Review of the Emergency Alert System, 35810-35831 [2011-15119]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 118 (Monday, June 20, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35810-35831]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15119]



[[Page 35810]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 11

[EB Docket No. 04-296; FCC 11-82]


Review of the Emergency Alert System

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) seeks comment on proposed changes to its rules governing 
the Emergency Alert System (EAS) to codify the obligation to process 
alert messages formatted in the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) and to 
streamline and clarify these rules generally to enhance their 
effectiveness.

DATES: Comments are due on or before July 20, 2011 and reply comments 
are due on or before August 4, 2011.

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 Commission's Third 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Third FNPRM) in EB Docket No. 
04-296, FCC 11-82, adopted on May 25, 2011, and released on May 26, 
2011. The full text of this document is available for inspection and 
copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 
CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text 
of this document also may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room 
CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: 
https://www.fcc.gov.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    2. In 2007, as an initial step towards upgrading the Emergency 
Alert System (EAS) to incorporate the latest technologies and 
capabilities and to facilitate integration of public alerting at the 
national, state, and local levels, the Commission adopted the Second 
Report and Order (Second Report and Order) in EB Docket No. 04-296, 72 
FR 62123, November 2, 2007, which incorporated certain Common Alerting 
Protocol (CAP)-related obligations into the Commission's Part 11 EAS 
rules. First, to ensure the efficient, rapid, and secure transmission 
of EAS alerts in a variety of formats (including text, audio, and 
video) and via different means (broadcast, cable, satellite, and other 
networks), the Commission required that EAS Participants be capable of 
receiving CAP-formatted alert messages no later than 180 days after the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) publicly publishes its 
adoption of the CAP standard. Second, the Commission required EAS 
Participants to adopt Next Generation EAS delivery systems no later 
than 180 days after FEMA publicly releases standards for those systems. 
Third, the Commission required EAS Participants to transmit state and 
local EAS alerts that are originated by governors or their designees no 
later than 180 days after FEMA publishes its adoption of the CAP 
standard, provided that the state has a Commission-approved State Area 
EAS Plan that provides for delivery of such alerts.
    3. The Third FNPRM builds on that effort by seeking comment on a 
wide range of tentative conclusions and proposed revisions to the Part 
11 rules that would codify the CAP-related mandates adopted in the 
Second Report and Order, and modernize and streamline the Part 11 rules 
by eliminating outdated technical and procedural requirements. 
Specifically, the Third FNPRM contains the following tentative 
conclusions and proposed rule changes, and seeks comment on each:
     Tentatively concludes that, for the time being, the 
existing legacy EAS, including utilization of the EAS Protocol, will be 
maintained.
     Proposes to amend Sec.  11.56 of the Commission's rules to 
require EAS Participants to convert CAP-formatted EAS messages into 
SAME-compliant EAS messages in accordance with the EAS-CAP Industry 
Group's (ECIG) ECIG Implementation Guide.
     Tentatively concludes that Sec.  11.52 of the Commission's 
rules should be amended to require that EAS Participants monitor the 
Really Simple Syndication 2.0 feed(s) utilized by: (i) FEMA's 
Integrated Public Alert and Warning System for federal CAP-formatted 
messages; and (ii) state alert systems as the source of governor-
originated CAP messages (provided these are described in the State Area 
EAS Plan submitted to and approved by the Commission).
     Proposes that the language from the Second Report and 
Order regarding receipt of CAP-formatted messages from Next Generation 
EAS delivery systems was intended to put EAS Participants on notice 
that, should FEMA adopt technical standards covering delivery of CAP-
formatted messages to EAS Participants over specific platforms, such as 
satellite systems, EAS Participants would ultimately need to configure 
their systems to be able to interface with such systems to meet their 
existing obligation to process CAP-formatted messages.

[[Page 35811]]

     Seeks comment on whether EAS Participants should be 
permitted to meet their CAP-related obligations by deploying 
intermediary devices that essentially would carry out the function of 
receiving and decoding a CAP-formatted message, and translating and 
encoding such message into a SAME-formatted message that could then be 
inputted into a legacy EAS device via its audio port (just as an over-
the-air SAME-formatted message would be) for broadcast over the EAS 
Participant's transmission platform.
     Seeks comment on whether adding a requirement to Sec.  
11.32(a) of the Commission's rules that EAS encoders must be capable of 
encoding a CAP-formatted message (i.e., originating or somehow 
transmitting a message in the CAP format as opposed to the SAME format) 
would be necessary or appropriate.
     Seeks comment on whether the input and output 
configuration requirements in Sec. Sec.  11.32(a)(2) and (a)(3) of the 
Commission's rules should be modified to include a requirement for a 
single Ethernet port and eliminate the existing requirements for 1200 
baud RS-232C interface.
     Seeks comment on whether the minimum requirements for 
decoders in Sec.  11.33(a) of the Commission's rules should include the 
capability to decode CAP-formatted messages and convert them into SAME 
protocol-compliant messages, and whether this requirement can be met 
through the deployment of an intermediary device.
     Seeks comment on whether the input and output 
configuration requirements in Sec. Sec.  11.33(a)(1) and (a)(7) of the 
Commission's rules should be modified to include a requirement for a 
single Ethernet port and eliminate the existing requirements for 1200 
baud RS-232C interface.
     Seeks comment on whether Sec.  11.33(a)(4) of the 
Commission's rules should be modified to require that if an alert 
message is derived from a CAP-formatted message, the contents of the 
text, assembled pursuant to ECIG Implementation Guide, should be added 
to the EAS device log.
     Tentatively concludes that there is no basis for revising 
Sec.  11.33(a)(10) of the Commission's rules to require processing of 
CAP-formatted messages by default when duplicate messages are received 
in both the EAS Protocol and CAP formats, as recommended by the 
Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council 
(CSRIC), if EAS Participants are required to translate CAP-formatted 
messages into SAME-formatted messages in conformance with the ECIG 
Implementation Guide.
     Seeks comment on whether Sec.  11.33(a)(11) of the 
Commission's rules should be updated to specify that a CAP-formatted 
message containing a header code with the EAN event code received 
through a non-audio input must override all other messages.
     Seeks comment on whether the text of Sec.  11.11(a) of the 
Commission's rules should be amended to include as a minimum 
requirement compliance with the CAP-related requirements in Sec.  11.56 
of the Commission's rules, and whether the reference to ``analog 
television broadcast stations'' should be deleted.
     Seeks comment, with respect to the equipment deployment 
tables in Sec.  11.11 of the Commission's rules, on whether: For CAP 
purposes, the tables should be revised by adding a footnote to the 
``EAS decoder'' entries in the tables, indicating that EAS Participants 
may elect to meet their obligation to receive and translate CAP-
formatted messages by deploying an intermediary device in addition to 
the EAS decoder used to decode messages transmitted in the EAS 
Protocol; the date references in the tables (as well as cross-
references to these dates in other sections of Part 11, such as 
Sec. Sec.  11.51(c) and (d) of the Commission's rules), along with the 
entry for two-tone encoders, should be deleted; the tables covering 
analog, wireless, and digital cable and wireline video systems can be 
combined into a single table, as well as any other revisions the 
Commission could make to Sec.  11.11 of the Commission's rules to 
streamline it and make it easier to follow.
     Seeks comment on whether the monitoring requirements in 
Sec.  11.52 of the Commission's rules or references thereto should be 
incorporated into Sec.  11.11 of the Commission's rules.
     Seeks comment on whether the language of Sec.  11.20 of 
the Commission's rules requires a specific reference to CAP alerts and/
or CAP relay networks, and whether CAP monitoring requirements need to 
be incorporated into Sec.  11.20 of the Commission's rules.
     Tentatively concludes that the language in Sec.  11.21(a) 
of the Commission's rules should be revised to make clear that the 
State Area EAS Plans specify the monitoring assignments and the 
specific primary and backup path for SAME-formatted EANs and that the 
monitoring requirements for CAP-formatted EANs are set forth in Sec.  
11.52 of the Commission's rules.
     Tentatively concludes that the text of Sec. Sec.  11.21(a) 
and 11.55(a) of the Commission's rules should be revised to make clear 
that they apply to CAP-formatted EAS messages.
     Seeks comment on whether the FCC Mapbook content 
requirements in Sec.  11.21(c) of the Commission's rules should be 
revised to identify federal and state CAP message origination and 
distribution, and whether alert message distribution should be 
delineated in terms of how the EAN is distributed from the PEP/NP to 
the PN/NN stations in the state as opposed to generating a list of each 
individual station in the state.
     Seeks comment on whether, in light of the tentative 
conclusion to require conversion of CAP-formatted messages into the 
existing EAS Protocol, there would be any utility to changing the 
language in Sec.  11.31(a) of the Commission's rules to better reflect 
CAP's capabilities.
     Tentatively concludes that it is unnecessary to include a 
CAP-receiving requirement in Sec.  11.35(a) of the Commission's rules.
     Seeks comment on whether any revisions to Sec.  11.45 of 
the Commission's rules are needed to accommodate CAP-formatted 
messages.
     Tentatively concludes that, assuming EAS Participants 
should only be required at this time to be capable of retrieving CAP-
formatted Federal EAS alerts from RSS feeds and converting them into 
SAME-compliant messages for transmission to the public (and, as 
applicable and technically feasible, encoding them in SAME for 
rebroadcast), there would be no basis for revising Sec.  11.51 of the 
Commission's rules to require EAS Participants to transmit (or 
``render'') a CAP-compliant message, as recommended by CSRIC.
     Seeks comment on whether the SAME-based protocol codes 
should continue to be used as the baseline for deriving the visual EAS 
message requirements in Sec. Sec.  11.51(d), (g)(3), (h)(3), and (j)(2) 
of the Commission's rules.
     Seeks comment on whether CSRIC's recommendation to mandate 
that CAP-formatted messages be broadcast only if the scope of the alert 
is ``Public'' should be adopted.
     Seeks comment on whether, to the extent that Sec.  
11.54(b)(1) of the Commission's rules is retained in the final rules 
that result from this proceeding, the language in Sec.  11.54(b)(1) of 
the Commission's rules should be revised to reflect federal CAP 
monitoring obligations by adding a cross-reference to the monitoring 
requirements in Sec.  11.52 of the Commission's rules or whether this 
section should be otherwise revised.

[[Page 35812]]

     Seeks comment on whether and how compliance with respect 
to CAP functionality should be incorporated into the Commission's 
existing certification scheme.
     Tentatively concludes that it would be inappropriate to 
incorporate conformance with the CAP v1.2 USA IPAWS Profile v1.0 into 
the Commission's certification process.
     Seeks comment on whether and how the Commission should 
certify equipment conformance with the ECIG Implementation Guide, 
including whether and how conformance testing for the ECIG 
Implementation Guide might be implemented.
     Seeks comment generally as to whether the current FCC 
certification process is sufficient or whether there are any revisions 
specific to EAS equipment that would make that process more effective 
and efficient.
     Seeks comment on whether intermediary devices should 
classified as stand-alone devices as opposed to modifications to 
existing equipment.
     Seeks comment on the certification requirements that 
should apply to modified EAS equipment.
     Seeks comment on whether the September 30, 2011, deadline 
for CAP-compliance set forth in the Waiver Order is sufficient or 
whether the Commission should extend or modify it to be triggered by 
some action other than FEMA's adoption of CAP.
     Tentatively concludes that the obligation to receive and 
transmit CAP-formatted messages initiated by state governors applies 
only to the extent that such CAP messages have been formatted using the 
CAP standard adopted by FEMA for federal CAP messages--specifically, 
OASIS CAP Standard v1.2 and CAP v1.2 USA IPAWS Profile v1.0.
     Tentatively concludes that the obligation to receive and 
transmit only CAP-formatted messages initiated by state governors 
necessitates that such CAP messages will be translated into SAME-
compliant messages consistent with the CAP-to-SAME translation standard 
adopted for federal CAP messages--specifically, the ECIG Implementation 
Guide.
     Seeks comment as to whether a new origination and/or event 
code would be required to fully implement the obligation of EAS 
Participants to process CAP-formatted messages initiated by state 
governors and, if so, what those codes should be.
     Seeks comment on whether the current obligation to process 
CAP-formatted messages delivered by the governor of the state in which 
the EAS Participant is located should be revised to include governors 
of any adjacent states in which the EAS Participant provides service.
     Tentatively concludes that the geo-targeting requirement 
associated with mandatory state governor alerts shall be defined, at 
least for the time being, by the location provisions in the EAS 
Protocol.
     Invites comment on whether local, county, tribal, or other 
state governmental entities should be allowed to initiate mandatory 
state and local alerts and how the Commission should decide which 
public officials should be permitted to activate such alerts.
     Seeks comment on whether the obligation to process CAP-
formatted messages initiated by state governors should apply to Non-
Participating National stations.
     Seeks comment on whether Sec.  11.33(a)(9) of the 
Commission's rules should be revised to accommodate gubernatorial CAP-
formatted messages.
     Seeks comment on whether there is any practical need to 
provide, in Sec.  11.44 of the Commission's rules or elsewhere, 
gubernatorial CAP-formatted messages with priority over local EAS 
messages and whether such a scheme is technically feasible.
     Seeks comment on whether and how Sec.  11.51(m) of the 
Commission's rules should be amended to incorporate the obligation to 
process CAP-formatted messages initiated by state governors.
     Seeks comment generally regarding whether the procedures 
for processing EANs set forth in Sec.  11.54 of the Commission's rules 
and related part 11 rule sections should be substantially simplified so 
that EAS Participants process EANs like any other EAS message, only on 
a mandatory and priority basis.
     Seeks comment on whether the option for EAS Participants 
to manually process EANs (but not state or local EAS messages) should 
be eliminated.
     Seeks comment on whether the EAT should be eliminated and 
replaced where necessary with the EOM in the part 11 rules.
     Seeks comment on whether Sec. Sec.  11.54(b)(1), (b)(3), 
(b)(4), (b)(10), and 11.54(c) of the Commission's rules should be 
deleted.
     Seeks comment on whether Sec.  11.42 of the Commission's 
rules should be deleted.
     Seeks comment on whether the EAS Operating Handbook should 
be deleted and, if so, whether EAS Participants should be required to 
maintain within their facilities a copy of the current, FCC-filed and 
approved versions of the State and Local Area EAS Plans.
     Seeks comment on whether Sec. Sec.  11.54(a), (b)(2), and 
(b)(5) through (b)(8) of the Commission's rules should be deleted.
     Seeks comment on whether Sec.  11.44 of the Commission's 
rules should be deleted.
     Seeks comment on whether, to the extent it should not be 
deleted, Sec.  11.53 of the Commission's rules should be revised to 
incorporate CAP-formatted EAN messages.
     Seeks comment on whether, if streamlined EAN processing 
were adopted, Sec.  11.11(a) of the Commission's rules should be 
revised to remove the references therein to ``participating broadcast 
networks, cable networks and program suppliers; and other entities and 
industries operating on an organized basis during emergencies at the 
National, State and local levels.''
     Seeks comment on whether Sec. Sec.  11.16 and 11.54(b)(12) 
of the Commission's rules should be deleted.
     Seeks comment on whether the definition for LP-1 stations 
in Sec.  11.2(b) of the Commission's rules should be revised to reflect 
that these stations can be a radio or TV station.
     Tentatively concludes that Sec.  11.14 of the Commission's 
rules should be deleted.
     Seeks comment, with respect to the PEP system definition 
in Sec.  11.2(a) of the Commission's rules, on whether the use of 
actual numbers to reflect the number of PEP stations should be 
eliminated, and whether the language in Sec.  11.2(a) of the 
Commission's rules should be revised to clarify that the PEP stations 
distribute the EAN, EAS national test messages, and other EAS messages 
in accordance with the EAS Protocol requirements in Sec.  11.31 of the 
Commission's rules.
     Seeks comment on whether Sec.  11.13 of the Commission's 
rules should be deleted and whether the definition for the EAN 
currently in Sec.  11.13 of the Commission's rules should be moved to 
Sec.  11.2 of the Commission's rules.
     Tentatively concludes that the references to the Federal 
Information Processing Standard (FIPS) numbers (as described by the 
U.S. Department of Commerce in National Institute of Standards and 
Technology publication FIPS PUB 6-4.FIPS number codes) in Sec. Sec.  
11.31 and 11.34(d) of the Commission's rules should be replaced by 
references to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Codes 
INCITS 31.200x (Formerly FIPS 6-4), Codes for the Identification of 
Counties and Equivalent Entities of the United States, its Possessions, 
and Insular Areas standard that superseded it.
     Seeks comment on whether some or all of the current 
provisions relating to the Attention Signal in Sec. Sec.  11.32(a)(9)

[[Page 35813]]

and 11.33(b) of the Commission's rules can be deleted in favor of 
relying upon the minimal standard currently set forth in the EAS 
Protocol (at Sec.  11.31(a)(2) of the Commission's rules) and, if so, 
which of the equipment-related Attention Signal requirements in 
Sec. Sec.  11.32(a)(9) and 11.33(b) of the Commission's rules should be 
incorporated into Sec.  11.31(a)(2) of the Commission's rules.
     Seeks comment on whether the Attention Signal should be 
deleted from the part 11 rules altogether.
     Tentatively concludes that Sec.  11.12 of the Commission's 
rules should be deleted.
     Seeks comment on whether Sec.  11.39(a)(9) of the 
Commission's rules and/or other part 11 rule sections should be amended 
to make clear that an encoder should not transmit an EAS message that 
has been canceled via reset, or whether encoders should be permitted to 
air EAS messages that have been canceled via reset.
     Seeks comment on whether Sec.  11.33(a)(3)(ii) of the 
Commission's rules should be revised by eliminating the requirement to 
delete messages upon expiration of their time periods, thus allowing 
EAS Participants to air alert messages after expiration of the 
effective time period set by the alert message originator.
     Tentatively concludes that the analog and digital 
broadcast station equipment deployment table in Sec.  11.11(a) of the 
Commission's rules should be corrected so that ``LPFM'' and ``LPTV'' 
are identified with the columns listing the requirements for those 
categories, and that ``LPFM'' is included in Sec. Sec.  11.61(a)(1)(i) 
and 11.61(a)(2)(ii) of the Commission's rules.
     Tentatively concludes that the Commission cannot provide 
training for state and local emergency managers.
     Seeks comment on whether CAP's expansive capacity for 
relaying information could be leveraged within the existing technical 
framework of the EAS to improve access to emergency information to the 
public generally, and in particular, to persons with disabilities.

B. Legal Basis

    4. Authority for the actions proposed in the Third FNPRM 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.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which 
Rules Will Apply

    5. 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).
    6. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. The Commission's action may, over time, affect small 
entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission 
therefore describes here, at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory 
small entity size standards. First, nationwide, there are a total of 
approximately 27.5 million small businesses, according to the SBA. In 
addition, 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 2007, there were 
approximately 1,621,315 small organizations. Finally, the term ``small 
governmental jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of 
cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' Census 
Bureau data for 2011 indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental 
jurisdictions in the United States. The Commission estimates that, of 
this total, as many as 88, 506 entities may qualify as ``small 
governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, the Commission estimates that most 
governmental jurisdictions are small.
    7. Television Broadcasting. The SBA defines a television 
broadcasting station as a small business if such station has no more 
than $14.0 million in annual receipts. Business concerns included in 
this industry are those ``primarily engaged in broadcasting images 
together with sound.'' The Commission has estimated the number of 
licensed commercial television stations to be 1,390. According to 
Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro 
Television Database (BIA) as of January 31, 2011, 1,006 (or about 78 
percent) of an estimated 1,298 commercial television stations in the 
United States have revenues of $14 million or less and, thus, qualify 
as small entities under the SBA definition. The Commission has 
estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) 
television stations to be 391. The Commission notes, however, that, in 
assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above 
definition, business (control) affiliations must be included. The 
Commission's estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small 
entities that might be affected by its action, because the revenue 
figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from 
affiliated companies. The Commission does not compile and otherwise 
does not have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that 
would permit it to determine how many such stations would qualify as 
small entities.
    8. In addition, an element of the definition of ``small business'' 
is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The 
Commission is unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria 
that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant 
in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small 
businesses to which rules may apply do not exclude any television 
station from the definition of a small business on this basis and are 
therefore over-inclusive to that extent. Also, as noted, an additional 
element of the definition of ``small business'' is that the entity must 
be independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is 
difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media 
entities and its estimates of small businesses to which they apply may 
be over-inclusive to this extent.
    9. Radio Stations. The proposed rules and policies potentially will 
apply to all AM and commercial FM radio broadcasting licensees and 
potential licensees. The ``Radio Stations'' Economic Census category 
``comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural 
programs by radio to the public. Programming may originate in their own 
studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.'' The SBA 
has established a small business size standard for this category, which 
is: Such firms having $7 million or less in annual receipts. According 
to BIA/Kelsey, MEDIA Access Pro Database on January 13, 2011, 10,820 
(97%) of 11,127 commercial radio stations have revenue of $7 million or 
less. Therefore, the majority of such entities are small entities. The 
Commission notes,

[[Page 35814]]

however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as 
small under the above size standard, business affiliations must be 
included. In addition, to be determined to be a ``small business,'' the 
entity may not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission 
notes that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the 
context of media entities, and its estimate of small businesses may 
therefore be over-inclusive.
    10. Cable and Other Program Distribution. Since 2007, these 
services have been defined within the broad economic census category of 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined 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.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard 
for this category, which is: all such firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total 
of 955 firms in this previous category that operated for the entire 
year. Of this total, 939 firms had employment of 999 or fewer 
employees, and 16 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. 
Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered 
small entities.
    11. Cable System Operators (Rate Regulation Standard). The 
Commission has developed its own small business size standards, for the 
purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a 
``small cable company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, 
nationwide. Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators 
nationwide, all but eleven are small under this size standard. In 
addition, under the Commission's rules, a ``small system'' is a cable 
system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Industry data indicate 
that, of 7,208 systems nationwide, 6,139 systems have under 10,000 
subscribers, and an additional 379 systems have 10,000-19,999 
subscribers. Thus, under this second size standard, most cable systems 
are small and may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Third 
FNPRM.
    12. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Act also 
contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is ``a 
cable 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 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. Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 
cable operators nationwide, all but ten are small under this size 
standard. The Commission notes that it neither requests nor collects 
information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with 
entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million, and therefore 
is unable to estimate more accurately the number of cable system 
operators that would qualify as small under this size standard.
    13. Open Video Services. The open video system (OVS) framework was 
established in 1996, and is one of four statutorily recognized options 
for the provision of video programming services by local exchange 
carriers. The OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution 
of video programming other than through cable systems. Because OVS 
operators provide subscription services, OVS falls within the SBA small 
business size standard covering cable services, which is ``Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers.'' The SBA has developed a small business 
size standard for this category, which is: All such firms having 1,500 
or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there 
were a total of 3,188 firms in this previous category that operated for 
the entire year. Of this total, 3,144 firms had employment of 999 or 
fewer employees, and 44 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or 
more. Thus, under this size standard, most cable systems are small and 
may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Third FNPRM. In 
addition, the Commission notes that the Commission has certified some 
OVS operators, with some now providing service. Broadband service 
providers (BSPs) are currently the only significant holders of OVS 
certifications or local OVS franchises. The Commission does not have 
financial or employment information regarding the entities authorized 
to provide OVS, some of which may not yet be operational. Thus, again, 
at least some of the OVS operators may qualify as small entities.
    14. 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 data for 2007, which supersede data from the 
2002 Census, show that 3,188 firms operated in 2007 as Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. 3,144 had 1,000 or fewer employees, while 
44 operated with more than 1,000 employees.
    15. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband 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. The SBA has approved this definition of small 
entity in the context of MDS auctions. 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, the 
Commission estimates that of the 61 small business MDS auction winners, 
48 remain small business licensees. In addition to the 48 small 
businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately 392 
incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small entities. After 
adding the number of small business auction licensees to the number of 
incumbent licensees not already counted, the Commission finds that 
there are currently approximately 440 BRS

[[Page 35815]]

licensees that are defined as small businesses under either the SBA or 
the Commission's rules. In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, 
which offered 78 BRS licenses. Auction 86 concluded with ten bidders 
winning 61 licenses. Of the ten, two bidders claimed small business 
status and won 4 licenses; one bidder claimed very small business 
status and won three licenses; and two bidders claimed entrepreneur 
status and won six licenses.
    16. 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, the Commission does not 
collect annual revenue data for EBS licensees and is not able to 
ascertain how many of the 100 non-educational licensees would be 
categorized as small under the SBA definition. Thus, the Commission 
tentatively concludes that at least 1,932 are small businesses and may 
be affected by the proposed rules.
    17. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since 
2007, the Census Bureau has placed wireless firms within this new, 
broad, economic census category. Prior to that time, such firms were 
within the now-superseded categories of ``Paging'' and ``Cellular and 
Other Wireless Telecommunications.'' Under the present and prior 
categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it 
has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the category of Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), Census data for 2007, 
which supersede data contained in the 2002 Census, show that there were 
1,383 firms that operated that year. Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer 
than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. Thus 
under this category and the associated small business size standard, 
the majority of firms can be considered small. Similarly, according to 
Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the 
provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, Personal 
Communications Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) 
Telephony services. Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that approximately half or more of these firms can 
be considered small. Thus, using available data, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
    18. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). The Commission has 
included small incumbent LECs in this 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. The Commission has therefore included small 
incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis, although it 
emphasizes 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 the 
proposed rules.
    19. 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.
    20. Satellite Telecommunications Providers. Two economic census 
categories address the satellite industry. The first category has a 
small business size standard of $15 million or less in average annual 
receipts, under SBA rules. The second has a size standard of $25 
million or less in annual receipts.
    21. The category of Satellite Telecommunications ``comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in providing telecommunications 
services to other establishments in the telecommunications and 
broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications 
signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite 
telecommunications.'' Census Bureau data for 2007 show that 512 
Satellite Telecommunications firms that operated for that entire year. 
Of this total, 464 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 
18 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, the 
majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms can be considered small 
entities.
    22. The second category, i.e. ``All Other Telecommunications'' 
comprises ``establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized 
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes 
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal 
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more 
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, 
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. 
Establishments providing Internet services or voice over Internet 
protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications 
connections are also included in this industry.'' For this category, 
Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 2,383 firms 
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,347 firms had 
annual receipts of under $25 million and 12 firms had annual receipts 
of $25 million to $49,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates 
that the majority of All Other

[[Page 35816]]

Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected the 
proposed actions in the Third FNPRM.
    23. Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service. DBS service is a 
nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and 
audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic ``dish'' antenna 
at the subscriber's location. DBS, by exception, is now included in the 
SBA's broad economic census category, ``Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers,'' which was developed for small wireline firms. Under this 
category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 
or fewer employees. To gauge small business prevalence for the DBS 
service, the Commission relies on data currently available from the 
U.S. Census for the year 2007. According to that source, there were 
3,188 firms that in 2007 were Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Of 
these, 3,144 operated with less than 1,000 employees, and 44 operated 
with more than 1,000 employees. However, as to the latter 44 there is 
no data available that shows how many operated with more than 1,500 
employees. Based on this data, the majority of these firms can be 
considered small. Currently, only two entities provide DBS service, 
which requires a great investment of capital for operation: DIRECTV and 
EchoStar Communications Corporation (EchoStar) (marketed as the DISH 
Network). Each currently offers subscription services. DIRECTV and 
EchoStar each report annual revenues that are in excess of the 
threshold for a small business. Because DBS service requires 
significant capital, the Commission believes it is unlikely that a 
small entity as defined by the SBA would have the financial wherewithal 
to become a DBS service provider.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    24. There are possible revisions to current part 11 reporting or 
recordkeeping requirements proposed in this Third FNPRM, specifically 
as regards:
     Potential revisions modifying Sec.  11.33(a)(4) of the 
Commission's rules to require that if an alert message is derived from 
a CAP-formatted message, the contents of the text, assembled pursuant 
to ECIG Implementation Guide, should be added to the EAS device log. 
This revision merely applies a current reporting requirement to a new 
technical protocol and the Commission does not expect it to alter the 
reporting burden to any appreciable degree.
     The Commission's tentative conclusion that the language in 
Sec.  11.21(a) of the Commission's rules should be revised to make 
clear that the State EAS Plans specify the monitoring assignments and 
the specific primary and backup path for SAME-formatted EANs. This 
revision merely applies a current reporting requirement to a new 
technical protocol and thus is not expected to alter the reporting 
burden to any appreciable degree. The revision will ensure the accuracy 
of EAS operational documents and thus contribute to public safety. 
Accordingly, the Commission believes the revision to be necessary.
    25. The proposals set forth in the Third FNPRM are intended to 
advance the Commission's public safety mission and enhance the 
performance of the EAS while reducing regulatory burdens wherever 
possible.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    26. 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.''
    27. EAS Participants already are required to comply with the CAP-
related obligations set forth in Sec. Sec.  11.55 and 11.56 of the 
Commission's rules. The Third FNPRM seeks comment on dozens of 
potential revisions to part 11 of the Commission's rules that are 
necessary in order for EAS Participants to meet these existing 
obligations and, more generally, to streamline and make more efficient 
the operation of the EAS. The majority of the rule revisions under 
consideration are not designed to introduce new obligations that do not 
already exist, but rather, more clearly identify and effect within part 
11 the CAP obligations adopted in the Second Report and Order in this 
proceeding. In this regard, these revisions are designed to minimally 
impact all EAS Participants, including small entities, to the extent 
feasible, while at the same time protecting the lives and property of 
all Americans, which confers a direct benefit on small entities. For 
example, the rule revisions under consideration would maintain the 
existing EAS architecture and potentially permit affected parties to 
meet their CAP-related obligations via intermediary devices, which 
potentially may alleviate the need to obtain new EAS equipment for many 
EAS Participants. Similarly, the proposed revisions to EAN processing 
would make the part 11 rules simpler both to understand and implement 
within equipment designs. Because the proposed revisions are required 
to implement existing obligations within part 11, no alternatives were 
considered. However, commenters are invited to suggest 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 alternatives that serve the goal of 
minimizing the impact on small entities.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    28. None.

Synopsis of the Third FNPRM

    1. In the Third FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on several 
proposed changes to its Part 11 Emergency Alert System (EAS) rules to 
more fully codify the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP)-related 
obligations adopted in the Second Report and Order (Second Report and 
Order) and to eliminate outdated rules to improve part 11's overall 
effectiveness.
I. Background
    2. The present-day EAS is a hierarchical alert message distribution 
system that utilizes radio and television broadcasters, cable service 
providers, and other regulated entities (collectively known as EAS 
Participants) to transmit audio and/or visual emergency alert messages 
to the public. To initiate an EAS message, whether at the national, 
state, or local levels, the message originator must format a message in 
the EAS Protocol, which is identical to the Specific Area Message 
Encoding (SAME) digital protocol utilized by National Weather Service 
(NWS) (hereinafter, ``EAS Protocol'' and ``SAME'' are used 
interchangeably), and send the formatted alert to a designated entry 
point within the EAS network for delivery to specialized equipment 
maintained and operated by EAS Participants that can receive (and 
decode) the alert for transmission over

[[Page 35817]]

the EAS Participants' facilities to their end users.
    3. In 2007, the Commission adopted the Second Report and Order in 
this docket, which revised the Commission's part 11 EAS rules to lay 
the foundation for a state-of-the-art, next-generation national EAS 
(Next Generation EAS). First, to ensure the efficient, rapid, and 
secure transmission of EAS alerts in a variety of formats (including 
text, audio, and video) and via different means (broadcast, cable, 
satellite, and other networks), the Commission required that EAS 
Participants be capable of receiving CAP-formatted alert messages no 
later than 180 days after the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) publicly publishes its adoption of the CAP standard. Second, the 
Commission required EAS Participants to adopt Next Generation EAS 
delivery systems no later than 180 days after FEMA publicly releases 
standards for those systems. Third, the Commission required EAS 
Participants to transmit state and local EAS alerts that are originated 
by governors or their designees no later than 180 days after FEMA 
publishes its adoption of the CAP standard, provided that the state has 
a Commission-approved State Area EAS Plan that provides for delivery of 
such alerts.
    4. CAP is an open, interoperable XML-based standard, developed 
within the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information 
Standards (OASIS) standards process, which permits links to voice, 
audio or data files, images, multilingual translations of alerts, and 
links providing further information.
    5. On March 25, 2010, in anticipation of FEMA's adoption of CAP, 
the Commission's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) 
released a Public Notice (part 11 Public Notice) in EB Docket No. 04-
296, DA 10-500, released on March 25, 2010, that sought informal 
comment regarding what, if any, Part 11 changes might be necessitated 
by the introduction of CAP.
    6. On October 7, 2010, the Communications Security, Reliability, 
and Interoperability Council (CSRIC), which had been established by the 
Commission to, among other things, recommend revisions to the part 11 
rules in light of FEMA's then-pending adoption of CAP, adopted a Final 
Report, which included a number of recommendations for revisions to the 
part 11 rules related to the obligation to accept CAP-formatted 
messages.
    7. On September 30, 2010, FEMA announced its adoption of technical 
standards and requirements for CAP-formatted EAS alerts. Specifically, 
FEMA identified three documents as defining the FEMA Integrated Public 
Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) technical standards and requirements 
for CAP and its implementation: (1) The OASIS CAP Standard v1.2; (2) an 
IPAWS Specification to the CAP Standard (CAP v1.2 IPAWS USA Profile 
v1.0); and (3) the EAS-CAP Industry Group's (ECIG) Recommendations for 
a CAP-EAS Implementation Guide, Version 1.0 (May 17, 2010) (ECIG 
Implementation Guide). FEMA's announced adoption of CAP v1.2 triggered 
an initial deadline for EAS Participants to be able to receive CAP 
alerts by March 29, 2011.
    8. On November 18, 2010, in response to the recommendations in 
CSRIC's Final Report, as well as to comments submitted in response to 
the part 11 Public Notice, the Commission adopted an order that 
extended the 180-day deadline for meeting the CAP-related obligations 
until September 30, 2011 (the Waiver Order).
II. Discussion
    9. The Third FNPRM builds on the foregoing efforts by seeking 
comment on what changes the Commission should make to the part 11 rules 
to fully effectuate the CAP-related obligations adopted in the Second 
Report and Order, as well as other rule changes and clarifications 
intended to streamline part 11 and generally enhance the overall 
effectiveness of the EAS. The specific rule changes proposed for 
consideration in the Third FNPRM are included in the rules section.
    10. The tentative conclusions, proposed rule changes and other 
proposals set forth in the Third FNPRM are summarized below. With 
respect to each, the Commission invites general comments as well as 
comments directed specifically at their technical and operational 
effectiveness. The Commission also seeks comment on whether these 
tentative conclusions, proposed rule changes and other proposals are 
sufficient to capture the overall goals of this proceeding; whether 
they are necessary; their potential costs and benefits; how any 
requirements under consideration might be tailored to impose the least 
amount of burden on those affected; and what explicit performance 
objectives, if any, should be specified to facilitate monitoring the 
success of any potential course of action.

A. Scope of CAP-Related Part 11 Revisions

    11. The Commission's tentative view is that while the EAS Protocol 
is more limited regarding the information it can convey than CAP, the 
many benefits of maintaining the legacy EAS previously outlined by the 
Commission in the Second Report and Order continue to apply today. 
Moreover, FEMA has stated that the legacy EAS will continue to provide 
a nationwide alerting mechanism to operate as part of its IPAWS system. 
Further, even after IPAWS is deployed, it is not clear that state 
alerting authorities and personnel involved with initiating state 
alerts will be able to initiate anything other than SAME-formatted 
messages for some time, and we observe that NWS has yet to indicate a 
date by which it will be switching to a CAP-based alerting format. 
Thus, switching over to a fully CAP-centric EAS system--where EAS 
messages are inputted and outputted in CAP format rather than SAME 
format--at this time could be detrimental to the entities that utilize 
the EAS the most: states and NWS. Finally, FEMA has adopted the 
standards necessary for formatting alert messages into CAP and 
translating such CAP-formatted messages into SAME-compliant messages; 
thus, the groundwork for implementing CAP-formatted alert initiation 
within the existing EAS system is already in place.
    12. Accordingly, the Commission tentatively concludes that, for the 
time being, it will continue the approach adopted in the Second Report 
and Order and maintain the existing legacy EAS, including utilization 
of the SAME protocol. To be clear, under this transitional approach, 
the CAP-related changes to Part 11 addressed in this item are designed 
to permit EAS Participants to process and transmit CAP-formatted 
messages over the existing EAS, but subject to the technical 
requirements and limitations of the existing EAS (i.e., the CAP-
formatted message will be converted into and broadcast--and to the 
extent feasible, encoded for rebroadcast--in the SAME format) until the 
Next Generation EAS has been fully deployed and is ready to replace (or 
operate in parallel with) the existing EAS. The Commission also 
tentatively concludes that it will defer to its planned Notice of 
Inquiry on Broadband Alerting consideration of what changes, if any, to 
the part 11 rules may be necessitated by the adoption of a CAP-based 
Next Generation EAS alerting system that might replace or operate in 
parallel with the current EAS. The Commission seeks comment on these 
tentative conclusions.

B. Obligation To Accept CAP Messages

    13. CAP-Formatted Message Translation to SAME. To ensure greater

[[Page 35818]]

uniformity in the output of devices subject to Part 11, the Commission 
tentatively concludes that it should amend Sec.  11.56 of the 
Commission's rules to require EAS Participants to convert CAP-formatted 
EAS messages into SAME-compliant EAS messages in accordance with the 
ECIG Implementation Guide. Adopting the ECIG Implementation Guide as 
the standard for translating CAP-formatted messages into SAME-compliant 
messages should harmonize CAP elements with the part 11 rules, thus 
ensuring that CAP-formatted EAS messages are converted into SAME-
compliant messages in a consistent manner across devices and delivery 
platforms. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
    14. CAP-Related Monitoring Requirements. As a preliminary matter, 
the Commission observes that the technical construction and 
distribution methodologies of CAP messages are different from SAME 
messages. For example, SAME-formatted messages are AFSK-modulated data 
messages that are received by monitoring the over-the-air broadcasts of 
designated broadcast stations. CAP messages are IP-based data packets 
that can be distributed using various distribution models. FEMA has 
indicated that the IPAWS system will employ Really Simple Syndication, 
version 2.0 (RSS), to distribute CAP-formatted alerts to EAS 
Participants. Under this alert distribution model, RSS-configured EAS 
equipment will poll FEMA's RSS source at periodic intervals (programmed 
into the EAS equipment by the EAS Participant), and any pending CAP 
messages will be sent via the RSS feed to the EAS equipment. The CAP 
message will be wholly contained within the RSS file's ``description'' 
field, and EAS equipment will extract the CAP data in accordance with 
the ECIG Implementation Guide to ensure an EAS Protocol-compliant 
output. Accordingly, the Commission tentatively concludes that it 
should amend Sec.  11.52 of the Commission's rules to include a 
requirement that EAS Participants monitor FEMA's IPAWS RSS feed(s) for 
federal CAP-formatted messages. The Commission seeks comment on this 
tentative conclusion.
    15. The Commission did not specify monitoring requirements for CAP-
formatted messages initiated by state governors (or their designees) in 
the Second Report and Order, although it did require that the State 
Area EAS Plan submitted for FCC approval specify the methodology for 
aggregating and delivering such messages. The Commission proposes that 
EAS equipment should only be required to employ the same monitoring 
functionality for state CAP messages that are used for federal CAP 
messages (i.e., RSS). Accordingly, the Commission tentatively concludes 
that it should amend Sec.  11.52 of the Commission's rules to include a 
requirement that EAS Participants monitor the RSS feed(s) designated by 
a state as the source of governor-originated CAP messages (and 
identified in the state's EAS Plan submitted to and approved by the 
Commission). The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
    16. Next Generation Distribution Systems. In the Second Report and 
Order, the Commission stated that ``should FEMA announce technical 
standards for any Next Generation EAS alert delivery system, EAS 
Participants must configure their networks to receive CAP-formatted 
alerts delivered pursuant to such delivery system, whether wireline, 
Internet, satellite or other, within 180 days after the date that FEMA 
announces the technical standards for such Next Generation EAS alert 
delivery.'' The Commission incorporated this obligation into Sec.  
11.56 of the Commission's rules, which provides that ``all EAS 
Participants must be able to receive CAP-formatted EAS alerts * * * 
after FEMA publishes the technical standards and requirements for such 
FEMA transmissions.''
    17. In the Third FNPRM, the Commission clarifies that the above-
quoted language from the Second Report and Order was intended to put 
EAS Participants on notice that, should FEMA adopt technical standards 
covering delivery of CAP-formatted messages to EAS Participants over 
specific platforms, such as satellite systems, EAS Participants would 
ultimately need to configure their systems to be able to interface with 
such systems to meet their existing obligation to process CAP-formatted 
messages. The Commission further clarifies that the intent behind the 
language was not to permit FEMA to create or modify existing 
requirements via publication or adoption of a technical standard. 
Rather, the general intent was to revise the existing Part 11 rules to 
permit initiation and carriage of CAP-based alert messages over the 
existing EAS, subject to the technical requirements a