Review of the Emergency Alert System, 37167-37177 [2015-15805]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37167-37177]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15805]



[[Page 37167]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 11

[EB Docket No. 04-296; FCC 15-60]


Review of the Emergency Alert System

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) revises 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: Effective July 30, 2015, except for Sec.  11.21(a), and Sec.  
11.61(a)(3)(iv) which contain information collection requirements that 
have not been approved by OMB. The Federal Communications Commission 
will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the 
effective date.

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 Nicole On'gele at (202) 418-2991 or 
send an email to PRA@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Sixth 
Report and Order in EB Docket No. 04-296, FCC 15-60, adopted on June 1, 
2015 and released on June 3, 2015. 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.

I. Synopsis

1. Use of a National Location Code
    1. In the EAS Operational Issues NPRM,\1\ we proposed that EAS 
Participants must be capable of receiving and processing a national 
location code, and that ``six zeroes'' be designated as that code. We 
explained that adoption of a ``six zeroes'' location code would bring 
additional consistency to the EAS alert distribution hierarchy, and, 
along with our requirement that header codes not be ``amended, extended 
or abridged,'' could enable more precise geo-targeting of EAS alerts. 
We also explained that adoption of ``six zeroes'' as the national 
location code could have the additional long-term benefit of ensuring 
the desired harmony between our EAS rules and industry CAP standards, 
which, in turn, will facilitate the integration of the EAS into IP-
based alerting systems such as IPAWS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Review of the Emergency Alert System. 79 FR 41159 (July 15, 
2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Commenters unanimously supported our adoption of the ``six 
zeroes'' national location code. For the reasons set forth herein, we 
agree and accordingly adopt ``six zeroes'' as the national location 
code for any future nationwide EAS test, as well as for any future 
nationwide EAS alerts. The rule we adopt today requires that EAS 
Participants' EAS encoder/decoder equipment be capable of processing 
``000000'' in the location code field as a header code indicating that 
the alert is relevant to the entire United States.
    3. Implementation of ``six zeroes'' as the national location code 
will present negligible costs to EAS Participants because most EAS 
equipment deployed in the field already supports the ``six zeroes'' 
national location code or would require only a software update to 
provide such support. For example, NCTA asserts that cable providers 
may have to engage in firmware updates and testing to verify that the 
new code functions within their systems. For this reason, NCTA asserts 
that adopting ``six zeroes'' as 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. Similarly, in the EAS Operational Issues NPRM, we estimated 
that costs confronting broadcasters also would approach $1.1 million, 
for an aggregate cost of $2.2 million for the implementation of ``six 
zeroes'' as the national location code. No commenter challenges our 
estimated costs for either cable providers or broadcasters. Moreover, 
commenters agree this cost is justified by the benefits.
    4. Use of ``six zeroes'' as the national location code promises to 
improve the efficacy of the EAS. Adoption of ``six zeroes'' as the 
national location code has the long-term benefit of ensuring 
consistency between the EAS rules and industry CAP standards, which 
already recognize ``six zeroes'' as the national location code. This, 
in turn, will facilitate the integration of the EAS into the IP-based 
IPAWS. We note that use of a ``six zeroes'' location code is also 
consistent with our requirement that EAS header codes not be ``amended, 
extended, or abridged.'' We have observed that using a single 
locality's location code for a national alert can cause confusion. We 
also recognize that to issue an alert for the entire United States 
without recourse to a national location code would require two separate 
alerts because the EAS alert headers can only hold thirty-one distinct 
location codes. Thus, we agree with Trilithic that the use of a single 
national location code simplifies our national alerting infrastructure. 
Finally, Monroe opines that ``use of a national location code would 
provide improved geo-targeting of an EAN should the President wish to 
address a particular part of the country rather than the nation as a 
whole.'' In light of these benefits, we find that adoption of a ``six 
zeroes'' national location code serves the public interest in promoting 
the effective use of the EAS.
2. National Periodic Test Code (NPT)
    5. In the EAS Operational Issues NPRM, we proposed to amend our 
rules to allow use of the NPT for future EAS testing as a less 
burdensome and potentially less confusing alternative to the EAN. We 
also recognized that the NPT could be tailored in different ways, with 
different costs and benefits, and sought further comment on what 
operational requirements the Commission should require for the NPT to 
facilitate effective and minimally burdensome testing. Specifically, we 
sought to develop a more robust record on whether the NPT should: (a) 
Have the same two-minute maximum duration and limited priority as all 
other non-EAN EAS event codes; or (b) fully emulate the EAN in its 
mandatory priority and indefinite length. We stated that our intent was 
to provide FEMA with maximum flexibility to test the EAS in the most 
appropriate manner, while also articulating a clear and feasible 
standard for EAS Participants and other stakeholders. In this regard, 
we noted that, unlike an EAN-emulating NPT, an NPT that shares the 
priority

[[Page 37168]]

and two-minute limit of other alert event codes would accommodate 
FEMA's stated desire to perform a national EAS test in the near future, 
and would do so at a dramatically lower cost than an EAN-emulating NPT. 
We sought comment, in the alternative, on how the cost of conducting 
another EAN-based nationwide test, including any outreach specifically 
tied to use of the EAN, would compare with the costs of conducting a 
test with an NPT that fully emulates the EAN. We also noted that an NPT 
with limited duration and priority would have all of the benefits of 
full-EAN emulation, except that it would not test the reset function 
triggered by an alert lasting longer than two minutes. Finally, the 
Commission sought comment on whether the reset functionality triggered 
by an alert lasting longer than two minutes was testable in a test bed.
    6. Commenters unanimously agree that the NPT--not the EAN, and not 
an NPT that is reprogrammed to fully emulate the EAN--should be the 
national test event code. Accordingly, and for reasons discussed in 
further detail below, we adopt the NPT as the test event code for the 
purpose of nationwide EAS testing, and further require that the NPT as 
used in such tests be limited in duration to two minutes or less, and 
have normal priority. In order to comply with FEMA's stated intent that 
the NPT be disseminated with the ``same immediacy as the EAN,'' we 
further require that the NPT be retransmitted immediately upon receipt. 
We also reiterate that any national or occasional ``special'' EAS tests 
referred to in the part 11 rules that use the NPT will replace the 
required monthly test (RMT) of the EAS for any month in which such an 
NPT-based test is scheduled.
    7. The record indicates that the cost of upgrading EAS equipment to 
allow the NPT to function in the manner we adopt today will not be 
significant. The NPT is already present in Section 11.31 of the EAS 
rules as a required event code and, as such, has already been 
programmed into most EAS equipment. According to EAS equipment 
manufacturers, ``the NPT code is already recognized by virtually all 
existing EAS devices or can be easily enabled by EAS [P]articipants 
through simple reconfigurations of the code filters on their encoder 
devices.'' The costs that EAS Participants must incur as a result of 
our requirements are limited to those incurred by the relatively small 
number of EAS Participants who will have to manually change the 
settings of their EAS equipment to automatically respond to the NPT. 
Any additional regulatory costs that are imposed by this requirement 
will be further offset by the reduction in regulatory burdens that will 
result from broadcast, cable and satellite EAS Participants not having 
to explain to the public through video replacement slides and other 
outreach efforts that the alert displayed on the screen is not an 
actual alert.
    8. We contrast the minimal costs imposed by the NPT functionality 
we require today with those that EAS Participants would incur were the 
NPT to fully emulate the EAN. Commenters argue that full-EAN emulation 
would require three years to implement, and would cost at least $3.3 
million more than implementing an NPT with standard duration and 
priority. During that time, firmware in EAS equipment would need to be 
modified such that an NPT would take priority over all other alerts and 
to avoid triggering the reset functionality that automatically ends an 
alert after two minutes. The standards and other proprietary protocols 
governing the operation of downstream equipment also would need to be 
updated. That equipment would then need to be upgraded, tested, and 
deployed in order to achieve operational readiness for an EAS test with 
an EAN-emulating NPT. We also note that an NPT with maximum priority 
would supersede any live alert that may be delivered in an area of the 
country subject to the test. We believe that this would be inconsistent 
with the life-saving purpose of the EAS. For these reasons, we decline 
to adopt an NPT that fully emulates the EAN.
    9. We agree with commenters' assertions that an NPT that shares the 
priority and two minute time limit of all other event codes will still 
advance the most important goal of this proceeding, namely, to ready 
the national alerting infrastructure for a test that FEMA intends to 
conduct in the near future. Further, we agree with commenters that an 
NPT with the characteristics we require today will ``sufficiently test 
the reliability of the EAS dissemination ecosystem, providing adequate 
data for the Commission and FEMA to fully assess the hierarchy and 
dissemination of EAS alerts throughout the EAS system, via both legacy 
and CAP-enabled EAS devices.'' We also agree with commenters that the 
approach we take today has the benefit of being ``clearly marked as a 
test, preventing any public confusion.'' As noted earlier, the use of 
the EAN in conjunction with the first nationwide test necessitated 
extensive outreach to ensure that the public understood that the event 
was only a test; none of this outreach would be required with the use 
of the NPT. Finally, as commenters suggest, we note that it may be 
possible for FEMA to test EAS equipment's ability to successfully 
process the priority and duration elements of an EAN in a test bed, 
thus ensuring that all elements of the system are tested.

B. Electronic Test Reporting System

    10. As the Bureau reported in the EAS Nationwide Test Report, of 
the EAS Participants who submitted test result data, the vast majority 
chose to use the voluntary, temporary, electronic filing system 
employed for the first nationwide EAS test, rather than to submit paper 
filings. The data available from the electronic reporting system 
allowed the Commission to generate reports on EAS Participants' 
monitoring assignments at all points throughout the EAS' national 
distribution architecture that would not have been feasible with paper 
filings alone. As a result of the positive response to this temporary 
electronic filing system and the enhanced analytics it enabled, the EAS 
Nationwide Test Report recommended that the Commission develop a 
permanent electronic reporting system based on the system used during 
the first nationwide EAS test to provide a similarly efficient 
mechanism to expedite the filing of test result data by EAS 
Participants. Subsequently, at its March 20, 2014 meeting, the 
Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council 
(CSRIC) also recommended that the Commission develop a federal 
government database to contain EAS Participants' monitoring 
assignments.
    11. In the EAS Operational Issues NPRM, we proposed an improved 
electronic filing system and related database, the ETRS, based on the 
system the Commission used for the first nationwide EAS test. Use of 
this new system would be mandatory for EAS Participants, and the system 
would offer improvements over the prior version of the system designed 
to further expedite filing and minimize burdens on EAS Participants. As 
proposed, the ETRS would follow the structure of the system used in 
2011, and be composed of three forms. Form One would ask each EAS 
Participant for identifying and background information, including EAS 
designation, EAS monitoring assignments, facility location, equipment 
type, contact information, and other relevant data. Form Two would ask 
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 would ask each EAS Participant to

[[Page 37169]]

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.
    12. We also proposed certain improved processing procedures for the 
ETRS based on lessons learned from the first nationwide EAS test. In 
particular, we proposed that EAS Participants: (1) Would have the 
capability to review filings prior to final submission and to retrieve 
previous filings to correct errors; (2) would not be required to input 
data into the ETRS that EAS Participants have previously provided to 
the Commission elsewhere; and (3) would receive a filing receipt upon 
successful completion of the required report. We further proposed to 
revise our rules to integrate the identifying information provided by 
Form One of the new ETRS into the State EAS Plans filed pursuant to 
Section 11.21 of the Commission's EAS rules, and to consolidate those 
State EAS Plans into an EAS Mapbook. Finally, we proposed that EAS 
Participants submit Form One, the self-identifying portion of the ETRS, 
within one year of the effective date of the reporting rules, 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 State EAS Plans.
    13. Commenters unanimously support the Commission's ETRS proposal 
because it eases the data-entry burden on EAS Participants and 
facilitates effective analysis of the EAS infrastructure. We agree, and 
therefore adopt a revised version of the ETRS, as described below. 
Although the ETRS we adopt today largely resembles the 2011 version, it 
also contains certain improvements supported by commenters. For 
example, in order to minimize EAS Participants' filing burden, the ETRS 
database will be pre-populated with the types of identifying 
information (e.g., broadcaster call letters and geographic location of 
transmitters) that EAS providers have provided in the Universal 
Licensing System and related FCC databases. We find that pre-populating 
the ETRS in this manner is technically feasible and will encourage 
timely filings by streamlining the process and reducing burdens on 
filers significantly. We thus require that the ETRS have this 
functionality. Further, we agree that EAS Participants should be able 
to review their filings prior to final submission, to retrieve previous 
filings to correct errors for thirty days after submission, and to 
provide filers with a filing receipt verifying submission of a 
completed report. We also agree that the integration of ETRS data into 
the EAS Mapbook will ``ease the data-entry burden on EAS Participants 
and make the best use of the Commission's time and resources,'' and 
that the advent of ETRS gives the Commission the tool it needs to 
create the data tables necessary to complete it. The EAS Mapbook will 
also allow the Commission to maintain a centralized database containing 
all EAS monitoring assignments and alert distribution pathways, 
enabling new analyses of alert distribution at the national, state, and 
local levels. Accordingly, we require that the ETRS have the capability 
to create maps that indicate the propagation of an EAN throughout the 
EAS architecture. Finally, subsequent to any nationwide EAS test, we 
require EAS Participants to submit detailed information regarding their 
receipt and propagation, if applicable, of the alert code, including an 
explanation of any complications in receiving or propagating the code.
    14. In order to address commenters' concerns expressed in the 
record, we adopt the following additional requirements for the ETRS:
     The ETRS will require a filer to identify itself as a 
radio broadcaster, television broadcaster, cable system, wireless cable 
system, Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Satellite Digital Audio Radio 
Service (SDARS), wireline video system, or ``other,'' instead of the 
previous options (limited to ``broadcaster'' or ``cable operator'').
     The ETRS will reflect that the Physical System ID (PSID) 
is not necessarily equivalent to the geographic area in which an EAS 
Participant delivers emergency alerts. In addition to a PSID field, the 
system will include a new field called ``Geographic Zone'' so that EAS 
Participants can provide more granular information, if appropriate. For 
example, when the applicable PSID includes multiple geographic areas 
that span across counties or states, one ETRS filing for a PSID 
containing multiple ``Geographic Zones'' will be accepted.
     The ETRS will permit EAS Participants to supply latitude 
and longitude information as separate fields, using the North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83).
     The ETRS will require filers to supply contact information 
related to the individual who completes the form.
     The ETRS will allow for batch filing to facilitate more 
efficient reporting, consistent with the record on this issue.
     EAS Participants will be required to attest to the 
truthfulness of their filings in the ETRS, and are reminded that they 
are responsible for the accuracy of the information they file with the 
Commission, including any pre-populated data.
    15. We find that the ETRS will minimize filing burdens on EAS 
Participants. In comparison to equivalent paper filings, the costs 
associated with requiring EAS Participants to file test result data in 
ETRS will be minimal, and the database improvements we adopt today are 
aimed at streamlining the filing process and reducing these costs even 
further. Most of the information that we propose EAS Participants 
submit to the ETRS has already been populated in other FCC databases, 
and thus compliance with the ETRS merely requires EAS Participants to 
review and update the pre-populated data fields to ensure the 
information is accurate and up to date. For the few data fields that 
EAS Participants must complete, we conclude that compliance would 
entail a one-time cost of approximately $125.00 per EAS Participant. 
This $125.00 figure for the cost of complying with ETRS filing 
requirements is based on the cost of filing in the comparable system 
used for the first nationwide EAS test, a cost which has already been 
reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget in the 
Paperwork Reduction Act analysis. We also note that no commenter 
objects to this figure. Accordingly, we conclude that the aggregate 
cost for all EAS Participants to file test result data with the 
Commission is approximately $3.4 million.
    16. We decline to make several changes to the ETRS proposal that 
were requested in the record. We do not agree that EAS Participants 
should only be required to report test results once. The purpose of 
``day of test'' reporting is to provide an instant ``yes/no'' answer to 
whether the test worked for a particular EAS Participant. In the 
aggregate, such reporting provides the Commission and its Federal 
partners with near to near real-time situational awareness of all or 
any portion of the system. We believe that the burden of supplying such 
``yes/no'' information is small compared to the benefit of knowing, in 
close to real time, any specific geographic areas where a national test 
has not been successful. For example, such instant reporting would 
allow the Commission and FEMA to map a particular area where a test may 
have failed and immediately identify any point of failure within the 
EAS alert distribution hierarchy that may have caused downstream 
failures. We also do not agree that a streamlined waiver process is 
necessary for those few EAS Participants who do not have Internet 
access and may need to file their test

[[Page 37170]]

results on paper. While the Commission recognizes that some areas of 
the nation may lack widespread Internet access, we believe that it is 
unnecessary to develop a streamlined waiver process for this reason 
alone. We believe the existing waiver process under Section 1.3 of the 
Commission's rules is sufficient and will review such requests 
accordingly.
    17. Further, we will not, as Consumer Groups suggest, allow the 
ETRS to be used as a mechanism for consumer feedback about EAS 
accessibility and other test outcomes. The ETRS is a filing system for 
EAS Participants to facilitate increased understanding and improved 
analysis of the EAS alert distribution hierarchy, as well as for EAS 
Participants to identify or report any complications with the receipt 
or propagation of emergency alerts. As we discuss in further detail 
below, however, because of the importance of making EAS alerts more 
accessible, we will monitor all EAS accessibility complaints filed with 
the Commission through the normal channels. We also direct the Bureau, 
in coordination with the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) 
and other relevant Commission Bureaus and Offices, to establish a 
mechanism to receive public feedback on the test.
    18. We also do not adopt the suggestion that, because the ETRS 
database will be used to construct the EAS Mapbook, State Emergency 
Coordination Committees (SECCs) must be granted access to the ETRS 
beyond that envisioned by the presumptively confidential nature of ETRS 
filings. It is not feasible to provide SECCs with such access without 
compromising the confidentiality of EAS Participant's filings, or 
risking that the SECC might unintentionally delete or corrupt a filing. 
Rather, we will, upon request from an SECC, provide the SECC with a 
report of their state's aggregated data. SECCs can use these reports to 
remedy monitoring anomalies evident from EAS Participant filings in 
their state.
    19. Finally, we find that the implementation of the ETRS will be 
best accomplished by the Bureau. Accordingly, we direct the Bureau to 
implement the ETRS pursuant to the principles and requirements we 
discuss above. We direct the Bureau to release a subsequent public 
notice, providing additional information regarding the implementation 
of the ETRS closer to the launch date of the ETRS, and as subsequently 
required for future EAS tests and State EAS Plan filings.

C. Visual Crawl and Audio Accessibility

    20. The EAS provides a critical means of delivering life- and 
property-saving information to the public. The Commission's rules 
ensure that this information is delivered to the public in an 
accessible manner, primarily by requiring that EAS Participants deliver 
EAS alerts in both audio and visual formats. The visual display of an 
EAS alert is generally presented as a page of fixed text, but it can 
also be presented as a video crawl that scrolls along the top of the 
screen.
    21. The EAS visual message that was transmitted during the first 
nationwide EAS test was inaccessible to some consumers. For example, 
stakeholders noted that the visual message in some of the video crawls 
scrolled across the screen too quickly, or the font was otherwise 
difficult to read. Others stated that both the audio and visual 
presentation of the national EAS test message were inconsistent.
    22. In the EAS Operational Issues NPRM, we proposed to amend the 
EAS rules to require that the EAS video crawl meet minimum 
accessibility requirements for crawl speed, completeness and placement. 
Our proposed accessibility rules for the EAS video crawls were based 
upon our quality requirements for closed captions. Specifically, we 
proposed that the video crawl: (1) Be displayed on the screen at a 
speed that can be read by viewers; (2) be displayed continuously 
throughout the duration of any EAS activation; (3) not block other 
important visual content on the screen; (4) utilize a text font that is 
sized appropriately for legibility; (5) prevent overlap of lines of 
text with one another; and (6) position the video crawl adequately so 
it does not run off the edge of the video screen. We also sought 
comment on methods of ensuring that EAS audio and EAS visual elements 
contained essentially the same information.
    23. Commenters agree that the EAS visual message, at a minimum, 
must be accessible if the EAS is to fulfill its purpose of informing 
all Americans, including Americans with disabilities, of imminent 
dangers to life and property. Commenters suggest, however, that given 
the complexity of the EAS alert distribution infrastructure, further 
discussion and collaboration is necessary and that the Commission 
should refrain from adopting accessibility requirements at this time. 
We observe that the Commission tasked the CSRIC with examining the 
operational issues--including recommended methods to improve alert 
accessibility--identified in the EAS Operational Issues Public Notice 
that arose out of the first nationwide EAS test, but the CSRIC did not 
make specific recommendations on accessibility standards.
    24. The Commission is committed to public/private partnership, and 
has consistently sought to collaborate with stakeholders and to provide 
EAS Participants with the opportunity to suggest (and take action on) 
solutions to EAS technical issues. However, given the life-saving 
importance of the EAS, we cannot afford to delay adoption of minimum 
rules in favor of further collaboration alone. Viewers are entitled to 
expect that the EAS visual message be legible to the general public, 
including people with disabilities. Accordingly, we agree with Consumer 
Groups that we must adopt a set of baseline accessibility requirements 
to ensure that EAS messages are accessible to all Americans. We will 
assess compliance with these minimum requirements through careful 
monitoring of the informal complaint and consumer inquiry processes, 
followed by enforcement action to the extent necessary.
    25. Display Legibility. First, in addition to requiring that the 
EAS visual message, whether video crawl or block text, be displayed in 
a manner that is consistent with our current rules (i.e., ``at the top 
of the television screen or where it will not interfere with other 
visual messages''), we amend Sections 11.51(d), (g)(3), (h)(3) and 
(j)(2) of the Commission's EAS rules to require that the visual message 
also be displayed in a size, color, contrast, location, and speed that 
is readily readable and understandable.
    26. While parties do not agree on a common definition of ideal 
crawl speed or font size for the EAS video crawl, there is agreement in 
the record that alert legibility is essential to ensure the 
effectiveness of the alerts. For the purposes of our rules, we do not 
mandate a specific crawl speed or font size, nor do we believe such 
specificity is necessary at this time. Instead, we afford EAS 
Participants the flexibility to implement this requirement in 
accordance with their particular best practices and equipment 
capabilities. We expect EAS Participants to determine and implement 
effective practices that will ensure alert legibility. While we 
acknowledge commenters' statements that not all EAS devices are capable 
of crawling text, EAS Participants that use devices that display block 
text must nonetheless generate such text in a manner that remains on 
the screen for a sufficient length of time to be read.
    27. Completeness. We also amend Sections 11.51(d), (g)(3), (h)(3) 
and (j)(2) of the Commission's EAS rules to

[[Page 37171]]

require that the EAS visual message be displayed in its entirety at 
least once during any EAS alert message. It would be confusing and 
potentially dangerous for anyone to be deprived of any portion of the 
EAS visual message while that alert is being delivered; EAS equipment 
must be capable of delivering such a basic service. On the other hand, 
we agree with commenters that the completeness requirement, as 
originally proposed in the EAS Operational Issues NPRM, should not be 
adopted. In the NPRM, we proposed to revise Section 11.51(d) of the 
Commission's EAS rules to require that the EAS video crawl be displayed 
continuously throughout the duration of any EAS activation. We note, 
however, that EAS equipment is not always capable of controlling the 
duration of the video crawl, and further, even if it were, non-
Presidential alerts are designed to last no longer than two minutes. It 
would be inconsistent with the design of the system and a significant 
burden on EAS Participants to require that the video crawl last for the 
duration of the event that prompted the EAS alert, (which could 
potentially last for hours). Nonetheless, because EAS equipment is 
already capable of ensuring that an EAS visual message is displayed in 
its entirety at least once during any EAS message, and because doing so 
will avoid public confusion and dangers to life and property, we amend 
our rules accordingly to require that any EAS visual message be 
displayed in full at least one during the pendency of an EAS alert 
message. In addition, EAS Participants should display any EAS visual 
message in its entirety more than once, if possible, in order to ensure 
that viewers are able to re-read and capture the information conveyed 
by the visual message.
    28. Placement. As we note above, we reiterate our requirement that 
the EAS visual message shall ``be displayed at the top of the 
television screen or where it will not interfere with other video 
messages,'' and we amend Section 11.51(d), (g)(3), (h)(3) and (j)(2) to 
require that the visual message not (1) contain overlapping lines of 
EAS text or (2) extend beyond the viewable display except for crawls 
that intentionally scroll on and off of the screen. We are persuaded by 
the weight of the record that the placement requirement we proposed in 
the EAS Operational Issues NPRM, which stated that the EAS visual 
message shall not ``block other important visual content on the 
screen,'' should not be adopted. Such a requirement would be 
inappropriate in light of commenters' assertions that, unlike closed 
caption producers, EAS Participants and equipment manufacturers cannot 
know where to place a video crawl on a screen in a way that will not 
interfere with non-EAS emergency information or regularly scheduled 
programming. On the other hand, Trilithic asserts that EAS Participants 
can render alerts that do not contain overlapping lines of EAS text, 
and do not run off the edge of the video screen (except for crawls that 
intentionally scroll on and off of the screen). According to Trilithic, 
these placement requirements are ``reasonable expectations and would 
help ensure that viewers are able to read and understand the text.'' We 
adopt these placement requirements accordingly.
    29. Enforcement Standard. We acknowledge that the creation and 
delivery of an accessible visual message is not solely within the 
control of any one entity, and often requires coordination and 
execution among many connected parties and equipment in the EAS alert 
distribution chain. While we agree with commenters' assertions that EAS 
equipment is responsible for deriving the visual message from the EAS 
header codes or CAP text that an alert originator places within an 
alert, it remains the responsibility of the EAS Participant to purchase 
part 11-compliant equipment and to ensure that its equipment operates 
in a manner compliant with our part 11 rules.
    30. The minimum accessibility rules we adopt today establish clear 
guidelines for the acceptable appearance of an EAS visual message, in 
order to ensure that EAS Participants offer accessible EAS video crawls 
and block text. We direct the Bureau to monitor the informal complaint 
process for complaints pertaining to EAS visual messages and, where 
appropriate, bring any potential noncompliance to the attention of the 
Enforcement Bureau for its review. We also note that, subsequent to a 
nationwide EAS test, EAS Participants must provide information in the 
ETRS regarding any complications in receiving or propagating the alert 
test. Such complications would include any failure to comply with the 
minimum accessibility requirements we adopt today.
    31. Finally, we disagree with those commenters who argue that our 
adaptation of the Commission's minimum accessibility rules in the 
Closed Captioning Quality Report and Order to fit EAS visual messages 
is inappropriate because, unlike captions, the production of EAS visual 
messages is not within the control of the EAS Participants. We 
recognize that EAS visual messages are produced differently from closed 
captions, that the presentation of such a visual message can be 
affected by equipment downstream of the EAS Participant, and that there 
is no real time opportunity for EAS Participants to edit the text. At 
the same time, however, the rules we adopt today are technology neutral 
and do not necessitate that EAS visual messages be produced similarly 
to closed captions. The EAS accessibility rules we adopt today and our 
closed captioning requirements only share the foundational requirement 
that on-screen text be legible, complete, and appropriately placed. 
Further, we note that several commenters agree that the closed 
captioning rules can inform the formatting of the EAS visual message. 
In light of the importance of EAS visual messages, we find that it is 
reasonable to adopt rules that ensure that EAS video crawls and block 
text are at least as legible, complete, and appropriately placed as are 
closed captions.
    32. We expect that the minimal accessibility rules we adopt today 
should have little impact on the operations of EAS equipment 
manufacturers whose equipment already produces a legible, complete, and 
appropriately placed EAS visual message, and on EAS Participants who 
deploy certified EAS equipment at their facilities. Accordingly, we do 
not anticipate that our revised rules will impose significant costs and 
burdens upon the majority of EAS Participants. As Trilithic notes, 
``[m]any of the proposed requirements for . . . [visual message] 
accessibility require minimal changes and cost.'' Further, we are not 
dictating the precise formatting of the EAS visual message, but rather, 
we are adopting rules that provide EAS Participants and equipment 
manufacturers with flexibility to meet our minimum requirements in the 
most cost-effective manner for their systems.
    33. Audiovisual Synchronicity. We decline to adopt rules requiring 
audiovisual synchronicity at this time. We agree with commenters that 
alert originators have primary control over audiovisual synchronicity 
because they are the only party in a position to initiate a message 
that contains identical audio and text elements. We also agree that 
downstream equipment in control of the audio presentation ``is not 
always the same equipment used to control the video presentation'' and 
further study would be required to determine how to coordinate these 
disparate elements of the alert distribution hierarchy. We further 
agree with Trilithic that message originators should be ``free to 
include as much important information in both

[[Page 37172]]

mediums as can be made to fit, which may not always result in identical 
content.'' As commenters suggest, we expect that EAS Participants and 
equipment manufacturers will work together to develop methods to 
improve audiovisual synchronicity, including the increased use of CAP, 
to the extent that it does not interfere with alert quality. 
Accordingly, we encourage EAS Participants to develop a greater 
capacity to generate both the audio and the visual elements of alerts 
in a manner that provides viewers with equal information within the 
same or similar timeframes. We will revisit the need for specific rules 
addressing this matter in the future if it is brought to our attention 
that problems with audiovisual synchronicity are impeding access to EAS 
alerts.
    34. We note 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. However, as we stated in the EAS Operational Issues NPRM, 
we are concerned that the audio and visual elements should convey the 
same message. Accordingly, consistent with the overall accessibility 
rules we adopt today, including the requirements for the visual portion 
of an EAS alert, we require that the audio portion of any EAS alert 
must play in full at least once during any EAS message. Furthermore, we 
expect the audio portion of an EAS message to be delivered in a manner 
and cadence that is sufficient for the consumer who does not have a 
hearing loss to readily comprehend it. We will continue to monitor 
future EAS activations and tests to determine whether we need to adopt 
any additional rules to ensure that the audio portion of an EAS message 
is accessible.
    35. Text-to-Speech. The Commission currently allows text-to-speech 
(TTS) to be used as a method of providing audio for EAS alerts. We 
agree with commenters that while TTS is an appropriate technology for 
rendering alert audio in some cases, and may support audiovisual parity 
when combined with CAP text, we do not mandate its use at this time. 
The technology is maturing, but mandating its use may require extensive 
and costly changes to EAS equipment for small EAS Participants. 
Nonetheless, given the critical and urgent nature of emergency 
information, as recommended by Wireless RERC, we encourage its use to 
construct EAS audio from the EAS header codes, especially when no 
separate audio file is provided by the alert originator, in order to 
provide access to the emergency information by individuals who are 
blind or visually impaired. We will continue to monitor the feasibility 
of adopting TTS requirements as the technology continues to evolve. In 
particular, as part of the workshop we direct the Bureau to convene 
below, stakeholders should examine, among other issues, the state of 
TTS technology, including ongoing research and development and 
readiness for reliable, cost-effective implementation as part of EAS.
    36. Workshop to Promote Accessibility and Wider Use of EAS. In 
addition to the accessibility rules we adopt today, we direct the 
Bureau to continue collaborative efforts to ensure that the EAS is 
accessible and widely utilized. Specifically, we direct the Bureau to 
collaborate with FEMA and other relevant EAS stakeholders by hosting a 
workshop within three months of the adoption date of this order. The 
object of this workshop will be to ensure that EAS remains a reliable 
and effective resource for all Americans by addressing and making 
recommendations regarding two key issues: Increasing the flexibility of 
the EAS to expand its use by emergency managers at the state and local 
levels, and the improvement of alert accessibility. The workshop should 
discuss methods to empower and encourage state and local emergency 
managers to utilize the EAS and Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) system 
more widely for localized alerts and exercises. The workshop also 
should build upon cumulative efforts to improve the accessibility of 
EAS visual messages by examining, inter alia, the technical feasibility 
of improving the synchronicity of EAS audio with the EAS visual crawl, 
as well as the readiness of TTS technology for increased usage in 
national and local alerting. The Commission may refer additional issues 
arising out of the workshop to the CSRIC and other FCC federal advisory 
committees, as appropriate.

D. Public Policy Analysis

    37. In this Section, we conclude that the benefits of the rules we 
adopt today exceed their associated implementation costs. In the EAS 
Operational Issues NPRM, we sought comment on the specific costs and 
benefits associated with the implementation of our proposed rules 
establishing essential operational improvements to the EAS. Although 
the proposed rules covered a wide range of issues associated with the 
EAS, each with its own cost of development and deployment, we expected 
that their implementation would present a one-time, maximum aggregate 
cost of $13.6 million, and that all proposed rules shared the common 
expected benefit of saving human lives, reducing injuries, mitigating 
property damage, and minimizing the disruption of our national economy 
on an ongoing basis.
    38. No commenter opposes our analysis of the costs or benefits 
associated with implementation of our proposed rules. In large part, we 
adopt the rules proposed in the EAS Operational Issues NPRM. The rules 
we adopt today present EAS Participants with minimum implementation 
costs and a significant degree of implementation flexibility. To the 
extent our final rules differ from the proposed rules, however, those 
differences should actually result in the same or lower costs for EAS 
Participants. In particular, because we adopt NPT rules that do not 
require the use of the EAN (or an NPT that emulates the use of the 
EAN), the maximum costs of implementing our requirements will be $6.6 
million less than originally proposed. Accordingly, we find that the 
upper bound of the cost of compliance with the rules we adopt today is 
$7 million, rather than $13.6 million as initially proposed.
    39. With regard to benefits, we find that the EAS is a resilient 
public alert and warning tool that is essential to help save lives and 
protect property during times of national, state, regional, and local 
emergencies. Although the EAS, as tested in 2011, works largely as 
designed, the improvements we adopt today are responsive to operational 
inconsistencies uncovered by the first nationwide EAS test. These 
operational inconsistencies, left unaddressed, would adversely affect 
the continued efficacy of the system. These rules also will enable the 
Commission to improve its ability to collect, process and evaluate data 
about EAS alerting pathways, and will lead to higher quality alerts for 
every American. In sum, the rules we adopt today will preserve safety 
of life through more effective alerting. We find, therefore, that it is 
reasonable to expect that the improvements to the EAS that will result 
from the rules we adopt today will save lives and result in numerous 
other benefits that are less quantifiable but still advance important 
public interest objectives.

E. Compliance Timing

    40. National Location Code and NPT Rules Compliance Timeline. We 
conclude that EAS Participants should

[[Page 37173]]

be given up to twelve months from the effective date of the rule 
amendments requiring use of the national location code and NPT rules to 
come into compliance with these amendments. In light of the fact that 
FEMA intends to conduct a nationwide EAS test ``in the near future,'' 
and that such a test will use both the NPT and the ``six zeroes'' 
location code, it is imperative that we ensure that EAS Participants 
are capable of processing a test with these characteristics as rapidly 
as possible. In the EAS Operational Issues NPRM, we addressed this 
concern by proposing to require compliance with the national location 
code and NPT requirements we proposed within six months from the 
effective date of their codification into our rules. Some commenters, 
such as Monroe and Verizon, agree that a period as short as six months 
could be sufficient to implement our rules. NCTA and AT&T, on the other 
hand, argue that a six-month timeline would not provide EAS 
Participants with sufficient time to develop, test, and deploy the 
required system updates, and argue instead for a twelve-month 
implementation timeline. Specifically, AT&T asserts that their 
``Approval For Use'' process, that is standardized throughout the AT&T 
networks, must take at least one year to complete, because it is an 
iterative process, especially in the new Internet Protocol TV markets 
in which they operate, whereby their engineers failure test EAS 
equipment programming, then send the product back to the manufacturer 
for further updates if they find errors, and then retest the updated 
equipment recursively until one hundred percent certainty can be 
established that the device will perform as expected within their 
system. According to AT&T, this is not the kind of process that can be 
accelerated merely by the increased expenditure of resources.
    41. Our goal in this and related rulemakings is to ensure that the 
EAS is efficient and secure, and we acknowledge that this goal would 
not be furthered by requiring any EAS Participant to short circuit 
their testing process for new rules. Accordingly, we provide herein 
that EAS Participants are granted a period of up to, but no longer 
than, twelve months in which to come into compliance with the national 
location code and NPT requirements that are reflected in the rule 
amendments we adopt today. This twelve-month period will run from the 
effective date of these rule amendments, which is thirty days after 
their publication in the Federal Register.
    42. ETRS Compliance Timeline. We require EAS Participants to 
complete the identifying information initially required by the ETRS 
filing requirement we adopt today within sixty days of the effective 
date of the ETRS rules we adopt today, or within sixty days of the 
launch of the ETRS, whichever is later. We agree that the requirement 
for EAS Participants to provide ETRS identifying information within 
sixty days of adoption of these rules would be a reasonable time 
period, but that it makes sense for the compliance triggering event to 
be the date on which the ETRS becomes operational. We further require 
EAS Participants to update their identifying information concurrently 
with any update to their EAS State Plans, and require EAS Participants 
to complete the ``day of test'' portion of their filing obligation 
within 24 hours of any test, and the remainder of the filing obligation 
within forty-five days of the next EAS nationwide test, the same 
timeline that we successfully implemented for the first nationwide EAS 
test.
    43. We believe it is reasonable for EAS Participants to complete 
their filings on this timeline because no equipment changes or 
attendant processes are required in order to achieve compliance with 
this rule. Furthermore, the electronic filing system should allow EAS 
Participants to complete their filing obligation even more quickly than 
they did for the first nationwide test, in which we adopted the same 
compliance timeline for submitting test data.
    44. Accessibility Compliance Timeline. We also provide herein that 
EAS Participants will be given a period of up to, but no longer than, 
six months in which to come into compliance with the display 
legibility, completeness and placement requirements that are reflected 
in the rule amendments we adopt today. This six-month period will run 
from the effective date of these rule amendments, which is thirty days 
after their publication in the Federal Register. We note that NCTA 
avers that EAS Participants generally are already compliant with the 
majority of accessibility rules as proposed in the EAS Operational 
Issues NPRM. While Trilithic argues that our proposed completeness rule 
would require significantly longer than a year to implement, because 
EAS equipment is not capable of controlling the duration of the EAS 
visual crawl, we do not require the EAS visual crawl to last for the 
duration of the EAS activation and, as such, Trilithic's argument is 
now inapplicable. On the other hand, we also decline to adopt a shorter 
timeframe for implementation of these accessibility requirements, as 
urged by some consumer groups. We fully recognize the exigency of 
providing accessible alerts to all Americans, and it is for that reason 
that we adopt these accessibility rules today, but it would be 
counterproductive to require compliance with these rules sooner than we 
reasonably could expect that EAS Participants would generally be able 
to meet such requirements. Commenters generally did not object to 
implementing the accessibility rules we proposed in the EAS Operational 
Issues NPRM within six months. We therefore find that six months will 
provide sufficient time for EAS Participants to comply with the EAS 
accessibility rules we adopt today.

II. Procedural Matters

A. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    45. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA),\2\ 
the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Certification 
(Certification) for the Sixth Report and Order. The Certification is 
set forth as Appendix E. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of the 
Sixth Report and Order and the Certification to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 5 U.S.C. 603.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Paperwork Reduction Analysis

    46. The Sixth Report and Order contains new information collection 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the 
general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on 
the new information collection requirements contained in this 
proceeding.
    47. We note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief 
Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we 
previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might 
``further reduce the information collection burden for small business 
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.'' \3\ In addition, we have 
described impacts that might affect small businesses, which includes 
most businesses with fewer than 25 employees, in the FRFA in Appendix 
B, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See EAS Operational Issues NPRM, 29 FCC Rcd at Appendix B.

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

[[Page 37174]]

C. Congressional Review Act

    48. The Commission will send a copy of this Sixth Report and Order 
in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability 
Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), see 5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A).

III. Ordering Clauses

    49. Accordingly, it is ordered, 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, 301(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 544(g), 606, and 615 
that the Sixth Report and Order in EB Docket No. 04-296 IS adopted and 
shall become effective July 30, 2015, except for Sec.  11.21(a), and 
Sec.  11.61(a)(3)(iv) which contain information collection requirements 
that have not been approved by OMB. The Federal Communications 
Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing 
the effective date.
    50. It is further ordered that notwithstanding paragraph [64] 
above, EAS Participants are granted a period of twelve months from the 
effective date of the rule amendments contained in 47 CFR 11.31, 
11.51(m)(2) and (n), 11.52, and 11.54, in which to come into compliance 
with those amendments.
    51. It is further ordered that notwithstanding paragraph [64] 
above, EAS Participants are granted a period of six months from the 
effective date of the rule amendments contained in 47 CFR 11.51(d), 
(g)(3), (h)(3), and (j)(2) in which to come into compliance with those 
amendments.
    52. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a 
copy of this Sixth Report and Order, including the Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 11

    Radio, Television.

Federal Communications Commission.
Gloria J. Miles,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 11 as follows:

PART 11--EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM (EAS)

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

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


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 Sec.  11.61(a)(3)(iv), EAS Participants shall provide 
the identifying information required by the EAS Test Reporting System 
(ETRS) no later than sixty days after the publication in the Federal 
Register of a notice announcing the approval by the Office of 
Management and Budget of the modified information collection 
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and an effective 
date of the rule amendment, or within sixty days of the launch of the 
ETRS, whichever is later, and shall renew this identifying information 
on a yearly basis or as required by any revision of the EAS 
Participant's State EAS Plan filed pursuant to this section.
* * * * *
    (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 
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 All U.S., State, Territory and Offshore (Marine Area) ANSI 
number codes (SS) are as follows. County ANSI numbers (CCC) are 
contained in the State EAS Mapbook.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            ANSI No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

[[Page 37175]]

 
    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
    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 paragraphs (d), (g)(3) (h)(3), (j)(2), 
(m)(2) and (n) 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 Sec.  3.6 of the ``ECIG 
Recommendations for a CAP EAS

[[Page 37176]]

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.
    (1) The visual message portion of an EAS alert, whether video crawl 
or block text, must be displayed:
    (i) At the top of the television screen or where it will not 
interfere with other visual messages
    (ii) In a manner (i.e., font size, color, contrast, location, and 
speed) that is readily readable and understandable,
    (iii) That does not contain overlapping lines of EAS text or extend 
beyond the viewable display (except for video crawls that intentionally 
scroll on and off of the screen), and
    (iv) In full at least once during any EAS message.
    (2) The audio portion of an EAS message must play in full at least 
once during any EAS message.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (3) Shall transmit a visual EAS message on at least one channel. 
The visual message shall contain the Originator, Event, Location, and 
the valid time period of the 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 Sec.  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.
    (i) The visual message portion of an EAS alert, whether video crawl 
or block text, must be displayed:
    (A) At the top of the television screen or where it will not 
interfere with other visual messages;
    (B) In a manner (i.e., font size, color, contrast, location, and 
speed) that is readily readable and understandable;
    (C) That does not contain overlapping lines of EAS text or extend 
beyond the viewable display (except for video crawls that intentionally 
scroll on and off of the screen), and
    (D) In full at least once during any EAS message.
    (ii) The audio portion of an EAS message must play in full at least 
once during any EAS message.
    (h) * * *
    (3) Shall transmit the EAS visual message on all downstream 
channels. The visual message shall contain the Originator, Event, 
Location, and the valid time period of the 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 Sec.  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.
    (i) The visual message portion of an EAS alert, whether video crawl 
or block text, must be displayed:
    (A) At the top of the television screen or where it will not 
interfere with other visual messages
    (B) In a manner (i.e., font size, color, contrast, location, and 
speed) that is readily readable and understandable,
    (C) That does not contain overlapping lines of EAS text or extend 
beyond the viewable display (except for video crawls that intentionally 
scroll on and off of the screen), and
    (D) In full at least once during any EAS message.
    (ii) The audio portion of an EAS message must play in full at least 
once during any EAS message.
* * * * *
    (j) * * *
    (2) The visual message shall contain the Originator, Event, 
Location, and the valid time period of the 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 Sec.  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.
    (i) The visual message portion of an EAS alert, whether video crawl 
or block text, must be displayed:
    (A) At the top of the television screen or where it will not 
interfere with other visual messages
    (B) In a manner (i.e., font size, color, contrast, location, and 
speed) that is readily readable and understandable,
    (C) That does not contain overlapping lines of EAS text or extend 
beyond the viewable display (except for video crawls that intentionally 
scroll on and off of the screen), and
    (D) In full at least once during any EAS message.
    (ii) The audio portion of an EAS message must play in full at least 
once during any EAS message.
* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (2) Manual interrupt of programming and transmission of EAS 
messages may be used. EAS messages with the EAN Event code, or the 
National Periodic Test (NPT) Event code in the case of a nationwide 
test of the EAS, must be transmitted immediately; Monthly EAS test 
messages must be transmitted within 60 minutes. All actions must be 
logged and include the minimum information required for EAS video 
messages.
    (n) EAS Participants may employ a minimum delay feature, not to 
exceed 15 minutes, for automatic interruption of EAS codes. However, 
this may not be used for the EAN Event code, or the NPT Event code in 
the case of a nationwide test of the EAS, which must be transmitted 
immediately. The delay time for an RMT message may not exceed 60 
minutes.
* * * * *

0
5. Amend Sec.  11.52 by revising paragraphs (e) introductory text and 
(e)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  11.52  EAS code and Attention Signal Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) EAS Participants are required to interrupt normal programming 
either automatically or manually when they receive an EAS message in 
which the header code contains the Event codes for Emergency Action 
Notification (EAN), the National Periodic Test (NPT), or the Required 
Monthly Test (RMT) for their State or State/county location.
* * * * *
    (2) Manual interrupt of programming and transmission of EAS 
messages may be used. EAS messages with the EAN Event code, or the NPT 
Event code in

[[Page 37177]]

the case of a nationwide test of the EAS, must be transmitted 
immediately; Monthly EAS test messages must be transmitted within 60 
minutes. All actions must be logged and recorded as specified in 
Sec. Sec.  11.35(a) and 11.54(a)(3). Decoders must be programmed for 
the EAN Event header code and the RMT and RWT Event header codes (for 
required monthly and weekly tests), with the appropriate accompanying 
State and State/county location codes.

0
6. Amend Sec.  11.54 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text to 
read as follows:


Sec.  11.54  EAS operation during a National Level emergency

    (a) Immediately upon receipt of an EAN message, or the NPT Event 
code in the case of a nationwide test of the EAS, EAS Participants must 
comply with the following requirements, as applicable:
* * * * *

0
7. 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 
determined by the Commission's Public Safety and Homeland Security 
Bureau, subject to the following requirements.
    (A) EAS Participants shall provide the identifying information 
required by the ETRS initially no later than sixty days after the 
publication in the Federal Register of a notice announcing the approval 
by the Office of Management and Budget of the modified information 
collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 
an effective date of the rule amendment, or within sixty days of the 
launch of the ETRS, whichever is later, and shall renew this 
identifying 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 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 shall be filed in the ETRS within forty 
five (45) days following any nationwide test.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-15805 Filed 6-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P