Review of the Emergency Alert System, 41159-41172 [2014-16417]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 135 (Tuesday, July 15, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41159-41172]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16417]



[[Page 41159]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 11

[EB Docket No. 04-296; FCC 14-93]


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 establish a national location code 
for EAS alerts issued by the President amend the Commission's rules 
governing a national EAS test code for future nationwide tests require 
broadcasters, cable service providers, and other entities required to 
comply with the Commission's EAS rules (EAS Participants) to file test 
result data electronically and require EAS Participants to meet minimal 
standards to ensure that EAS alerts are accessible to all members of 
the public, including those with disabilities.

DATES: Comments are due on or before August 14, 2014 and reply comments 
are due on or before August 29, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Commenters 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 email: 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 
email at Lisa.Fowlkes@fcc.gov. For additional information concerning 
the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements 
contained in this document, contact Benish Shah at (202) 418-7866 or 
send an email to PRA@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in EB Docket No. 04-296, FCC 14-93, 
adopted on June 25, 2014, and released on June 26, 2014. 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: www.fcc.gov.

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 this document, as 
required by the PRA. Public and agency comments on the PRA proposed 
information collection requirements are due September 15, 2014. 
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; Non-profit 
entities.
    Number of Respondents: 27,468.
    Estimated Time per Response: 3.28 hours.
    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirements; Reporting 
requirements; Third party disclosure requirement.
    Obligation to Respond: Mandatory.
    Total Annual Burden: 90,095 hours.
    Total Annual Cost: $3,423,611.52.
    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).
    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission will treat 
submissions pursuant to 47 CFR 11.61(a)(3) as confidential. See Review 
of the Emergency Alert System, EB Docket No. 04-296, Third Report and 
Order, 26 FCC Rcd 1460, 1485, paragraph 65 (2011).

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    1. 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 of the proposals described in the attached NPRM on 
small entities. 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 in the NPRM. The Commission will send a 
copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the 
NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal 
Register.

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

    2. The NPRM proposes rules to resolve problems with the EAS 
uncovered in the first nationwide Emergency Alert System (EAS) test 
conducted on November 9, 2011, and proposes further rules to evolve the 
paradigm for the future testing, exercise and use of the EAS to enhance 
the effectiveness of the EAS as an alerting tool for the public. In 
this NPRM, the Commission proposes that a national location code be 
adopted, that ``six zeroes'' should be that code; and that the National 
Periodic Test code be used to evaluate the readiness of the EAS for a 
live EAN. The Commission also proposes to establish a reporting

[[Page 41160]]

requirement using an updated, online EAS test reporting system (ETRS). 
Finally, the Commission proposes to establish minimum standards for 
visual crawl speed, completeness and placement that will improve the 
accessibility of EAS alerts. These proposed rules will help to ensure 
that the EAS better protects the life and property of all Americans.
    3. Specifically, the NPRM contains the following proposed rule 
changes, and seeks comment on each:
     Proposes to establish a national location code for EAS 
alerts issued by the President;
     Proposes to adopt the National Periodic Test (NPT) code 
that emulates the functionality of the EAN for future nationwide EAS 
tests;
     Proposes to require EAS Participants to file test result 
data electronically using a new EAS Test Reporting System (ETRS);
     Proposes to require EAS Participants to meet minimal 
accessibility and comprehensibility standards.

B. Legal Basis

     Authority for the actions proposed in this NPRM may be 
found in 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), 154(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307, 
309, 335, 403, 544(g), 606, and 615.

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

    1. 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'').
    2. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. The rules proposed in the attached NPRM may, over time, 
affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present, 
beyond the list of representative entities listed in the subsequent 
paragraphs. The Commission therefore describes here, at the outset, 
three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards. First, 
nationwide, there are a total of approximately 27.9 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.
    3. Television Broadcasting. The SBA has developed a small business 
sized standard for television broadcasting, which consists of all such 
firms having $13 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. 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 the Commission's 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 local nature and power limits of this 
service, the Commission will presume that all LPTV licensees qualify as 
small entities under the SBA size standard.
    4. 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 $6.5 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. 
The Commission notes, however, that many radio stations are affiliated 
with much larger corporations having much higher revenue. The 
Commission's estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small 
entities that might be affected by the Commission's action.
    5. Cable and Other Program Distribution. The SBA has developed a 
small business size standard for cable and other program distribution, 
which consists of all such firms having $12.5 million or less in annual 
receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 1997, in this category 
there was a total of 1,311 firms that operated for the entire year. Of 
this total, 1,180 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 
an additional 52 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. 
Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered 
small. 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.
    6. 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. The Commission has 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 
fewer than 1,065 small entity cable system operators that may be 
affected by the rules and policies proposed herein.

[[Page 41161]]

    7. Cable System Operator (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 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 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 the Commission is unable to 
estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that 
would qualify as small under this size standard.
    8. Broadband Radio Service (BRS). The proposed rules apply to 
Broadband Radio Service (BRS), 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 BRS auctions has been approved by the 
SBA. The Commission completed its BRS 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 BRS auction winners, 48 remain small 
business licensees.
    9. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. This industry 
comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating studios and 
facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a subscription or fee 
basis. The broadcast programming is typically narrowcast in nature 
(e.g., limited format, such as news, sports, education, or youth-
oriented). These establishments produce programming in their own 
facilities or acquire programming from. The programming material is 
usually delivered to a third party, such as cable systems or direct-to-
home satellite systems, for transmission to viewers. The SBA size 
standard for this industry establishes as small any company in this 
category which receives annual receipts of $15 million or less. Based 
on U.S. Census data for 2007, in that year 659 establishments operated 
for the entire year. Of that 659,197 operated with annual receipts of 
$10 million a year or more. The remaining 462 establishments operated 
with annual receipts of less than $10 million. Based on this data, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of establishments operating in 
this industry are small.
    10. The Educational Broadband Service (EBS). The proposed rules 
would also apply to The Educational Broadband Service (EBS) facilities 
operated as part of a wireless cable system. The SBA definition of 
small entities for pay television services also appears to apply to 
EBS. There are presently 2,032 ITFS 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 
are 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 established rules.
    11. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (``LECs''). The Commission 
has 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. The Commission has therefore included small 
incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis, although the 
Commission 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, one-thousand three-hundred and three 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 Commission's 
proposed rules.
    12. 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 the Commission's proposed rules.
    13. Satellite Telecommunications and Other 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.

[[Page 41162]]

    14. The second category--Other Telecommunications--includes 
``establishments primarily engaged in . . . providing 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.

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

     This NPRM proposes that EAS Participants submit data 
concerning their compliance with the EAS rules via a mandatory 
electronic reporting system, the Electronic Test Reporting System 
(ETRS). The Commission proposes that any reporting under the ETRS would 
be identical that required of all EAS Participants, including small 
entities, in the November, 2011 Nationwide EAS Test, a collection that 
was approved by OMB. The impact on small entities of the ETRS is 
consistent with their past OMB-approved practice under the EAS, and 
thus would impose no undue burden.

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

    15. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed 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 or 
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use 
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) and exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.''
    16. The NPRM is technologically neutral in order to enable small 
entities flexibility to comply with the Commission's proposed rules 
using EAS equipment offered by a variety of vendors. Commenters are 
invited to propose steps that the Commission may take to 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. The 
Commission expects that the record will develop to demonstrate 
significant alternatives. In particular, the Commission expects that 
the record will develop to indicate whether EAS Participants who 
otherwise would be required to replace their EAS equipment can comply 
with the rules the Commission proposes by deploying an intermediary 
device.

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

    17. None.

Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Scope

    1. Since the first nationwide EAS test in 2011, there have been 
technological advances and deployments of new systems in the alerting 
landscape. Most relevant to EAS has been the changeover to alerting 
that uses the Internet-based Common Alerting Protocol (CAP). In 
addition to CAP implementation, beginning in April 2012, FEMA, the 
Commission and the wireless industry deployed the Wireless Emergency 
Alert (WEA) system, which allows the public to receive geographically-
targeted alerts over WEA-capable cell phones and other mobile devices. 
Further, the Nation's communications networks are in the midst of 
technology transitions which will entail fundamental and comprehensive 
changes in how data and voice are communicated end to end (involving 
virtually all aspects of the routing and coding of such 
communications). Many stakeholders, realizing the impact that this 
transition will have on the way in which consumers will be able to 
receive timely and accurate emergency alerts, express the need and 
desire to routinely test and exercise not only the EAS, but also the 
WEA and the entire IPAWS to ensure that Americans continue to have 
access to an effective emergency alert system.
    2. While the Commission agrees with this assessment and understands 
the desire for prompt testing of these systems, the Commission believes 
it is imperative first to establish at the national level overarching 
parameters for such testing. Such an alerting paradigm would allow 
alert originators at the federal, state and local levels, as well as 
other stakeholders, to ensure that these systems are an effective and 
viable tool for alerting the public. Consequently, with this NPRM, the 
Commission continues its dialogue with federal government partners, 
state and local governments, communications service providers and other 
alerting stakeholders to achieve this result.
    3. As the Commission continues this discussion, it is crucial that 
it first take steps to address known vulnerabilities in the EAS. In 
this NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on proposed rule changes 
designed to address two of the problems identified by the 2011 
Nationwide EAS Test, specifically the lack of a national location code, 
and the lack of minimum comprehensibility and accessibility guidelines 
to ensure that the public, including those with disabilities, can 
clearly understand alerts provided to them. The Commission also seeks 
comment on whether it should adopt an electronic EAS Test Reporting 
System (ETRS), and how the Commission should define use of the NPT code 
for future nationwide tests.

B. Proposed Rule Changes Affecting Header Code Elements

1. Use of a National Location Code
    4. Section 11.31(c) of the Commission's rules requires, among other 
things, that all EAS alert messages include a geographic location code 
to indicate the affected area of an emergency. The EAS rules contain a 
list of location codes for the States, Territories and offshore Marine 
Areas that EAS equipment are required to recognize. The EAS rules do 
not contain a location code for the entire United States. In the Third 
Report and Order, the Commission declined to adopt a national location 
code for the first nationwide EAS test out of concern that to do so 
would require significant reprogramming of EAS equipment. Rather, for 
the first test, the Bureau and FEMA elected to use the Washington, DC 
location code. Use of this code resulted in inconsistent results across 
the country. As detailed in the EAS Nationwide Test Report, although 
many EAS Participants outside of Washington, DC were able to process 
the Washington, DC code, some EAS Participants reported that their EAS 
and other network equipment rejected the ``out of area'' alert, and 
terminated the test alert partway through the transmission. In the EAS 
Operational Issues Public Notice, the Bureau noted the difficulties 
arising from the use of the Washington DC location code and sought 
comment on whether the Commission should adopt a national location code 
for future testing, and if so, what that code should be.
    5. Most commenters, including FEMA, support adoption of a national

[[Page 41163]]

location code to facilitate national activations and testing of the 
EAS. In particular, commenters overwhelmingly support the adoption of 
``six zeroes'' (000000) as the national location code. Commenters 
provide an array of justifications for their position. FEMA asserts 
that use of the ``six zeroes'' location code will further harmonize the 
Commission's EAS rules with CAP standards, which already recognize 
``six zeroes'' as the national location code. Trilithic adds that the 
addition of the ``six zeroes'' code for general use is a prerequisite 
for geo-targeting of the EAN, as EAS equipment would otherwise ignore 
the location codes if the event code is an EAN. NCTA states that use of 
``six zeroes'' as the national location code will ensure that the EAN 
is processed and retransmitted in the same format throughout the EAS 
ecosystem. Sage also supports the use of ``six zeroes'' as the national 
location code, but concedes that the ``DC code may have a smaller total 
system cost.'' Only DirecTV does not support the ``six zeroes'' 
location code, stating its belief that ``[r]ather than embark upon an 
untested approach that would rely upon a new nationwide location code . 
. . the Commission would be better served by continuing to use the 
approach taken for the Nationwide EAS Test.''
    6. With regard to the steps that equipment manufacturers need to 
take to integrate a ``six zeroes'' location code into their equipment, 
Monroe and Trilithic note that most equipment is already capable of 
processing ``six zeroes'' as the national location code either because 
the code is resident in the equipment, or because the software in the 
equipment can be upgraded to accommodate the location code. Other 
manufacturers note that equipment that reaches the end of its lifecycle 
will need to be replaced because manufacturers no longer support such 
equipment and will not provide the type of software upgrade necessary 
to activate the ``six zeroes'' national location code. NCTA comments 
that, notwithstanding the fact that the software in most of its 
members' EAS equipment can be upgraded to accommodate the ``six 
zeroes'' national location code, cable and other multichannel video 
programming distributors (MVPD) will have to upgrade various 
``downstream'' portions of their networks to accommodate the ``six 
zeroes'' code and accurately deliver alerts.
    7. Based on the comments received in response to the Bureau's EAS 
Operational Issues Public Notice, the Commission proposes that EAS 
Participants be required to have the capability to receive and process 
a national location code, and that ``six zeroes'' be designated as that 
code. The Commission believes that the addition of this national 
location code will bring additional consistency to the operation of EAS 
equipment in both national and local activations. In addition, the 
equipment and network upgrades that will enable the use of a national 
location code, taken in conjunction with the Commission's rules 
requiring that EAS equipment recognize all header codes, will prevent 
EAS equipment from programmatically ignoring location header codes when 
used with an EAN event code, thus enabling FEMA to use other specific 
location codes for a geo-targeted EAN should the President wish to 
address a particular part of the country rather than the nation as a 
whole. The Commission also agrees with FEMA that adoption of ``six 
zeroes'' as the national location code has the additional long-term 
benefit of ensuring consistency between the Commission's EAS rules and 
industry CAP standards, which, in turn, will facilitate the integration 
of the EAS into IP-based alerting systems such as IPAWS. The Commission 
seeks comment on this proposal and rationale.
2. Use of the National Periodic Test Code (NPT)
    8. In the Third Report and Order, the Commission chose to use the 
EAN for the first nationwide EAS test primarily because an EAN-based 
test most closely mirrored an actual alert. At that time, the 
Commission also acknowledged that there was value to testing the 
national-level EAS without using a live code, and concluded that it 
would consider an alternative to live code testing such as the NPT in 
the future. For that first test, in order to minimize confusion from 
the use of the live EAN code and its attendant video text crawl 
announcing a national emergency, EAS Participant stakeholder 
organizations provided ``This is only a Test'' slides for broadcast and 
MVPD EAS Participants to display during the test. Not all cable service 
providers were able to display the slide, and as noted in the EAS 
Nationwide Test Report, while the use of the EAN had been successful, 
some deaf and hard of hearing people had reported confusion caused by 
the inability of some EAS Participants to visually display the ``This 
is only a Test'' slide. The EAS Nationwide Test Report noted that one 
way to avoid such confusion in the future would be to use the NPT, and 
that ``use of the NPT would allow FEMA and the FCC to conduct 
nationwide EAS tests without the need for an extensive public outreach 
campaign such as that necessary for the first nationwide EAS test.''
    9. In the EAS Operational Issues Public Notice, the Bureau sought 
comment on whether it should consider amending its rules to facilitate 
use of the NPT code instead of the EAN for future testing. The Bureau 
also sought guidance on the technical feasibility and operational 
requirements of an NPT activation, and whether the Commission's rules 
should ``require that EAS messages containing the NPT code be 
promulgated throughout the EAS just like an EAN.'' In its comments, 
FEMA expresses a desire to use the NPT code for the next nationwide 
test of the EAS component of IPAWS--a test that FEMA also notes that it 
wishes to conduct ``in the near future--but acknowledges that the EAS 
rules do not provide enough guidance on how EAS equipment must process 
the NPT. Accordingly, FEMA requests that the Commission provide such 
guidance, and notes its preference that the NPT be ``relayed and 
forwarded in the same fashion and with the same immediacy as an EAN.'' 
Other commenters agree that the NPT should be used for most nationwide 
EAS tests, but also believe that the NPT does not need to fully emulate 
the EAN duration function to be an effective test code.
    10. Commenters support the use of the NPT, but most agree that 
requiring the NPT to emulate the EAN's priority and duration qualities 
will entail significantly more substantial software and hardware 
upgrades for EAS Participants than those required for the national 
location code the Commission proposes. Commenters also state that use 
of an NPT that fully emulates the EAN will require testing, and updates 
to software and standards for downstream equipment such as cable set 
top boxes and Digital Network Control Systems (DNCS). NCTA, in 
particular, notes that requiring an NPT coded test to trigger 
automatically, immediately upon receipt, and to last longer than two 
minutes would require changes to the SCTE 18 2013 standard, as well as 
to corresponding product specifications and system design changes that 
would affect the entire MVPD industry. According to NCTA, this process 
would take as long as three years to complete, and would be 
significantly more expensive than requiring the ``six zeroes'' location 
code alone.
    11. According to commenters, a less expensive and more rapidly 
deployable method of utilizing the NPT for a national EAS test would 
simply be to enable the NPT as it is currently programmed in most, if 
not all, EAS equipment. Specifically, Sage recommends that programming 
EAS

[[Page 41164]]

equipment to treat the NPT as a ``normal'' EAS alert would be a simpler 
and equally effective way to test the integrity of the links in the EAS 
distribution hierarchy. As the Commission noted in the Third Report and 
Order, although such use of the NPT would be limited to two minutes, 
EAS Participants could ensure mandatory carriage of the NPT by manually 
reprogramming their EAS equipment to automatically respond to the NPT.
    12. The Commission agrees with the majority of commenters that 
there should be a non-EAN option for future EAS testing, and that the 
NPT is the obvious alternative. The Commission is aware that it must 
balance the need for regular testing of the EAS with a clear standard 
by which such tests should be conducted, and that any EAS testing rules 
should offer FEMA maximum flexibility to test the EAS and the other 
IPAWS elements that FEMA administers. At the same time, the Commission 
wants to ensure that its rules provide a benefit that fully justifies 
the costs that implementing any proposed rules would impose on EAS 
Participants. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to amend its rules 
to create an option to use the NPT for EAS testing. That being said, 
the Commission is cognizant that the NPT can be tailored in different 
ways, with different costs and benefits. The Commission therefore seeks 
comment on the manner in which the NPT should be deployed for any 
upcoming EAS tests.
    13. The Commission first seeks comment on whether it should require 
that the NPT be activated like any other EAS alert. This option, 
according to commenters, offers almost all the benefits of full EAN 
emulation. However, it would not test the reset functionality of EAS 
equipment by lasting longer than two minutes, and it would not override 
all other EAS alerts. An NPT event code that does not exceed two 
minutes in length is consistent with the existing EAS rules, as the EAN 
is the only event code that does not limit the duration of the alert. 
The Bureau currently has the delegated authority to require that EAS 
Participants use the NPT for future national testing, and the Bureau 
may exercise this authority at any time to require the NPT to be used 
in a nationwide EAS test in a manner consistent with the current rules, 
i.e., that it be treated like any other event code. Treating the NPT 
like any other EAS activation also would satisfy FEMA's stated desire 
for a test in near future, and would do so in a manner that imposes 
minimal costs on EAS Participants. Thus, should FEMA decide to schedule 
a nationwide EAS test that does not exceed two minutes in length, the 
Bureau may, should this issue still be pending before the Commission, 
require that EAS Participants reprogram their EAS equipment to 
automatically process the NPT.
    14. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should revise 
its EAS rules to define the NPT as a test code that fully emulates the 
EAN in all of its characteristics--particularly its priority over any 
other message, and its indefinite length. The Commission notes that an 
NPT that fully emulates the EAN would create a test environment that 
closely approximates real emergency conditions, thereby maximizing the 
information that can be derived from testing the EAS with a non-EAN 
option. On the other hand, it would be a far more costly option for EAS 
Participants, and the extra time that it would take for EAS 
Participants to implement an EAN-emulating NPT would preclude FEMA's 
ability to use such an NPT for a test conducted in the near future. 
Thus, would the benefits of full emulation outweigh the costs? The 
Commission also seeks comment on whether a test that lasts more than 
two minutes is necessary. Can the question of whether EAS equipment 
will reset after the first two minutes of an EAN alert (or an EAN-
emulating NPT test) be answered in a test bed, or does such a test 
require that the entire ``daisy chain'' linkage be involved? If a test 
of more than two minutes is needed, could FEMA avoid the expense of 
such a test by using the EAN option instead? How would the cost of 
conducting another EAN-based nationwide test compare with the costs of 
conducting a test with an NPT that fully emulates the EAN? What were 
the costs to EAS Participants to participate in the first nationwide 
EAS test, including any efforts to conduct public outreach in advance 
of the test? Would the costs of a new EAN-based test differ from those 
of the first nationwide EAS test? How would such costs compare to a 
test using the NPT that operates within a two minute duration, the 
approach suggested by some commenters? Commenters should offer specific 
figures and data to support their comments and should include costs of 
any public outreach that would be required with each type of test. The 
Commission also seeks comment on whether the three-year time period for 
full implementation of an EAN-emulating NPT, suggested by some 
commenters, is reasonable or necessary. Can an EAN emulating NPT be 
deployed in a shorter period of time? Would deploying an NPT that fully 
emulates the EAN increase costs fourfold, as some commenters suggest? 
Parties should offer specific technical and cost-based support to their 
comments.

C. Updated EAS Test Reporting System (ETRS)

    15. In the Third Report and Order, the Commission adopted a new 
Sec.  11.61(a)(3)(iv) to require that EAS Participants submit 
nationwide test result data to the Commission within 45 days following 
the test (i.e., by December 27, 2011, for the first test). EAS 
Participants had the option of complying with the reporting 
requirements either with a paper filing or through an electronic 
reporting system.
    16. As the Bureau reported in the EAS Nationwide Test Report, over 
16,000 EAS Participants submitted test result data; the vast majority 
chose to file electronically rather than submit paper filings. The data 
available from the electronic reporting system allowed the Commission 
to generate reports that would not have been feasible with paper 
filings alone. As a result of the positive response to the electronic 
filing system employed in the first nationwide EAS test, the EAS 
Nationwide Test Report recommended that the Commission develop a new 
electronic reporting system and related database to expedite filing of 
test result data by EAS Participants. Subsequently, at its March 20, 
2014 meeting, the CSRIC also recommended that the Commission adopt a 
federal government database to contain EAS Participants' monitoring 
assignments.
1. Mandating ETRS
    17. EAS Participants and other stakeholders support use of an 
electronic reporting system to facilitate filing of EAS test result 
data. NAB suggests improvements, primarily the addition of a filing 
receipt to provide verification that the EAS Participant has 
successfully and timely submitted its report.
    18. Based on the preference shown for the electronic filing option 
prior to and during the first nationwide EAS test, and on the largely 
positive responses to a permanent electronic filing system in general, 
the Commission proposes to designate in the Commission's EAS rules the 
ETRS (as defined below) as the primary EAS reporting system, and to 
require that all EAS Participants submit nationwide EAS test result 
data electronically via the ETRS for any future national EAS tests. As 
the Commission discusses in further detail

[[Page 41165]]

below, the Commission also proposes to require EAS Participants to file 
ETRS Form One, the self-identifying portion of the ETRS, within one 
year of the effective date of the rules the Commission ultimately 
adopts, and to update the information that EAS Participants are 
required to supply in Form One on a yearly basis, and as required by 
any updates or waivers to EAS State Plans.
    19. The ETRS adopted for the 2011 Nationwide EAS Test is comprised 
of the following three web-based forms: Form One asked each EAS 
Participant for identifying and background information, including EAS 
designation, EAS monitoring assignments, facility location, equipment 
type, and contact information, and other relevant data. Form Two asked 
each EAS Participant whether it received the Nationwide EAS Test alert 
code and, if required to do so, whether the EAS Participant propagated 
the alert code downstream. Form Three asked each EAS Participant to 
submit detailed information regarding its receipt and propagation, if 
applicable, of the alert code, including an explanation of any 
complications in receiving or propagating the code. The Commission 
proposes that it adopt the identical format for the permanent ETRS, 
subject to the revisions it proposes below regarding filing receipts 
and the pre-population of the forms with identifying data already in 
the Commission's possession. The Commission seeks comment on this 
proposal and the proposed forms.
    20. Based on the Bureau's experience during the first nationwide 
EAS test, and on stakeholder comments, the Commission also agrees that 
the next iteration of the ETRS should give filers the capability to 
review filings prior to final submission and to retrieve previous 
filings to correct errors. The Commission seeks comment on this 
proposal.
    21. We further propose that EAS Participants not be required to 
input into the ETRS data that EAS Participants may have previously 
provided to the Commission elsewhere. The Commission agrees with the 
recent CSRIC Report that pre-populating the ETRS with data such as 
transmitter location, call signs, etc., that are already in the 
possession of the Commission would lessen the burden of filing and make 
the reporting process more cost effective for EAS Participants. The 
Commission seeks comment on what data should be included in this 
category. The Commission further proposes that data drawn from other 
systems, such as a licensing database, not be editable in the ETRS by 
the filer. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
2. State Plan Data Tables
    22. The Commission next proposes that it revise its rules to 
integrate the identifying information provided by Form One of the new 
ETRS into the EAS State Plans filed pursuant to Sec.  11.21 of the 
Commission's EAS rules. This rule requires that EAS State Plans include 
``a data table, in computer readable form, clearly showing monitoring 
assignments and the specific primary and backup path for EAN messages 
that are formatted in the EAS Protocol (specified in Sec.  11.31), from 
the PEP to each station in the plan.'' The rules further require that 
such tables be combined into an FCC Mapbook that ``organizes all 
broadcast stations and cable systems according to their State, EAS 
Local Area, and EAS designation.'' The CSRIC endorses the use of a 
tabular matrix for the collection of test data from EAS Participants. 
To date, however, the State Emergency Communication Committees (SECCs) 
have not been able to supply the Commission with the data necessary to 
populate the data tables or Mapbook.
    23. In the Commission's review of the data from the first 
nationwide EAS test, it noted that the data from Form One of the ETRS 
could be used to create the required data table and the FCC Mapbook, 
and that both could be maintained in a dynamic, consistently updated 
manner. The Commission believes that using the data from the ETRS in 
this fashion has great value, as it transforms the ETRS from a one-time 
burden into a permanently useful tool that will allow the Commission 
and authorized state authorities to see how an EAN (or any other EAS 
alert) is actually propagated through the EAS architecture, and see any 
vulnerabilities and single points of failure in the distribution 
architecture before such a failure could cause real harm. Accordingly, 
the Commission proposes that the ETRS be maintained on a permanent 
basis to act as a complement to the EAS State Plans that are filed with 
the Commission.

D. Visual Crawl and Audio Accessibility

1. Visual Crawl
    24. It is the Commission's statutory obligation, as well as 
longstanding Federal government and Commission policy, to ensure that 
all members of the public, including those with disabilities, have 
access to emergency alerts. The Commission's EAS rules are designed to 
provide such accessibility by requiring that EAS Participants deliver 
EAS alerts in both audio and visual form. The visual form of an EAS 
alert generally takes the form of a text crawl that is displayed at the 
top of the screen.
    25. According to several comments and other feedback the Commission 
received, the test message transmitted during the first nationwide test 
was inaccessible to many consumers. For example, stakeholders note that 
the visual message in some of the text crawls generated for the EAN 
scrolled across the screen too quickly, or its font was difficult to 
read. Others state that ``the national EAS test message did not 
consistently present the alert in both audio and visual formats.''
    26. In the EAS Operational Issues Public Notice, the Bureau noted 
that although the EAS rules require that EAS alerts be presented 
visually, the rules do not specify font size or text crawl speed. The 
Bureau sought comment on whether and how the Commission should address 
this lack of guidance. Specifically, the Bureau asked whether the 
Commission should encourage the development of industry best practices, 
amend its EAS rules to establish minimum specifications for the 
presentation of EAS text crawls, or propose other solutions. The Bureau 
invited suggestions for how specifications could be crafted for all 
text crawl elements.
    27. Most commenters agree that EAS alert accessibility must be 
improved. Some commenters emphasize the importance of equal access to 
information, and assert that information provided visually also should 
be provided audibly, and vice versa. Despite this general agreement, no 
party provides detailed recommendations for achieving this goal. In 
addition, EAS Participants and other stakeholders argue that, rather 
than ``one size fits all'' rules, the Commission should address this 
issue by encouraging the development of voluntary best practices either 
through an initiative spearheaded by the CSRIC, or by encouraging 
consumer groups and industry organizations to engage in joint efforts 
themselves. Industry stakeholders argue that text crawls are generated 
in multiple fashions and by various pieces of equipment other than EAS 
encoder/decoders. As a result, these commenters argue, the process is 
too ``decentralized'' to be encompassed within the EAS rules. 
Commenters also claim--without supplying specific cost data--that any 
Commission ``one size fits all'' rules would lead to ``astronomical'' 
costs because such rules would necessitate replacement of much of the 
multi-use hardware involved in message display.
    28. We are mindful of EAS Participants' concerns about cost and

[[Page 41166]]

the desire for flexibility in managing their technical systems. 
However, all members of the public should be able to receive timely and 
accurate EAS alerts so that they can take quick action to protect their 
lives as well as those of family members. It is critical, therefore, 
that the EAS be accessible to all members of the public, including 
those with disabilities. Moreover, as noted above, FEMA expresses a 
desire to test the EAS again in the near future. Even more importantly, 
a national emergency requiring activation of the EAS by the President 
could come at any time. In light of this, the Commission believes it is 
imperative that the Commission consider the option of establishing 
minimum accessibility requirements. In so doing, the Commission's goal 
is to ensure that EAS alerts are delivered in a format that is readily 
understood by the public and therefore can accomplish their intended 
impact, i.e., to warn the public about impending threats to life and 
property. Accordingly, as discussed below, the Commission proposes to 
amend its EAS rules to require minimum standards for EAS visual crawls, 
specifically with respect to crawl speed, completeness and placement. 
The Commission seeks comment on these proposals. In addition, the 
Commission encourages parties representing industry and consumers, 
including those with disabilities to work together to develop 
alternative recommendations and to submit them promptly in the record 
for the Commission's consideration in this proceeding.
    29. Crawl Speed: The Commission believes that its Commission's 
closed captioning rules provide a useful guide in addressing the visual 
crawl speed issue. Those rules require that ``captions be displayed on 
the screen at a speed that can be read by viewers.'' The Commission 
believes that such a standard should apply to EAS alerts and thus 
propose to revise Sec.  11.51(d) of the Commission's EAS rules to 
require that an EAS text crawl be displayed on the screen at a speed 
that can be read by viewers. The Commission seeks comment on this 
proposal. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on what might 
constitute ``a speed that can be read by viewers,'' and whether the 
Commission should include a specific crawl speed in the EAS rules. Is 
there research demonstrating whether text crawls of certain word or 
character lengths and speeds are more or less challenging to read or 
comprehend? The Commission also seeks comment on a standard for non-
English alerts.
    30. Completeness: Under the closed captioning rules, 
``completeness'' requires that closed captions must run from the 
beginning to the end of the program, to the fullest extent possible. 
The Commission believes that a text crawl describing the nature of the 
EAS alert or test should continue throughout the duration of the EAS 
activation. Thus, the Commission proposes to revise Sec.  11.51(d) of 
the Commission's EAS rules to require that an EAS text crawl must be 
displayed continuously throughout the duration of any EAS activation. 
The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
    31. Placement: Under the Commission's closed captioning rules, 
captions must be ``well-placed.'' In other words, they ``shall not 
block other important visual content on the screen,'' caption font 
should be sized appropriately for legibility, lines of captions should 
not overlap one another, and captions should be adequately positioned 
so that they do not run off the edge of the video screen. The 
Commission believes that the EAS rules already contain a portion of 
this requirement, stating that an EAS text crawl ``shall be displayed 
at the top of the television screen or where it will not interfere with 
other visual messages.'' The Commission believes that adding the 
remainder of the closed caption placement standard to its EAS rules 
would address the difficulties that certain members of the public had 
understanding the text crawls during the first nationwide EAS test, and 
would do so in a manner that provides EAS Participants and other EAS 
stakeholders with sufficient flexibility to accommodate various 
broadcast and MVPD ecosystems. Accordingly, the Commission proposes 
that it revise Sec.  11.51(d) of the Commission's EAS rules to 
incorporate the language of the closed captioning rules with respect to 
text crawl placement. In other words, an EAS text crawl must be 
displayed in a manner that (1) does not block other important visual 
content on the screen, (2) utilizes a text font that is sized 
appropriately for legibility, (3) prevents overlap of lines of text 
with one another, and (4) positions the text crawl adequately so it 
does not run off the edge of the video screen. Similarly, the 
Commission proposes prohibiting MVPD EAS Participants from placing 
crawls or other information on the video screen in a manner that would 
interfere with the ability of the public to read EAS crawls. The 
Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
2. Audio Accessibility
    32. At the outset, the Commission notes that FEMA has already 
addressed and corrected the primary audio quality problems experienced 
during the first nationwide EAS test, i.e., a technical malfunction 
that occurred at the National Primary level that affected the 
underlying quality of EAS audio nationwide. Thus, its primary concern 
in this Section is to seek comment on how the Commission may improve 
the accessibility of EAS audio by taking steps to ensure that the audio 
and visual elements of an EAS alert convey the identical, or at a 
minimum, comparable text. Currently, the visual element of an EAS alert 
(i.e., the text crawl) is generated from header codes (location, event, 
etc.) that are preprogrammed into EAS equipment, whereas the audio 
portion may be recorded by the alert originator (e.g., the National 
Weather Service). Because the audio and visual elements of an EAS alert 
are generated from two different sources, they can differ significantly 
in language and detail, notwithstanding that they are describing the 
same event. The Commission believes that for an EAS alert to be fully 
accessible, the audio and visual elements should convey the same 
message. What steps would need to be taken to achieve this goal? For 
example, how would the Commission ensure that the public is able to 
receive the same, i.e., comparable, information, irrespective of 
whether they receive the alert in an audio or visual format? In 
furtherance of this goal, the Commission notes that the implementation 
of the CAP standard enables alert message originators to include 
enhanced text in their messages, and that the Commission's rules 
require EAS Participants to utilize enhanced text, when available, for 
the generation of text crawls. The Commission notes that the ECIG 
Implementation Guide states that ``[i]t is a recommended practice that 
the recorded audio message match the alert text display message.'' 
Should the Commission take further steps to achieve this goal?
    33. We also note that text to speech (TTS) may also offer a 
mechanism to provide audio-visual alert message parity. TTS refers to 
an artificial process of converting text into human speech. Although 
the Commission initially declined to allow EAS equipment to use TTS 
software to generate the visual crawl element of an EAS alert, in the 
Fifth Report and Order on Reconsideration, in response to a strong 
record of support for TTS solutions, the Commission revised its earlier 
position and allowed EAS Participants to deploy text-to-speech 
solutions to generate the audio portion of EAS alerts. To what extent 
are EAS Participants currently using TTS technology to generate EAS

[[Page 41167]]

audio? Has it proven to be an effective manner of ensuring parity 
between the audio and visual elements of an EAS alert? The Commission 
seeks comment on whether text-to-speech is sufficiently technologically 
advanced to become a mandatory element of the Commission's EAS Rules.

E. Proposed Effective Dates

    34. Based on the record, the Commission proposes that a reasonable, 
minimally burdensome time for all EAS Participants to replace 
unsupported equipment and to perform necessary firmware upgrades and 
required testing to implement the proposed rules regarding the national 
location code, the ETRS and the Commission's proposed accessibility 
rules would be six months from the effective date of any rules the it 
may adopt as a result of this NPRM. The Commission believes that the 
public safety benefits of the Commission's proposed rules, plus FEMA's 
stated desire to conduct a further test, militates for a more rapid 
implementation period than commenters request. As the record indicates, 
most equipment and systems already have the capability to implement the 
Commission's proposed rules. The Commission believes that a six month 
period will allow EAS Participants and equipment manufacturers to 
schedule any required equipment replacement, software or certification 
upgrades and necessary testing, and that this schedule will have 
minimal impact on the costs discussed in this Section. The Commission 
seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission notes that the record 
indicates that an NPT that fully emulates an EAN cannot be implemented 
in six months and that, if FEMA wants to have a test in such a near 
term, a test of more than two minutes using an NPT would not be an 
option. The Commission seeks comment on this view, and also seeks 
comment on what would be a reasonable date for compliance with the 
Commission's proposed rule requiring the NPT fully to emulate the EAN. 
For example, would a three year period from the effective date of any 
rules adopted as a result of this NPRM be appropriate?

F. Cost Benefit Analysis

    35. In this Section, the Commission compares the expected costs 
that would be imposed by the Commission's proposed rules to their 
expected benefits and seek comment on the accuracy of these estimates. 
The Commission believes that the significant public safety benefit of 
its proposed rules far outweighs the costs associated with those rules. 
In particular, the Commission believes that by proposing rules that 
require EAS equipment to distribute alerts consistently, accessibly, 
and in a manner that can be accurately measured, it ensures that the 
public is provided with the most effective alerting system currently 
possible. The Commission's cost estimates are based on industry figures 
submitted in response to questions raised in the EAS Operational Issues 
Public Notice. According to these figures, the Commission anticipates 
that the Commission's proposed requirements would impose costs on EAS 
Participants in three affected areas: (1) EAS national location code 
and NPT in lieu of EAN for tests, (2), Electronic Test Reporting 
System, and (3) visual and audio accessibility. As the Commission 
discusses in greater detail in below, the Commission seeks comment on 
estimates that put the total cost for EAS Providers to implement the 
proposed requirements between $7.0 million and $13.6 million. With 
regard to benefits, the Commission estimates that the minimum expected 
benefit common to all of the Commission's proposed changes is $9.1M. 
The Commission believes all three proposed changes are essential for 
the EAS to function properly and thus share the common benefit of 
saving human lives, reducing injuries, mitigating property damage, and 
minimizing the disruption of the national economy.
    36. Our proposed rules pertaining to the national location code and 
NPT, as well as those pertaining to test reporting and accessibility, 
will establish the baseline for a rigorous program of EAS testing and 
use that will allow the Commission to continue to improve the EAS. 
Further, the Commission's proposed rules will allow the Commission to 
quantify the EAS's effectiveness as a lifesaving tool, as well as its 
progress towards CAP compatibility, an improvement that will enhance 
the overall efficacy of the EAS in the future. The Commission therefore 
requests comment that will enable it to weigh the costs and benefits 
associated with these proposed rules. The Commission requests that 
commenters provide specific data and information, such as actual or 
estimated dollar figures for each specific cost or benefit addressed, 
including a description of how the data or information was calculated 
or obtained and any documentation or other support.
    37. Proposed National Location Code Rules. Commenters claim that 
the costs associated with implementing the Commission's proposed rules 
regarding the national location code will include both operational 
costs associated with the installation, configuration, and testing of 
necessary software updates in EAS and related equipment, as well as 
capital costs associated with hardware replacement, where necessary. 
According to Sage and Trilithic, operational costs for most broadcaster 
EAS Participants will be minimal. According to NCTA, cable provider EAS 
Participants face additional operational costs associated with 
programming middleware, set-top boxes and other downstream equipment to 
accept the new code. Commenters agree that the costs associated with 
implementing the Commission's proposed rules can be reduced by bundling 
all required upgrades into a regularly scheduled system update. 
Further, EAS Participants in both the cable and broadcast industries 
may need to replace older EAS equipment if they are using EAS equipment 
that has exceeded its useful life, is no longer supported by the 
manufacturer, and thus cannot be upgraded to comply with the 
Commission's proposed rules. The Commission seeks comment on the 
reasonableness of this analysis and its underlying assumptions.
    38. NCTA asserts that implementing the Commission's proposed rules 
regarding the national location code will present cable service 
provider EAS Participants with approximately $1.1 million in aggregated 
capital and operational costs for the entire cable industry. The 
Commission seeks comment on this assessment, and whether such costs are 
outweighed by the benefits of adopting the proposed national location 
code. While broadcasters would not experience the operational costs 
that cable providers would face, there are approximately three times as 
many broadcast-based EAS Participant facilities as there are cable EAS 
Participant facilities. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether a similar $1.1 million figure would apply to the broadcast 
industry, including the reasonableness of this analysis and its 
underlying assumptions.
    39. Proposed NPT rules. The costs associated with implementation of 
the rules the Commission proposes regarding the NPT would vary, 
depending on whether the NPT is deployed as a ``normal'' EAS alert, or 
whether the Commission revises its rules to implement the NPT in a 
manner that fully emulates an EAN. In the case of the former, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether the costs would be de minimis. The 
NPT is already present in the EAS rules and programmed into EAS 
equipment. As Sage notes, costs

[[Page 41168]]

would largely be limited to those incurred by EAS Participants having 
to manually reprogram their EAS equipment to automatically respond to 
the NPT, a cost which could further be mitigated by bundling any 
reprogramming with that required for the national location code. Should 
the Commission revise its rules to define the NPT as an event code that 
would fully emulate the EAN, NCTA asserts that such a requirement would 
add approximately $3.3 million to the cost, thus totaling $4.4 million 
to accommodate all rules changes, and would require approximately three 
years, as opposed to one year, to complete. According to NCTA, these 
additional costs would be necessary because requiring the NPT to 
emulate the EAN would require the underlying SCTE 18 standard to be 
revised, sub-standards rewritten, EAS and MVPD downstream equipment 
reprogrammed, and significant testing to be undertaken. Although 
broadcasters in general do not have as extensive downstream facilities 
as do cable facilities, they do possess such facilities, and this also 
will be affected by the necessary standards revision. Thus, the 
Commission seeks comment whether the same three year time frame would 
also be borne by the broadcast industry. Further, and as the Commission 
discusses above, the greater number of broadcasters may increase their 
overall cost to an amount that could approximate the $4.4 million 
dollar cost for cable. The Commission notes, however, that costs 
associated with use of the NPT could be offset by savings elsewhere. 
For example, as the Commission discusses in paragraph 15 above, EAS 
Participant stakeholder organizations provided ``This is only a Test'' 
slides for broadcast and MVPD EAS Participants to display during the 
test, a requirement that would be obviated were the NPT to be used. 
Further, as noted in the EAS Nationwide Test Report, the various 
stakeholders engaged in significant outreach to avoid any public 
confusion associated with the use of the live code EAN. The Commission 
seeks comment on whether all parties would incur cost savings 
associated with not having to conduct such ``live code'' test outreach, 
and if so, what such cost savings might be. The Commission otherwise 
seeks comment on the reasonableness of this analysis and its underlying 
assumptions.
    40. Proposed ETRS Rules. Regarding the Commission's proposed ETRS 
rules, the Commission seeks comment on whether any costs that arise 
from the adoption of the ETRS, either for test reporting purposes or 
for integration into Commission's EAS State Plan rules will be minimal. 
Most of the information that the Commission proposes EAS Participants 
submit to the ETRS has already been populated in other FCC databases, 
and thus compliance with this requirement may require little further 
action beyond a simple review for accuracy. For the few data fields 
that EAS Participants would need to supply, the Commission has already 
determined that compliance would entail a one-time cost of 
approximately $125.00 per EAS Participant, a figure that has already 
been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget. 
Accordingly, the cost associated with the Commission's proposed ETRS 
rules may be a one-time cost of $125.00 per EAS Participant, or 
approximately $3.4 million in the aggregate for all EAS Participants. 
The Commission seeks comment on the reasonableness of this analysis and 
its underlying assumptions.
    41. Accessibility Rules. Finally, regarding the accessibility 
standards that the Commission proposes, the Commission breaks these 
down into their two constituent elements: the visual text crawl element 
and the audio element. With regard to the visual text crawl element, 
one approach to estimating its cost would be the methodology adopted by 
the Commission in its Closed Captioning Order. Using this approach, the 
Commission calculates that text crawls might be necessary for 
approximately 50 hours of alerts. Thus, at a cost of $500 an hour, if 
the Commission were requiring EAS closed captions, the aggregate costs 
of the Commission's proposed visual crawl rules for all EAS 
Participants under this methodology could be as much as $25,000. 
However, EAS text crawls are not closed captions. They are largely 
generated automatically and employ the same or similar language for the 
extreme weather and child abduction incidents that comprise the vast 
majority of EAS alerts, and thereby require far less time to produce. 
Thus, the costs associated with that proposed rule change may be de 
minimis, potentially far less than $25,000. The Commission seeks 
comment on this analysis.
    42. Regarding the Commission's proposed audio accessibility rules, 
as the Commission discusses above, it believes that an effective way to 
ensure that the audio and text portions of an EAS alert are equivalent 
is to use CAP-based text to speech functionalities. Thus, the 
Commission's cost estimate for the Commission's proposed audio 
equivalency rule is based on the aggregate cost for all EAS 
Participants to employ TTS. The Commission believes that the number of 
EAS Participants that would need to employ hardware and/or software TTS 
upgrades is approximately 2,750. Given that the TTS upgrade will cost, 
on average, $500, the aggregate one-time cost for EAS Participants to 
comply with the Commission's proposed audio equivalency rules could be 
no more than approximately $1.4 million (i.e., 2,750 x $500 = 
$1,375,000). The Commission seeks comment on this analysis.
    43. Comparison of total costs and benefits. The EAS must remain a 
resilient public alert and warning tool if it is to save lives and 
protect property during times of national, state, regional, and local 
emergencies. The Commission seeks comment on whether its proposals are 
the most cost-effective methods to accomplish the goal of ensuring that 
the EAS is sufficiently robust to perform its life saving task, or 
whether there are more effective means available. By aggregating the 
three cost components discussed above, the Commission estimates that 
the total cost of the Commission's proposed rules would at most be 
$13.6 million. One measure against which this cost can be balanced is 
the Department of Transportation model, which estimates the value of 
risk reduction, measured in terms of an expected life saved, to be $9.1 
million. Under this yardstick, even two lives saved could more than 
offset the costs of the system upgrades imposed by the Commission's 
proposals. The Commission seeks comment on whether the DOT statistic is 
the most appropriate yardstick to measure the benefits the Commission's 
proposals. The Commission seeks comment on whether there is a better 
measure for the Commission's NPT and ETRS proposals, and if so, 
commenters should specify what specific measure should be used. The 
Commission does note, however, that none of the commenters responding 
to the EAS Operational Issues Public Notice objected on the grounds 
that the cost of the Commission's proposed rules would be prohibitive, 
or even burdensome. The Commission encourages EAS Participants and 
equipment manufacturers to include with their comments any data 
relevant to the Commission's analysis of the costs and timing involved 
with the implementation of its proposals.

G. Other Issues

    44. The EAS Nationwide Test Report indicated that EAS equipment 
manufacturers had made inconsistent assumptions about whether the 
requirement in the EAS rules that the

[[Page 41169]]

EAS header code must not be amended, extended or abridged without FCC 
authorization pertained to an EAN, and whether the ``time of release'' 
element in the header code had any impact on the requirement in the 
rules that an EAN be transmitted immediately upon receipt. In the EAS 
Operational Issues Public Notice, the Bureau sought comment on whether 
the unique nature of the EAN as a mandatory nationwide live alert code 
somehow obviated the above stated requirements. As the Commission 
discusses in more detail below, it finds no basis to propose rule 
revisions nor does it seek comment on these issues, as the rules are 
clear on their face and it sees no reason for changing them.
1. Acknowledgement of All EAS Header Codes
    45. Section 11.31 of the Commission's EAS rules establishes the EAS 
protocol, a four-part message that contains the header code elements of 
an EAS alert. Header codes contain basic identifying information about 
the alert, including the identity of the message originator, the event 
code, the location code, the valid time period for the message, the 
Time of Release code, and the identification of the entity transmitting 
or retransmitting the message. Section 11.31(c) states that ``[t]he EAS 
protocol, including any codes, must not be amended, extended or 
abridged without FCC authorization.'' There is no exception for EANs, 
and, indeed, the definition of ``Emergency Action Notification (EAN)'' 
clearly envisions that EANs can be formatted in the EAS protocol as 
defined in Sec.  11.31.
    46. Despite this rule, some EAS manufacturers apparently programmed 
their EAS equipment to ignore some of the header codes by processing 
those codes as ``wildcards.'' This action resulted in a lack of 
uniformity in EAS message dissemination across the nation. In the EAS 
Operational Issues Public Notice, the Bureau sought comment on this 
practice, asking whether the unique nature of the EAN as a mandatory, 
nationwide, live alert obviated the need for EAS equipment to 
acknowledge header code elements such as the location code.
    47. Based on its review, the Commission finds that Sec.  11.31 
prohibits any amendment, extension or abridgement of any part of the 
EAS protocol, except in cases where the FCC has authorized such action. 
As wildcards and other shortcuts serve to ``abridge'' the EAS protocol, 
they are prohibited by the FCC rules. While the Commission recognizes 
that these shortcuts may have been taken to address gaps associated 
with the EAN (e.g., lack of a national location code), there is nothing 
in the rules that allows for a different result in the case of an EAN 
or any other type of EAS alert. Indeed, use of such programming 
shortcuts, in the absence of FCC authorization, undermines the 
effectiveness of the EAS. As several commenters note, the presence of 
EAS header codes enhances the reliability of the EAS ecosystem and is 
necessary for header validity checking, and duplicate detection. 
According to commenters, even in equipment that uses wildcards, if any 
header code element is missing from an alert, equipment currently 
deployed in the field will discard otherwise valid messages. Finally, 
the use of wildcards and other programming shortcuts also undermines 
EAS testing in that such actions can preclude the Commission, FEMA and 
other stakeholders from gaining an accurate picture of whether the EAS 
works in the manner contemplated by FCC rules and other standards.
2. Retransmission of EAN Immediately Upon Receipt
    48. The Commission's rules require that an EAN must be broadcast 
``immediately'' upon receipt. As the Bureau noted in its report, 
although FEMA initiated the alert at 2:00 p.m. EST, some EAS equipment 
apparently held the test alert for release until 2:03 EST, apparently 
because FEMA erroneously included a Time of Release code indicating 
2:03 p.m. EST, three minutes after the scheduled start time of the 
test. As the EAS Nationwide Test Report indicated, this caused further 
delay to EAS message propagation.
    49. Several of the Commission's rules make clear that the EAN must 
be transmitted upon receipt. No rule provides for the transmission 
based on the Time of Release. Simply put, under the Commission's rules, 
EAS equipment must transmit the EAN immediately upon receipt, 
regardless of the Time of Release provided by the alert originator. The 
Commission notes that most EAS manufacturers understand this reading of 
the rule. Indeed, one commenter notes that equipment manufacturers have 
integrated the ``transmission upon immediate release'' requirement into 
current EAS technical standards which apply to broadcast as well as 
CAP-based EAS.
    50. Requiring transmission of EANs immediately upon receipt is 
consistent with the Commission's goal of ensuring that the public has 
access to timely and accurate EAS alerts. As some commenters argue, any 
delay in processing an EAN undermines its value as a tool for the 
President of the United States to communicate with the American people 
in an emergency. Moreover, retransmitting an EAN alert immediately upon 
receipt is the only possible method to transmit alerts uniformly and 
consistently within an EAS ecosystem that is not time synchronized. Any 
divergence from the immediate release would have a ripple effect 
throughout the system that could affect the receipt of the EAN by other 
EAS Participants and the public.

H. Procedural Matters

1. Ex Parte Rules
    51. The proceeding initiated by this NPRM shall be treated as 
``permit-but-disclose'' proceedings in accordance with the Commission's 
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy 
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral 
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a 
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons 
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda 
summarizing the presentation must: (1) List all persons attending or 
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte 
presentation was made; and (2) summarize all data presented and 
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted 
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already 
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other 
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such 
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other 
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where 
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with rule Sec.  1.1206(b). In proceedings governed 
by rule Sec.  1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a 
method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and 
memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments 
thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system 
available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format 
(e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this 
proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte 
rules.

[[Page 41170]]

2. Comment Filing Procedures
    52. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and 
reply comments in response to this NPRM on or before the dates 
indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed 
using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See 
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 
(1998).
    [ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
    [ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties that choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy 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.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    1. 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 are 
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of 
before entering the building.
    2. 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.
    3. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must 
be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
3. Accessible Formats
    53. To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), 
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
4. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    54. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5 
U.S.C. 604, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this document. 
The IRFA is set forth in Appendix A. Written public comments are 
requested in the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with 
the same filing deadlines as comments filed in response to this NPRM as 
set forth on the first page of this document, and have a separate and 
distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.
5. Paperwork Reduction Analysis
    55. This NPRM contains proposed new or modified information 
collection requirements. 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 this 
document, as required by PRA. In addition, pursuant to the Small 
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the Commission seeks specific 
comment on how it might ``further reduce the information collection 
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''

Ordering Clauses

    56. 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), 154(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 544(g), 606, 
and 615, this NPRM IS adopted.
    57. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a 
copy of this NPRM including the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of subjects in 47 CFR part 11

    Emergency alerting, Radio, Television.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 11 to read as 
follows:

PART 11--EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM (EAS)

0
1. The authority citation for 47 CFR part 11 continues to read as 
follows:

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  11.21 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  11.21  State and local area plans and FCC Mapbook.

* * * * *
    (a) The State EAS Plan contains procedures for State emergency 
management and other State officials, the NWS, and EAS Participants' 
personnel to transmit emergency information to the public during a 
State emergency using the EAS. EAS State Plans should include a data 
table, in computer readable form, clearly showing monitoring 
assignments and the specific primary and backup path for emergency 
action notification (``EAN'') messages that are formatted in the EAS 
Protocol (specified in Sec.  11.31), from the PEP to each station in 
the plan. If a state's emergency alert system is capable of initiating 
EAS messages formatted in the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP), its EAS 
State Plan must include specific and detailed information describing 
how such messages will be aggregated and distributed to EAS 
Participants within the state, including the monitoring requirements 
associated with distributing such messages. Consistent with the 
requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(iv) Sec.  11.61of this part, EAS 
Participants shall provide the identifying information required by Form 
One of the EAS Test Reporting System (ETRS) no later than 60 days after 
the effective date of this Subsection, and shall renew the Form One 
information on a yearly basis or as required by any revision of the EAS 
Participant's State EAS Plan filed pursuant to Sec.  11.21.
* * * * *
    (c) The FCC Mapbook is based on the consolidation of the data table 
required in each State EAS plan with the identifying data contained in 
Form One of the ETRS. The Mapbook organizes all EAS Participants 
according to their State, EAS Local Area, and EAS designation.
0
3. Amend Sec.  11.31 by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  11.31  EAS protocol.

* * * * *
    (f) The State, Territory and Offshore (Marine Area) ANSI number 
codes (SS) are as follows. County ANSI numbers (CCC) are contained in 
the State EAS Mapbook.

[[Page 41171]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         FIPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All U.S..............................................                 00
State:
    AL...............................................                 01
    AK...............................................                 02
    AZ...............................................                 04
    AR...............................................                 05
    CA...............................................                 06
    CO...............................................                 08
    CT...............................................                 09
    DE...............................................                 10
    DC...............................................                 11
    FL...............................................                 12
    GA...............................................                 13
    HI...............................................                 15
    ID...............................................                 16
    IL...............................................                 17
    IN...............................................                 18
    IA...............................................                 19
    KS...............................................                 20
    KY...............................................                 21
    LA...............................................                 22
    ME...............................................                 23
    MD...............................................                 24
    MA...............................................                 25
    MI...............................................                 26
    MN...............................................                 27
    MS...............................................                 28
    MO...............................................                 29
    MT...............................................                 30
    NE...............................................                 31
    NV...............................................                 32
    NH...............................................                 33
    NJ...............................................                 34
    NM...............................................                 35
    NY...............................................                 36
    NC...............................................                 37
    ND...............................................                 38
    OH...............................................                 39
    OK...............................................                 40
    OR...............................................                 41
    PA...............................................                 42
    RI...............................................                 44
    SC...............................................                 45
    SD...............................................                 46
    TN...............................................                 47
    TX...............................................                 48
    UT...............................................                 49
    VT...............................................                 50
    VA...............................................                 51
    WA...............................................                 53
    WV...............................................                 54
    WI...............................................                 55
    WY...............................................                 56
Terr.:
    AS...............................................                 60
    FM...............................................                 64
    GU...............................................                 66
    MH...............................................                 68
    MH...............................................                 68
    PR...............................................                 72
    PW...............................................                 70
    UM...............................................                 74
    VI...............................................                 78
Offshore Marine Areas \1\:
    Eastern North Pacific Ocean, and along U.S. West                  57
     Coast from Canadian border to Mexican border....
    North Pacific Ocean near Alaska, and along Alaska                 58
     coastline, including the Bering Sea and the Gulf
     of Alaska.......................................
    Central Pacific Ocean, including Hawaiian waters.                 59
    South Central Pacific Ocean, including American                   61
     Samoa waters....................................
    Western Pacific Ocean, including Mariana Island                   65
     waters..........................................
    Western North Atlantic Ocean, and along U.S. East                 73
     Coast, from Canadian border south to Currituck
     Beach Light, N.C................................
    Western North Atlantic Ocean, and along U.S. East                 75
     Coast, south of Currituck Beach Light, N.C.,
     following the coastline into Gulf of Mexico to
     Bonita Beach, FL., including the Caribbean......
    Gulf of Mexico, and along the U.S. Gulf Coast                     77
     from the Mexican border to Bonita Beach, FL.....
    Lake Superior....................................                 91

[[Page 41172]]

 
    Lake Michigan....................................                 92
    Lake Huron.......................................                 93
    Lake St. Clair...................................                 94
    Lake Erie........................................                 96
    Lake Ontario.....................................                 97
    St. Lawrence River above St. Regis...............                 98
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Effective May 16, 2002, analog radio and television broadcast
  stations, analog cable systems and wireless cable systems may upgrade
  their existing EAS equipment to add these marine area location codes
  on a voluntary basis until the equipment is replaced. All models of
  EAS equipment manufactured after August 1, 2003, must be capable of
  receiving and transmitting these marine area location codes. EAS
  Participants that install or replace their EAS equipment after
  February 1, 2004, must install equipment that is capable of receiving
  and transmitting these location codes.

0
4. Amend Sec.  11.51 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  11.51  EAS code and attention signal transmission requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) Analog and digital television broadcast stations shall transmit 
a visual message containing the Originator, Event, Location and the 
valid time period of an EAS message. Effective June 30, 2012, visual 
messages derived from CAP-formatted EAS messages shall contain the 
Originator, Event, Location and the valid time period of the message 
and shall be constructed in accordance with section 3.6 of the ``ECIG 
Recommendations for a CAP EAS Implementation Guide, Version 1.0'' (May 
17, 2010), except that if the EAS Participant has deployed an 
Intermediary Device to meet its CAP-related obligations, this 
requirement shall be effective June 30, 2015, and until such date shall 
be subject to the general requirement to transmit a visual message 
containing the Originator, Event, Location and the valid time period of 
the EAS message. If the message is a video crawl, it shall be 
displayed:
    (1) At the top of the television screen or where it will not 
interfere with other visual messages or otherwise block other important 
visual content on the screen,
    (2) At a speed that can be read by viewers,
    (3) Continuously throughout the duration of any EAS activation,
    (4) In a font sized appropriately for legibility,
    (5) In a manner where lines of any video crawl not overlap with one 
another, and are adequately positioned so they do not run off the edge 
of the video screen.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec.  11.61 by revising paragraph (a)(3)(iv) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  11.61  Tests of EAS procedures.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iv) Test results as required by the Commission shall be logged by 
all EAS Participants into the EAS Test Reporting System (ETRS) as 
follows.
    (A) EAS Participants shall provide the identifying information 
required by Form One initially no later than 60 days after the 
effective date of this Subsection, and shall renew the Form One 
information on a yearly basis or as required by any revision of the EAS 
Participant's State EAS Plan filed pursuant to Sec.  11.21.
    (B) ``Day of test'' data as required by Form Two shall be filed in 
the ETRS within 24 hours of any nationwide test or as otherwise 
required by the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.
    (C) Detailed post-test data as required by Form Three shall be 
filed in the ETRS within forty five (45) days following any nationwide 
test or as otherwise required by the Public Safety and Homeland 
Security Bureau.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-16417 Filed 7-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P