Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System, 47886-47894 [2015-18089]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 153 (Monday, August 10, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47886-47894]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18089]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 11

[PS Docket No. 15-94; FCC 15-77]


Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert 
System

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC 
or Commission) seeks comment on proposed changes to its rules governing 
the Emergency Alert System (EAS) to incorporate three new event codes 
into and revise two geographic location codes identified in the EAS 
rules.

DATES: Comments are due on or before September 9, 2015 and reply 
comments are due on or before September 24, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by EB Docket No. 04-296 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web site: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, 
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience 
delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the Commission to 
request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign 
language interpreters, CART, etc.) by 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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in PS Docket No. 15-94, FCC 15-77, 
adopted on July 8, 2015, and released on July 10, 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 full text may also be downloaded 
at: www.fcc.gov.

Synopsis of the NPRM

    1. In the NPRM, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or 
Commission) proposes to revise the Emergency Alert System (EAS) rules, 
as set forth in a letter and subsequent comments filed by the National 
Weather Service (NWS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA). Specifically, NWS requests that the Commission 
add three new EAS event codes, covering extreme wind and storm surges, 
as well as revise the territorial boundaries of the geographic location 
codes for two offshore marine areas listed in the EAS rules as location 
codes 75 and 77. The Commission agrees with NWS that targeted, specific 
warnings ``will help the public and emergency officials better respond 
to local threat(s).''

I. Background

    2. The EAS is a national public warning system through which 
broadcasters, cable systems, and other service providers (EAS 
Participants) deliver alerts to the public to warn them of impending 
emergencies and dangers to life and property. The primary purpose of 
the EAS is to provide the President with ``the capability to provide 
immediate communications and information to the general public at the 
national, state and local levels during periods of national 
emergency.'' The EAS also is used by state and local governments, as 
well as NWS, to distribute alerts. According to NWS, about 90 percent 
of all EAS activations are generated by NWS and relate to short-term 
weather events. The Commission, the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA), and the NWS implement the EAS at the federal level. The EAS is 
a broadcast-based, hierarchical alert message distribution system 
through which an alert message originator at the local, state or 
national level encodes (or arranges to have encoded) a message in the 
EAS Protocol, which provides basic information about the emergency 
involved. The message is then broadcast by one or more EAS Participants 
and subsequently relayed from one station to another until all affected 
EAS Participants have received the alert and delivered it to the 
public. This process of EAS alert distribution among EAS Participants 
is often referred as the ``daisy chain'' distribution architecture.

[[Page 47887]]

    3. The EAS Protocol utilizes fixed codes to identify various 
aspects of the alert. Of particular relevance to this NPRM, the EAS 
Protocol utilizes a three-character ``event code'' to describe the 
nature of the alert (e.g., ``TOR'' signifies tornado). The EAS Protocol 
identifies ``National'' event codes, such as the EAN and National 
Periodic Test (NPT), which EAS Participants use as part of required 
Presidential alerts and tests, and ``State and Local'' event codes, 
such as TOR, which EAS Participants use when they deliver weather and 
other voluntary alerts. In addition, the EAS Protocol utilizes six-
digit numerical location codes to identify the geographic area(s) to 
which the alert applies, two digits of which, the ``SS'' codes, 
indicate the state, territory, or, in this case, the offshore marine 
area to which the alert applies. Unlike the state and territory 
geographic location codes, which are based on the American National 
Standards Institute (ANSI) standard, the codes assigned to the offshore 
marine areas were created by the NWS and adopted by the Commission in 
2002 at NWS's request.

II. Discussion

A. Proposed EAS Event Codes

    4. NWS requests that the Commission add a new ``Extreme Wind 
Warning'' (EWW) event code to provide the public with advance notice of 
the onset of extreme sustained surface winds (greater than or equal to 
115 miles per hour) associated with a major land-falling hurricane 
(category 3 or higher). NWS explains that use of the ``Tornado 
Warning'' (TOR) event code, then the only available code to warn of 
high winds, caused confusion when used to warn of Hurricane Charley's 
high winds in 2004. NWS states that although it started using the EWW 
code during the 2007 hurricane season, EAS Participants are ``reluctant 
to add and relay the new [e]vent [c]ode via the EAS, fearing FCC 
adverse action without addition of the new EWW Event Code to the Part 
11.'' According to NWS, no other existing EAS event code is adequate or 
acceptable to activate the EAS for an extreme wind warning. Although 
section 11.31 of the rules contains other codes regarding hurricanes 
(i.e., HUW for Hurricane Warning, HUA for Hurricane Watch, HLS for 
Hurricane Statement), those codes apply generally to the hurricane 
event itself, and are not specifically tailored to warn of extreme 
sustained surface winds associated with a (Category 3) hurricane.
    5. NWS also requests that the Commission add two new event codes 
covering storm surges: ``Storm Surge Watch'' (SSA) and ``Storm Surge 
Warning'' (SSW). NWS indicates that the ``Storm Surge Watch/Warning 
will be issued when there is a significant risk of life-threatening 
inundation from rising water moving inland from the ocean.'' In the 
event of a storm surge, a watch (SSA) would be issued 48 hours in 
advance of the event taking place and a warning (SSW) would be issued 
36 hours in advance of the event, and will help to mitigate damage from 
storm surge, the leading cause of death in tropical cyclones.
    6. In support of its request, NWS notes that it currently does not 
explicitly issue warnings for storm surge, notwithstanding that the 
National Hurricane Center (NHC) has vigorously advocated for a storm 
surge watch and storm surge warning for a number of years. The NWS 
explains that, according to the NHC, ``storm surge losses in the 
hundreds or thousands of lives have occurred in every coastal state 
from Texas to South Carolina, and in some states north of there.'' NWS 
explains that ``[w]hile the threatening winds of a hurricane are 
important, most deaths from tropical cyclones result from storm 
surge.'' NWS further explains that ``current Hurricane Watch/Warning 
does not provide clear or sufficient information to allow citizens to 
determine if they are threatened by wind or storm surge or both.'' NWS 
notes that issuing storm surge watch/warning conditions is supported by 
both the NHC and FEMA, and that storm surge warnings are utilized by 
the government meteorological services of other nations, such as 
Environment Canada, and that use of such warnings has been advocated by 
the World Meteorological Organization for member nations. Accordingly, 
the NWS requests that the Commission revise its EAS rules to add Storm 
Surge Watch and Warning codes so that the NWS may offer these alerts to 
the public.
    7. The Commission proposes adding both the extreme wind warning and 
storm surge event codes to section 11.31(e) of the Commission's rules, 
thus authorizing their use by EAS Participants. The Commission believes 
that extreme wind and storm surge events pose significant dangers to 
human health and property, dangers that the Commission's current EAS 
rules are not designed to prevent. The Commission observes that not 
revising the EAS rules to allow the NWS to warn the public of these 
events risks unnecessary harm to the public, a risk inconsistent with 
the Commission's statutory mandate of ``promoting the safety of life 
and property through the use of wire and radio communication.'' The 
Commission thus tentatively concludes that the event codes NWS proposes 
could promote public safety by saving lives and reducing the potential 
for injuries and damage to property. The Commission seeks comment on 
this tentative conclusion.
    8. On a more granular level, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether the addition of the EWW, SSA, and SSW event codes would promote 
the public interest by enabling the public to deal more effectively 
with emergency situations, and, if so, how the specificity added by use 
of the codes would assist the public in these regards. The Commission 
observes that the NWS previously documented the confusion associated 
with using the TOR event code for non-tornados in its Service 
Assessment of the response to Hurricane Katrina. According to the 
Service Assessment, use of the TOR event code for events other than 
tornados also can lead to inconsistent or incorrect advice. The 
standard advice associated with the TOR event code directs people to 
take shelter in ``an interior room of the lowest floor'' of a building, 
but during Hurricane Katrina, the TOR warnings were issued for counties 
at risk for storm surge flooding. Local alerts originating in Miami 
describing the potential flooding hazard directed people ``to go to the 
highest floor of a building.'' The Commission seeks comment on whether 
the addition of these weather-related event codes will address the 
potential for confusion or incorrect guidance that might otherwise 
result from the continued use of the TOR event code.
    9. The Commission also seeks comment regarding the extent to which 
these new event codes will help promote safety of life and property. 
With respect to Hurricane Katrina, for example, NWS states that ``[a]t 
least [1,500] people lost their lives during Katrina, and many of those 
deaths occurred because of storm surge, either directly or 
indirectly.'' In addition, NWS states that ``Katrina also caused well 
over $100 billion in damage from its surge and winds.'' The Commission 
also notes that a recent analysis of data from Atlantic tropical 
cyclones occurring from 1963-2012 indicates that 49 percent of all 
deaths directly attributable to those events were caused by storm 
surge. Further, storm surge damage is not limited to coastal areas. 
According to NHC data, for example, the storm surge (measured as water 
height above normal astronomical tide level) experienced in New York 
State during Hurricane Sandy reached 9.4 feet in the Battery on the 
southern tip of Manhattan, and caused (with some

[[Page 47888]]

contribution from rainfall) significant flooding in parts of the Hudson 
River Valley as far north as Albany (located approximately 130 miles 
from Manhattan). Moreover, data suggests that storm surges may become 
more severe over time. The National Center for Atmospheric Research 
indicates that an increase to the global average temperature would 
result in ``increasingly dramatic storm surges that, combined with 
higher water levels, [would] increase risk of damage to coastal 
infrastructure, society, and economies.'' The Commission believes that 
the addition of EWW, SSA and SSW to the event codes in section 11.31(e) 
of the rules would serve the public interest by providing more specific 
information regarding the emergency event. The Commission seeks comment 
on this analysis. The Commission observes that NWS indicates that 
broadcasters, emergency management offices and federal agencies support 
the need to establish specific EAS warning alerts for these conditions, 
and invites these entities in particular to submit their updated views 
on these issues.
    10. The Commission also seeks comment on the costs for implementing 
the proposed event codes. NWS states that the additional costs 
associated with the addition of these new event codes will be minimal 
and can generally be added through a firmware and/or software update. 
Several EAS equipment manufacturers confirm NWS's contentions. 
Trilithic Inc. (Trilithic), for example, states that, for its two EAS 
encoder/decoder models currently deployed in the field, the event codes 
can be added through a software update, adding that ``[t]he 
modifications are minimal and there would be no cost passed onto our 
customers.'' Monroe Electronics, Inc. (Monroe), states that the event 
codes could be implemented in its EAS device models through a software 
update, ``downloaded by users from Monroe's secure site, and applied to 
each EAS device by the user, with basic instructions provided by Monroe 
or its Digital Alert Systems subsidiary.'' Similarly, Sage Alerting 
Systems, Inc. (Sage), states that end users could implement the 
proposed event codes by downloading a settings file. The Commission 
tentatively concludes that the costs for implementing the proposed 
event codes will be nominal to manufacturers and either nominal or non-
existent for EAS participants. The Commission seeks comment on this 
tentative conclusion and the costs for individual EAS Participants.
    11. The Commission notes that Sage observes that one of its EAS 
device models in the field can no longer support software updates and, 
therefore, presumably cannot be updated with the proposed event codes. 
The Commission seeks comment on how this might affect the adoption of 
these additional event codes and to what extent this device model is 
being used by EAS Participants. How do the costs associated with 
implementing these event codes compare with the benefit that might 
result from their implementation?
    12. Finally, the Commission seeks comment generally on whether it 
should make any other changes to the event codes currently set forth in 
the EAS Protocol. Are the event codes proposed by NWS the right event 
codes? Is there a better way to address the issues identified by NWS 
than these proposed changes?

B. Proposed Geographic Location Code Revisions

    13. NWS requests that the Commission revise the areas defined in 
the geographic location codes identified in section 11.31(f) of the EAS 
rules as location codes 75 and 77, which cover offshore marine areas. 
These location codes, and their defined areas, like all of the Offshore 
(Marine Areas) location codes contained in the EAS Protocol, were 
originally adopted in 2002 pursuant to a request by NWS. Currently, the 
marine area defined for location code 75 covers ``Western North 
Atlantic Ocean, and along U.S. East Coast, south of Currituck Beach 
Light, N.C., following the coastline into Gulf of Mexico to Bonita 
Beach, FL, including the Caribbean,'' while location code 77 covers 
``Gulf of Mexico, and along the U.S. Gulf Coast from the Mexican border 
to Bonita Beach, FL.'' NWS indicates that it has changed the end point 
it uses for generating weather alerts for both of these areas from 
Bonita Beach, FL, to Ocean Reef, FL, and, accordingly, requests that 
the area covered by location code 75 be changed to ``Western North 
Atlantic Ocean, and along U.S. East Coast, south of Currituck Beach 
Light, NC, following the coastline to Ocean Reef, FL, including the 
Caribbean,'' and that the area covered by location code 77 be changed 
to ``Gulf of Mexico, and along the U.S. Gulf Coast from the Mexican 
border to Ocean Reef, FL.'' According to the NWS, allowing the EAS 
rules to contain definitions for the two offshore location codes that 
are inconsistent with the definitions that NWS has implemented for 
issuing its alerts may cause confusion for broadcasters, the emergency 
management community and the maritime commerce community, particularly 
when tropical storm and hurricane watches and warnings are issued for 
southern Florida. NWS notes that it has checked with several EAS 
encoder/decoder manufacturers, and was informed that the cost and time 
to make the requested change would be nominal.
    14. The Commission proposes revising section 11.31 of its rules to 
adopt the definitional changes for location codes 75 and 77. As 
indicated above, location codes 75 and 77 were added as location codes 
in 2002 pursuant to a request by NWS, and this proposed rule change 
amounts to a modification of a location definition created and 
primarily used by the NWS. The Commission observes that, like all the 
Offshore (Marine Areas) location codes, location codes 75 and 77 are 
used with the Special Marine Warning (SMW) event code, among others, 
and thus are vital to maintaining the efficiency of marine operations 
and safety of vessels and their crews. The Commission also observes 
that NWS has indicated that it is already applying the revised 
definitions for location codes 75 and 77 in the field, which suggests a 
potential for confusion among EAS Participants, the emergency 
management community and the maritime commerce community in a major 
hurricane corridor of the United States if the definitions for these 
location codes currently identified in section 11.31(f) are not 
harmonized with NWS's usage. The Commission also proposes revising 
footnote 1 of section 11.31 to delete the reference to a past deadline 
and to clarify that the numbers assigned to the offshore marine areas 
listed in the table of geographic areas in section 11.31(f), while 
consistent with the format of the state and territory location codes 
derived from the ANSI standard, are not a product of that standard, but 
rather were assigned by the NWS.
    15. With respect to cost considerations, NWS states that it has 
checked with several EAS encoder/decoder manufacturers, and was 
informed that the cost and time to make the requested change would be 
nominal. Recent submissions by EAS equipment manufacturers suggest that 
the costs to EAS Participants for implementing these changes in their 
EAS equipment--like the event codes discussed in the previous section--
are likely to be de minimis. For example, Sage states that end users 
could implement the proposed event codes discussed above, as well as 
the revised offshore location definitions by downloading a settings

[[Page 47889]]

file and firmware update, respectively, the entire implementation 
process of which would take ``10 minute[s] or less.'' Similarly, Monroe 
states that the location codes can be added to its equipment via a 
software update, as does Trilithic, which adds that such update would 
be available at no charge.
    16. The Commission seeks comment on its proposal to revise the 
geographic descriptions for location codes 75 and 77, as requested by 
NWS. Is such action necessary to prevent or ameliorate potential 
confusion among broadcasters, the emergency management community and 
the maritime commerce community that might otherwise exist if the 
current descriptions for these location codes in section 11.31(f) were 
left unchanged and continued to diverge from present usage by NWS? 
Would the proposed amendments to location codes 75 and 77 enhance the 
efficiency of marine operations and safety of vessels and their crews, 
and otherwise benefit the public? With respect to costs, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether the costs of implementing these proposed 
revisions to the location codes would be de minimis, as EAS equipment 
manufacturers suggest. Are there any EAS device models deployed by EAS 
Participants located in coastal geographic areas, in particular, that 
could not be updated to reflect these revisions?

C. Implementation Schedule

    17. The Commission believes that the prompt deployment of alerts 
using these new codes is consistent with the safety of the public in 
affected areas. The Commission realizes that in order to ensure the 
full distribution to an affected community of an alert that uses one of 
these new codes, all EAS participants in the EAS distribution relay 
chain for that community must have equipment that is programmed to 
receive and process the new codes. Accordingly, the Commission proposes 
that EAS equipment manufacturers integrate these codes into equipment 
yet to be manufactured or sold, and make necessary software upgrades 
available to EAS Participants no later than six months from the 
effective date of any rules adopted as a result of this notice. The 
Commission also would encourage State Emergency Coordination Committees 
(SECCs) to update their state and local EAS plans and to take any other 
steps necessary to ensure the smooth implementation of these new codes 
within their states (e.g., by encouraging key sources which relay EAS 
messages to obtain the upgrades promptly). Would these measures help 
ensure that all EAS Participants have the capability of updating their 
EAS equipment and of delivering alerts using these new codes to the 
public, such that the alert is successfully distributed throughout the 
EAS distribution relay chain? To ensure that all relevant alerts are 
received by their intended audiences, would it be helpful if, for an 
interim transitional period, NWS issued any alert that uses one of the 
new event codes concurrent with an alert that uses the current event 
code? Would this help ensure that all EAS alerts reach their intended 
audience until the new codes are fully integrated into EAS 
architecture? Would it be reasonable to expect that all EAS 
Participants would voluntarily integrate the new codes within their 
systems no later than one year from the effective date of any such 
rules, such that one year would provide an adequate transition period 
for NWS to issue concurrent alerts?
    The Commission believes that enabling these codes in this timeframe 
will not unduly burden EAS Participants or EAS equipment manufacturers. 
The Commission notes that the record indicates that most EAS device 
models already are capable of processing these codes, or can be made to 
do so with minor software modifications. Further, as the Commission has 
clarified previously, modifications to authorized EAS equipment that 
are necessary to implement revisions to the EAS event codes and 
location codes may be implemented as Class I permissive changes that do 
not require prior authorization to be implemented. Accordingly, the 
Commission suggests that the implementation schedule proposed herein 
would afford a reasonable period of time and would not present any 
undue burden. The Commission seeks comment on this conclusion.

III. Procedural Matters

A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    18. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities of the policies and rules 
proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The Commission 
requests written public comments on this IRFA. Comments must be 
identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines 
for comments on the NPRM provided in section IV of that item. 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.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
    19. In this NPRM, the Commission proposes to add three new 
Emergency Alert System (EAS) Event Codes, covering extreme wind 
(``Extreme Wind Warning'') and storm surges (``Storm Surge Watch'' and 
``Storm Surge Warning''), and proposes to revise the territorial 
boundaries of geographic location codes 75 and 77 used by the EAS. 
These proposed rule revisions would seek to improve the capacity of the 
EAS to warn the public of impending threats to life and property, and 
ensure that the geographic definitions of location codes 75 and 77 
utilized by the EAS are harmonized with those employed by the NWS.
Legal Basis
    20. 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.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules 
Will Apply
    21. 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). Below is a description and estimate the number of 
small entity licensees that may be affected by the adopted rules.
    22. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. The Commission's action may, over time, affect small 
entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission 
therefore describe here, at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory 
small entity size standards.

[[Page 47890]]

First, nationwide, there are a total of approximately 28.2 million 
small businesses, according to the SBA. As of 2011, small businesses 
comprise 99.7 percent of all employer firms in the US. 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.
    23. Radio Stations. This Economic Census category comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by 
radio to the public. Programming may originate in the station's own 
studio, from an affiliated network, or from an external source. The SBA 
defines a radio broadcasting entity that has $38.5 million or less in 
annual receipts as a small business. According to Commission staff 
review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Radio Analyzer Database as 
of June 5, 2013, about 90 percent of the 11,340 of commercial radio 
stations in the United States have revenues of $38.5 million or less. 
Therefore, the majority of such entities are small entities. The 
Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial radio 
stations to be 3,917. The Commission do not have revenue data or 
revenue estimates for these stations. These stations rely primarily on 
grants and contributions for their operations, so the Commission will 
assume that all of these entities qualify as small businesses. The 
Commission note that in assessing whether a business entity qualifies 
as small under the above definition, business control affiliations must 
be included. In addition, to be determined to be a ``small business,'' 
the entity may not be dominant in its field of operation. The 
Commission notes that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria 
in the context of media entities, and the Commission's estimate of 
small businesses may therefore be over-inclusive.
    24. Low-Power FM Stations. The same SBA definition that applies to 
radio broadcast licensees would apply to low power FM (``LPFM'') 
stations. The SBA defines a radio broadcast station as a small business 
if such station has no more than $38.5 million in annual receipts. 
Currently, there are approximately 864 licensed LPFM stations. Given 
the nature of these services, the Commission will presume that all of 
these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.
    25. Television Broadcasting. The SBA defines a television 
broadcasting station that has no more than $38.5 million in annual 
receipts as a small business. Business concerns included in this 
industry are those primarily engaged in broadcasting images together 
with sound. These establishments operate television broadcasting 
studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs 
to the public. These establishments also produce or transmit visual 
programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in turn 
broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule. 
Programming may originate in the station's own studio, from an 
affiliated network, or from an external source.
    26. According to Commission staff review of the BIA Financial 
Network, Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database as of March 31, 
2013, about 90 percent of an estimated 1,385 commercial television 
stations in the United States have revenues of $38.5 million or less. 
Based on this data and the associated size standard, the Commission 
concludes that the majority of such establishments are small. The 
Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial 
educational (``NCE'') stations to be 396. The Commission does not have 
revenue estimates for NCE stations. These stations rely primarily on 
grants and contributions for their operations, so the Commission will 
assume that all of these entities qualify as small businesses. In 
addition, there are approximately 567 licensed Class A stations, 2,227 
licensed low-power television (``LPTV'') stations, and 4,518 licensed 
TV translators. Given the nature of these services, the Commission will 
presume that all LPTV licensees qualify as small entities under the 
above SBA small business size standard.
    27. The Commission notes that in assessing whether a business 
entity qualifies as small under the above definition, business control 
affiliations must be included. The Commission estimate, therefore, 
likely overstates the number of small entities affected by the proposed 
rules, because the revenue figures on which this estimate is based do 
not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.
    28. In addition, an element of the definition of ``small business'' 
is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The 
Commission is unable at this time and in this context to define or 
quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific 
television station is dominant in its market of operation. Accordingly, 
the foregoing estimate of small businesses to which the rules may apply 
does not exclude any television stations from the definition of a small 
business on this basis and is therefore over-inclusive to that extent. 
An additional element of the definition of ``small business'' is that 
the entity must be independently owned and operated. It is difficult at 
times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, and 
the Commission's estimates of small businesses to which they apply may 
be over-inclusive to this extent.
    29. 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 external sources. 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 $38.5 
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.
    30. Cable System Operators (Rate Regulation Standard). The 
Commission has also developed its own small business size standards for 
the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a 
``small cable company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers 
nationwide. Industry data shows that there were 1,141 cable companies 
at the end of June 2012. Of this total, all but 10 incumbent cable 
companies are small under this size standard. In addition, under the

[[Page 47891]]

Commission's rate regulation rules, a ``small system'' is a cable 
system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Current Commission records 
show 4,945 cable systems nationwide. Of this total, 4,380 cable systems 
have less than 20,000 subscribers, and 565 systems have 20,000 
subscribers or more, based on the same records. Thus, under this 
standard, the Commission estimates that most cable systems are small.
    31. Cable System Operators (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.'' There are approximately 56.4 million 
incumbent cable video subscribers in the United States today. 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 FCC neither requests nor 
collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated 
with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Although 
it seems certain that some of these cable system operators are 
affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed 
$250,000,000, the Commission is unable at this time to estimate with 
greater precision the number of cable system operators that would 
qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the 
Communications Act.
    32. Satellite Telecommunications. The Commission has not developed 
a small business size standard specifically for providers of satellite 
service. The SBA definition of small Satellite Telecommunications 
entities comprises those that have $32.5 million or less in average 
annual receipts. For this category, Census Bureau data for 2007 show 
that there were a total of 512 satellite communications firms that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 464 firms had annual 
receipts of under $10 million, and 18 firms had receipts of $10 million 
to $24,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that 
might be affected by the Commission's action.
    33. Other Telecommunications. This category 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.'' The SBA definition of Other Telecommunications 
entities comprises those that have $32.5 million or less in average 
annual receipts. For this category, Census Bureau data for 2007 show 
that there were a total of 2,383 firms that operated for the entire 
year. Of this total, 2,346 firms had annual receipts of under $25 
million and 37 firms had annual receipts of $25 million to $49,999,999. 
Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of Other 
Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by 
our action.
    34. The Educational Broadcasting Services. In addition, the SBA's 
placement of Cable Television Distribution Services in the category of 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers is applicable to cable-based 
Educational Broadcasting Services. Since 2007, these services have been 
defined within the broad economic census category of Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers, which was developed for small wireline 
businesses. This category is defined as follows: ``This industry 
comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or 
providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that 
they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, 
and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission 
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of 
technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired 
telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a 
variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP 
services; wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution; and 
wired broadband Internet services.'' The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for this category, which is: All such businesses 
having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there 
were 31,996 establishments that operated that year. Of this total, 
30,178 establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 
establishments had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size 
standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of businesses can 
be considered small entities. In addition to Census data, the 
Commission's internal records indicate that as of September 2014, there 
are 2,207 active EBS licenses. The Commission estimates that of these 
2,207 licenses, the majority are held by non-profit educational 
institutions and school districts, which are by statute defined as 
small businesses.
    35. Broadband Radio Service. Broadband Radio Service (``BRS'') 
systems, also referred to as Multipoint Distribution Service (``MDS'') 
and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (``MMDS'') systems, 
and ``wireless cable,'' transmit video programming to subscribers and 
provide two-way high speed data operations using the microwave 
frequencies of the BRS and Educational Broadband Service (``EBS''). In 
connection with the 1996 BRS auction, the Commission established a 
``small business'' as an entity that had annual average gross revenues 
of no more than $40 million in the previous three years. The BRS 
auctions resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing 
opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (``BTAs''). Of the 67 auction 
winners, 61 met the definition of a small business. BRS also includes 
licensees of stations authorized prior to the auction. At this time, 
the Commission estimates that of the 61 small business BRS auction 
winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to the 48 
small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately 
392 incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small entities. After 
adding the number of small business auction licensees to the number of 
incumbent licensees not already counted, the Commission finds that 
there are currently approximately 440 BRS licensees that are defined as 
small businesses under either the SBA or the Commission's rules. In 
2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, which resulted in the 
licensing of 78 authorizations in the BRS areas. The Commission offered 
three levels of bidding credits: (i) A bidder with attributed average 
annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 
million for the preceding three years (small business) will receive a 
15 percent discount on its winning bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed 
average annual gross revenues that exceed $3 million and do not exceed 
$15 million for the preceding three years (very small business) will 
receive a 25 percent discount on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder 
with attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3

[[Page 47892]]

million for the preceding three years (entrepreneur) will receive a 35 
percent discount on its winning bid. Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with 
the sale of 61 licenses. Of the ten winning bidders, two bidders that 
claimed small business status won four licenses; one bidder that 
claimed very small business status won three licenses; and two bidders 
that claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses.
    36. Direct Broadcast Satellite (``DBS'') Service. DBS service is a 
nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and 
audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic ``dish'' antenna 
at the subscriber's location. DBS, by exception, is now included in the 
SBA's broad economic census category, Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers, which was developed for small wireline businesses. Under this 
category, the SBA deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 
or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 
establishments that operated that year. Of this total, 30,178 
establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments 
had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, the 
majority of such businesses can be considered small. However, the data 
the Commission has available as a basis for estimating the number of 
such small entities were gathered under a superseded SBA small business 
size standard formerly titled ``Cable and Other Program Distribution.'' 
The definition of Cable and Other Program Distribution provided that a 
small entity is one with $12.5 million or less in annual receipts. 
Currently, only two entities provide DBS service, which requires a 
great investment of capital for operation: DIRECTV and DISH Network. 
Each currently offers subscription services. DIRECTV and DISH Network 
each report annual revenues that are in excess of the threshold for a 
small business. Because DBS service requires significant capital, the 
Commission believes it is unlikely that a small entity as defined by 
the SBA would have the financial wherewithal to become a DBS service 
provider.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements
    37. None.
Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
    38. 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.''
    39. The rule changes contemplated by the NPRM would implement 
certain EAS warning codes and location code definitional changes that 
are unique, and implemented by small entity and larger-sized regulated 
entities on a voluntary basis. Thus, the NPRM does not propose mandated 
burdens on regulated entities of any size. Moreover, the costs 
associated with voluntarily implementing the codes contained in the 
proposed rule changes are expected to be de minimis or non-existent. 
Commenters are invited to propose steps that the Commission may take to 
further minimize any significant economic impact on small entities. 
When considering proposals made by other parties, commenters are 
invited to propose significant alternatives that serve the goals of 
these proposals.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules
    40. None.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    41. This document contains no proposed new or modified information 
collection requirements. Accordingly, the Commission does not need to 
seek comment from the general public and OMB on any information 
collection requirements contained in this document, as required by PRA, 
nor does the Commission seek specific comment on how it might ``further 
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002.

C. Ex Parte Presentations

    42. The proceeding this document initiates 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 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
rule 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.

D. Comment Filing Procedures

    43. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this 
document. 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).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
     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.

[[Page 47893]]

    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.
     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.
     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.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
    44. People with Disabilities: 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).

E. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    45. 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. 
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 document, as set forth on the first page of this 
document, and have a separate and distinct heading designating them as 
responses to the IRFA.

IV. Ordering Clauses

    46. 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 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted.
    47. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking including the Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.
    48. It is further ordered that pursuant to applicable procedures 
set forth in sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on this Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking on or before September 9, 2015, and interested 
parties may file reply comments on or before September 24, 2015.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 11

    Radio, Television, Emergency alerting.

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 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.  11.31 by:
0
a. In the table in paragraph (e), adding entries in alphabetical order 
under ``State and Local Codes (Optional)'' for ``Extreme Wind 
Warning'', ``Storm Surge Watch'', and ``Storm Surge Warning''; and
0
b. In the table in paragraph (f), revising the entries for ANSI Nos. 75 
and 77 and the footnote to the table.
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  11.31  EAS protocol.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Nature of activation                     Event codes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Codes (Required):
 
                              * * * * * * *
State and Local Codes (Optional):
 
                              * * * * * * *
Extreme Wind Warning...................  EWW.
 
                              * * * * * * *
Storm Surge Watch......................  SSA.
Storm Surge Warning....................  SSW.
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (f) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     ANSI No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
State:
 
                              * * * * * * *
Offshore (Marine Areas) \1\:
 

[[Page 47894]]

 
                              * * * * * * *
Western North Atlantic Ocean, and along  75
 U.S. East Coast, south of Currituck
 Beach Light, NC, following the
 coastline to Ocean Reef, FL, including
 the Caribbean.
Gulf of Mexico, and along the U.S. Gulf  77
 Coast from the Mexican border to Ocean
 Reef, FL.
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The numbers assigned to the offshore marine areas listed in this
  table are not described under the ANSI standard, but rather are
  numeric codes that were assigned by NWS.

[FR Doc. 2015-18089 Filed 8-7-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P