which produce radio program materials are 
similarly included. However, radio stations that are separate 
establishments and are primarily engaged in producing radio program 
material are classified under another NAICS number. According to 
Commission staff review of BIA Publications, Inc. Master Access Radio 
Analyzer Database on March 31, 2005, about 10,840 (95 percent) of 
11,410 commercial radio stations have revenue of $6 million or less. We 
note, however, that many radio stations are affiliated with much larger 
corporations having much higher revenue. Our estimate, therefore, 
likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected 
by our action.
    51. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The 2007 North American 
Industry Classification System (``NAICS'') defines ``Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers'' as follows: ``This industry comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access 
to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or 
lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using 
wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based 
on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments 
in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities 
that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired 
telephony services, including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and 
video programming distribution; and wired broadband Internet services. 
By exception, establishments providing satellite television 
distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they 
operate are included in this industry.'' The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for wireline firms within the broad economic 
census category, ``Wired Telecommunications Carriers.'' Under this 
category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 
or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 
2,432 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this 
total, 2,395 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 37 
firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this 
category and associated small business size standard, the majority of 
firms can be considered small.
    52. Wired Telecommunications Carriers--Cable and Other Program 
Distribution. This category includes, among others, cable operators, 
direct broadcast satellite (``DBS'') services, home satellite dish 
(``HSD'') services, satellite master antenna television (``SMATV'') 
systems, and open video systems (``OVS''). The data we have available 
as a basis for estimating the number of such entities were gathered 
under a superseded SBA small business size standard formerly titled 
Cable and Other Program Distribution. The former Cable and Other 
Program Distribution category is now included in the category of Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers, the majority of which, as discussed above, 
can be considered small. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, 
there were a total of 1,191 firms in this previous category that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,087 firms had annual 
receipts of under $10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of $10 million 
or more but less than $25 million. Thus, we believe that a substantial 
number of entities included in the former Cable and Other Program 
Distribution category may have been categorized as small entities under 
the now superseded SBA small business size standard for Cable and Other 
Program Distribution. With respect to OVS, the Commission has approved 
approximately 120 OVS certifications with some OVS operators now 
providing service. Broadband service providers (BSPs) are currently the 
only significant holders of OVS certifications or local OVS franchises, 
even though OVS is one of four statutorily-recognized options for local 
exchange carriers (LECs) to offer video programming services. As of 
June 2006, BSPs served approximately 1.4 million subscribers, 
representing 1.46 percent of all MVPD households. Among BSPs, however, 
those operating under the OVS framework are in the minority. The 
Commission does not have financial information regarding the entities 
authorized to provide OVS, some of which may not yet be operational. We 
thus believe that at least some of the OVS operators may qualify as 
small entities.
    53. Cable System Operators (Rate Regulation Standard). The 
Commission has developed its own small business size standard for cable 
system operators, for purposes of rate regulation. Under the 
Commission's rules, a ``small cable company'' is one serving 400,000 or 
fewer subscribers nationwide. We have estimated that there were 1,065 
cable operators who qualified as small cable system operators at the 
end of 2005. Since then, some of those companies may have grown to 
serve over 400,000 subscribers, and others may have been involved in 
transactions that caused them to be combined with other cable 
operators. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are now 
fewer than 1,065 small entity cable system operators that may be 
affected by the rules and policies proposed herein.
    54. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (``Act'') also contains a size 
standard for small cable system operators, which is ``a cable

[[Page 4767]]

operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the 
aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States 
and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual 
revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' The Commission has 
determined that there are 67,700,000 subscribers in the United States. 
Therefore, an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be 
deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the 
total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million 
in the aggregate. Based on available data, the Commission estimates 
that the number of cable operators serving 677,000 subscribers or 
fewer, totals 1,065. The Commission neither requests nor collects 
information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with 
entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million, and therefore 
are unable, at this time, to estimate more accurately the number of 
cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators 
under the size standard contained in the Act.
    55. Broadband Radio Service (FCC Auction Standard). The established 
rules apply to Broadband Radio Service (``BRS,'' formerly known as 
Multipoint Distribution Systems, or ``MDS'') operated as part of a 
wireless cable system. The Commission has defined ``small entity'' for 
purposes of the auction of BRS frequencies as an entity that, together 
with its affiliates, has average gross annual revenues that are not 
more than $40 million for the preceding three calendar years. This 
definition of small entity in the context of MDS auctions has been 
approved by the SBA. The Commission completed its MDS auction in March 
1996 for authorizations in 493 basic trading areas. Of 67 winning 
bidders, 61 qualified as small entities. At this time, we estimate that 
of the 61 small business MDS auction winners, 48 remain small business 
licensees.
    56. Wireless Telecommunications Carrier (except satellite). BRS 
also includes licensees of stations authorized prior to the auction. As 
noted above, the SBA has developed a definition of small entities for 
pay television services, Cable and Other Subscription Programming, 
which includes all such companies generating $15 million or less in 
annual receipts. This definition includes BRS and thus applies to BRS 
licensees that did not participate in the MDS auction. Information 
available to us indicates that there are approximately 392 incumbent 
BRS licensees that do not generate revenue in excess of $11 million 
annually. Therefore, we estimate that there are at least 440 (392 pre-
auction plus 48 auction licensees) small BRS providers as defined by 
the SBA and the Commission's auction rules which may be affected by the 
rules adopted herein. In addition, limited preliminary census data for 
2002 indicate that the total number of cable and other program 
distribution companies increased approximately 46 percent from 1997 to 
2002.
    57. Educational Broadband Service. The proposed rules would also 
apply to Educational Broadband Service (``EBS,'' formerly known as 
Instructional Television Fixed Service or ``ITFS'') facilities operated 
as part of a wireless cable system. The SBA definition of small 
entities for pay television services, Cable and Other Subscription 
Programming also appears to apply to EBS. There are presently 2,032 EBS 
licensees. All but 100 of these licenses are held by educational 
institutions. Educational institutions are included in the definition 
of a small business. However, we do not collect annual revenue data for 
EBS licensees, and are not able to ascertain how many of the 100 non-
educational licensees would be categorized as small under the SBA 
definition. Thus, we tentatively conclude that at least 1,932 are small 
businesses and may be affected by the proposed rules.
    58. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (``LECs''). We have included 
small incumbent LECs in this present IRFA analysis. As noted above, a 
``small business'' under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the 
pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone 
communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and ``is not 
dominant in its field of operation.'' The SBA's Office of Advocacy 
contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant 
in their field of operation because any such dominance is not 
``national'' in scope. We have therefore included small incumbent local 
exchange carriers in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this 
RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in 
other, non-RFA contexts. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent 
local exchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules 
is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
According to Commission data, 1,303 carriers have reported that they 
are engaged in the provision of incumbent local exchange services. Of 
these 1,303 carriers, an estimated 1,020 have 1,500 or fewer employees 
and 283 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission 
estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are 
small businesses that may be affected by our proposed rules.
    59. Competitive (LECs), Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), 
``Shared-Tenant Service Providers,'' and ``Other Local Service 
Providers.'' Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small 
business size standard specifically for these service providers. The 
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business 
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission 
data, 769 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision 
of either competitive access provider services or competitive local 
exchange carrier services. Of these 769 carriers, an estimated 676 have 
1,500 or fewer employees and 93 have more than 1,500 employees. In 
addition, 12 carriers have reported that they are ``Shared-Tenant 
Service Providers,'' and all 12 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer 
employees. In addition, 39 carriers have reported that they are ``Other 
Local Service Providers.'' Of the 39, an estimated 38 have 1,500 or 
fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, 
the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local 
exchange service, competitive access providers, ``Shared-Tenant Service 
Providers,'' and ``Other Local Service Providers'' are small entities 
that may be affected by our proposed rules.
    60. Satellite Telecommunications. The Commission has not developed 
a small business size standard specifically for providers of satellite 
service. The appropriate size standards under SBA rules are for the two 
broad categories of Satellite Telecommunications and Other 
Telecommunications. Under both categories, such a business is small if 
it has $12.5 million or less in average annual receipts. For the first 
category of Satellite Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 1997 
show that there were a total of 324 firms that operated for the entire 
year. Of this total, 273 firms had annual receipts of under $10 
million, and an additional twenty-four firms had receipts of $10 
million to $24,999,999. Thus, the majority of Satellite 
Telecommunications firms can be considered small.
    61. Other Telecommunications. This category includes 
``establishments primarily engaged in * * * providing

[[Page 4768]]

satellite terminal stations and associated facilities operationally 
connected with one or more terrestrial communications systems and 
capable of transmitting telecommunications to or receiving 
telecommunications from satellite systems.'' Of this total, 424 firms 
had annual receipts of $5 million to $9,999,999 and an additional 6 
firms had annual receipts of $10 million to $24,999,990. Thus, under 
this second size standard, the majority of firms can be considered 
small.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    62. There are potential reporting or recordkeeping requirements 
proposed in this Second Further Notice. For example, the Commission is 
considering whether to adopt reporting obligations for EAS 
participants. The proposals set forth in this Second Further Notice are 
intended to advance our public safety mission and enhance the 
performance of the EAS while reducing regulatory burdens wherever 
possible.
Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
    63. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in developing its approach, which 
may include the following four alternatives (among others): ``(1) The 
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small 
entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and 
(4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for 
such small entities.''
    64. The proposed rules are designed to minimally impact all EAS 
participants, including small entities, while at the same time 
protecting the lives and property of all Americans, which confers a 
direct benefit on small entities. As noted in paragraph 2 above, the 
Second Further Notice seeks comment on how the Commission may better 
protect the lives and property of Americans. In commenting on this 
goal, commenters are invited to propose steps that the Commission may 
take to further minimize any significant economic impact on small 
entities. When considering proposals made by other parties, commenters 
are invited to propose significant alternatives that serve the goals of 
these proposals. We expect that the record will develop to demonstrate 
any significant alternatives.
    65. The Commission will send a copy of this Second Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, including this IRFA, in a report to be sent to 
Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act (``CRA''), see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

VI. Ordering Clauses

    66. Accordingly, it is ordered that pursuant to sections 1, 2, 
4(i), 4(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 624(g),706 and 715 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 
154(i) and (o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 544(g), 606, 
and 615, this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
    67. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including 
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
    68. It is further ordered that pursuant to applicable procedures 
set forth in Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on this Second 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on or before 30 days after 
publication in the Federal Register, and interested parties may file 
reply comments on or before 60 days after publication in the Federal 
Register.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 11

    Radio, Television.

Federal Communications Commission.
Alethea Lewis,
Federal Register Liaison.

Proposed Rule

    For the reasons set forth in the preamle, FCC proposes to amend 47 
CFR part 11 as follows:

PART 11--EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM (EAS)

    1. The authority citation for part 11 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (o), 303(r), 544(g) and 
606.

    2. Revise Sec.  11.61(a)(3) to read as follows:


Sec.  11.61  Tests of EAS procedures.

    (a) * * *
    (3) National Tests. All EAS Participants shall participate in 
national tests as scheduled by the Commission in consultation with the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Such tests will consist of 
the delivery by FEMA to PEP/NP stations of a coded EAS message, 
including EAS header codes, Attention Signal, Test Script, and EOM 
code. The coded message shall utilize EAS test codes as designated by 
the Commission's rules or such other EAS codes as the agencies 
conducting the test deem appropriate. A national test shall replace the 
required monthly test for all EAS Participants in the month in which it 
occurs. Notice shall be provided to EAS Participants by the Commission 
at least two months prior to the conduct of any such national test. 
Test results as required by the Commission shall be logged by all EAS 
Participants and shall be provided to the Commission's Public Safety 
and Homeland Security Bureau within thirty (30) days following the 
test.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-1941 Filed 1-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P