The Emergency Alert System, 67808-67826 [2022-23408]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 217 (Thursday, November 10, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67808-67826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23408]



[[Page 67808]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 11

[PS Docket No. 15-94; FCC 22-75; FR ID 110632]


The Emergency Alert System

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communication Commission (the 
``FCC'' or ``Commission''), implements changes to its rules governing 
the Emergency Alert System (EAS) to improve the clarity and 
accessibility of EAS messages distributed to the public.

DATES: Effective December 12, 2022. The incorporation by reference of 
certain publications listed in the rule was approved by the Director as 
of April 23, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Fedeli, Attorney Advisor, Public 
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau at 202-418-1514 or 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order (Order) in PS Docket No. 15-94, FCC 22-75, adopted on 
September 29, 2022 and released on September 30, 2022. The full text of 
this document is available at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-improves-accessibility-and-clarity-emergency-alerts.

Accessible Formats

    To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), 
send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

Synopsis

Introduction

    1. To improve the clarity and accessibility of alerts, the 
Commission adopts rules to facilitate the increased use of the internet 
Protocol-based Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) format for certain types 
of EAS alerts. CAP-based alerts typically provide more information than 
the corresponding alerts delivered in legacy format. Therefore, in this 
Report and Order, the Commission directs EAS Participants to check 
whether certain types of alerts are available in CAP format and, if so, 
to transmit the CAP version of the alert rather than the legacy-
formatted version. The Commission also revises the prescribed text that 
EAS Participants use to identify certain alerts regarding national 
emergencies and to announce EAS tests by eliminating technical jargon 
and replacing it with plain language terms that will be more easily 
understood by the public.

A. Transmitting More Alert Messages in CAP Format

    2. The Commission's rules currently permit, but do not require, EAS 
Participants to check for CAP-format versions of state and local area 
alerts at the time they receive legacy EAS-format alerts and, if the 
same alert is available in both formats, to transmit the CAP version 
rather than the legacy EAS version. The Commission is now requiring EAS 
Participants, upon receiving a legacy EAS alert message, to check 
whether a CAP version of the same alert is available on the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) internet-based platform known as 
the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) by polling the 
IPAWS feed for CAP-formatted EAS messages. If a CAP version is 
available, the Commission requires EAS Participants to transmit the CAP 
version rather than the legacy version. In addition, to allow 
sufficient time for a CAP version to appear without unduly delaying 
transmission of the alert, the Commission requires EAS Participants not 
to transmit an alert in legacy format until at least 10 seconds after 
receiving its header codes unless they confirm by polling the IPAWS 
feed that no matching CAP version of the message is available. As 
discussed below, this requirement applies only to valid alert messages 
relating to event categories and locations for which the EAS 
Participant normally transmits such alerts pursuant to the State EAS 
Plan, but does not apply to national emergency messages, messages 
associated with national tests of the EAS, or required weekly test 
messages.
    3. The Commission requires that, if an EAS Participant has received 
both a legacy EAS version and a CAP-formatted version of the same 
alert, it must transmit the CAP version, not the legacy EAS version. In 
other words, it must ``prioritize'' the CAP message. CAP-formatted 
alerts can relay much more data than legacy alerts, which can relay 
only an audio message and a limited amount of encoded data. EAS 
Participants may receive legacy and CAP alerts at different times, 
however, and under the current rules, if an EAS Participant receives 
the legacy version of an alert first, it might process that version and 
transmit it to the public even if a CAP version of the same alert 
arrives seconds later, leaving the potentially expanded content in the 
CAP version unused.
    4. Requiring EAS Participants to check for CAP-formatted versions 
of alerts and use them, if available, will increase the proportion of 
alerts distributed to the public that include enhanced information. 
Several commenters support mandatory CAP polling and prioritization for 
this reason. The Accessibility Coalition, for example, comments that 
``[g]iven the greater capability of the CAP-based alerts, . . . a CAP-
based alert should be checked for and utilized when possible . . .'' 
NCTA agrees that ``[e]xpanding the use of triggered CAP polling as 
proposed is a positive step toward providing all Americans more 
reliable and accessible emergency alerts.'' Moreover, as Gary Timm 
points out, the requirement the Commission is adopting would ``make 
good on the Commission's promise to the Commission's emergency 
management partners'' that CAP-formatted alerts will ``improve the 
messaging available through the EAS.''
    5. The Commission is not persuaded by the arguments of commenters 
that oppose mandated CAP polling. For example, Donald Walker argues 
that mandating CAP polling ``would likely impose significant monetary 
and time costs for development on equipment manufacturers as well as . 
. . EAS Participants,'' especially broadcasters, and that ``the public 
safety benefits of having matching audio and text crawls [would not] 
outweigh[ ] the burden that would be placed on the industry.'' However, 
Walker fails to provide any factual information to support his 
assertions regarding the costs or time to implement mandatory CAP 
polling and prioritization, and Section III.E below explains the 
Commission's basis for finding the costs will likely be relatively low. 
Walker also ignores the significant public safety benefits that the 
increased clarity of the CAP-formatted visual crawl will provide for 
people who are deaf and hard of hearing (even if the text does not 
precisely match the audio version of an alert), and he fails to account 
for the benefits of more informative readable text on the screen for 
other viewers who may rely on both the visible scroll and the audible 
versions of alert messages to fully understand them.
    6. Similarly, the Commission is not persuaded by NAB and other 
parties who argue against mandatory CAP polling and prioritization 
based on the fact that the National Weather Service (NWS) does not 
currently distribute alerts in CAP format over IPAWS due to concerns 
about issuing duplicative

[[Page 67809]]

alerts for the same weather emergency. NAB contends that ``[a]lthough 
NAB appreciates the FCC's forethought in seeking to increase the 
accessibility of EAS alert crawls, the fact that the proposed new 
process will not include weather-related alerts issued by NWS may 
frustrate the realization of this goal for the foreseeable future.'' 
However, the Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability 
Council (CSRIC), an FCC advisory committee, recently analyzed the 
concerns about duplicative alerts that, until now, have led NWS to 
refrain from distributing CAP-formatted alerts, and identified and 
evaluated several potential changes that could ameliorate or resolve 
those concerns. The CSRIC recommendations could provide a basis for NWS 
to begin issuing CAP-formatted alerts over IPAWS in the foreseeable 
future, in which case the rule the Commission adopts today would 
require EAS Participants to transmit them.
    7. Even if NWS does not change its approach in the near term, there 
are thousands of state and local alert originators that distribute EAS 
alerts in CAP format, covering numerous non-weather emergencies that 
pose harm to human health and property. The Commission does not see the 
logic of foreclosing the benefits to public safety of increased CAP 
usage for these state and local alerts just because NWS does not 
distribute CAP alerts at present. The Commission also disagrees with 
NAB's suggestion that mandatory polling might result in ``unintended 
consequences'' or ``confusion caused by only a small percentage of EAS 
alerts including matching visual crawls and audio messages'' NAB fails 
to explain what types of unintended consequences it is referring to, 
and the Commission finds its assertions about potential confusion to be 
entirely speculative. On the contrary, the Commission concludes that 
mandating CAP polling will reduce the potential for confusion and 
enhance public safety by ensuring a seamless transition at whatever 
point NWS decides to begin issuing CAP alerts over IPAWS.
    8. Timing of Mandatory CAP Polling. In the Accessibility NPRM, the 
Commission proposed requiring CAP polling upon receipt of a state or 
local legacy alert, but sought comment on whether ``EAS Participants 
[should] be allowed some minimum time frame, for example, 5-15 
seconds,'' to account for delays in the CAP message becoming available. 
Based on concerns raised in the record about the Commission's proposal 
to require polling at the time the legacy alert is received, the 
Commission modifies its proposal to include a brief timing delay. 
Specifically, the Commission requires that, when an EAS Participant 
receives a legacy-format alert that (i) is valid, (ii) covers a type of 
event and a geographic area for which the EAS Participant normally 
transmits alerts to the public pursuant to its State EAS Plan (but 
excluding messages with the EAN, NPT, or RWT event codes), and (iii) is 
not a duplicate of a CAP-formatted message it has already received, the 
EAS Participant must poll the IPAWS feed for a CAP version of the 
legacy alert at least 10 seconds after detection of the legacy alert's 
initial header code. For this purpose, two EAS messages are considered 
``duplicates'' or ``versions'' of the same alert if the originator 
codes, event codes, location codes, and date-time codes in the headers 
of both messages are all identical, and the valid time period codes in 
the headers cover approximately the same periods of time, with 
allowances for the way CAP and legacy messages express valid time 
periods differently. The 10-second waiting period for CAP polling does 
not apply if the EAS Participant has already acquired the CAP version 
through polling the IPAWS feed prior to the 10-second threshold. In 
such instances, the EAS Participant need not poll IPAWS again or wait 
10 seconds to send the alert, which must be sent in CAP format.
    9. The parties' comments persuade us that requiring CAP polling 
immediately upon detection of a legacy alert, as the Commission 
originally proposed, would be counterproductive. When an alert 
originator sends an alert in both CAP and legacy formats, the record 
establishes that in many cases the CAP version will not appear on the 
IPAWS server until a few seconds after EAS Participants have received 
the legacy alert header code. Accordingly, a rule requiring immediate 
polling would fail to detect many CAP alerts by polling too early. By 
delaying the required polling until at least 10 seconds after receipt 
of the legacy alert's initial header code, the Commission allows 
sufficient time for the CAP version of the alert to appear and be 
retrieved, and the Commission significantly reduces the risk that an 
EAS Participant will send a legacy alert when a CAP version is 
available.
    10. The Commission agrees with the Accessibility Coalition that, 
since ``time is of the essence in emergencies,'' the CAP polling rule 
should not cause significant delays in transmitting alert content to 
the public. The record indicates that most EAS devices require at least 
15 seconds to process and transmit a legacy alert after the legacy 
header code is first detected. Thus, requiring EAS participants to wait 
10 seconds before polling does not delay the normal time sequence for 
transmission of a legacy alert if no CAP version of the alert is 
available. With respect to Gary Timm's suggestion that we ``set a 
minimum CAP Prioritization Seek Time of 5 or 10 seconds . . . ,'' the 
Commission finds five seconds to be unnecessarily short, given that 
most EAS devices require at least 15 seconds to process and transmit a 
legacy alert after the legacy header code is first detected, and could 
preclude detection of matching CAP messages in a number of cases when 
more time was available for the CAP alert to become available.
    11. The Commission recognizes that setting a minimum waiting period 
of more than 10 seconds would further ``increase the likelihood that a 
matching CAP message will be found.'' However, the Commission is 
concerned that requiring a waiting period longer than 10 seconds risks 
unduly delaying the transmission of alerts. At the same time, the 
Commission's rule gives EAS Participants flexibility to wait longer 
than 10 seconds to poll for CAP messages if they believe their 
individual circumstances or usual polling cycle so warrants. The 
Commission further clarify that if an EAS Participant has detected a 
CAP alert message concerning a time-sensitive emergency and is trying 
to retrieve it, but it is taking an unreasonably long time to finish 
downloading the full content of the message from the IPAWS server due 
to factors such as internet protocol (IP) transport latency, the EAS 
Participant may proceed to transmit the received legacy version of the 
same alert right away. The Commission leave it to EAS Participants to 
decide what a reasonable amount of time is, given their familiarity 
with their IP connections and the time-sensitivity of the emergency 
event in issue.
    12. The Commission disagrees with Sage and other parties who argue 
that the minimum waiting period for CAP polling should be an option 
left to each EAS participant. As explained above, the Commission 
concludes that all EAS participants should be subject to the 10-second 
minimum time limit to ensure that the vast majority of CAP messages 
will be detected and used. However, by allowing EAS participants to 
poll after more than 10 seconds, the rule provides flexibility to 
address Sage's concern that a uniform, ``one-size-fits-all'' CAP 
polling and prioritization requirement would fail to account for unique 
factors affecting particular EAS Participants. The CAP prioritization 
mandate only sets the earliest time at which polling could occur and 
lets EAS Participants, based on their familiarity with their IP

[[Page 67810]]

transport links and other factors, adopt a longer CAP polling interval 
if that works best for their systems.
    13. The 10-second minimum also accounts for the concerns that 
equipment manufacturer DAS raises in its comments opposing any minimum 
delay time. DAS contends that, in the version of CAP polling and 
prioritization it has already implemented, ``the polling [for] and 
processing [of CAP messages] . . . will not take longer'' than the time 
required ``to process the audio portion of a legacy EAS message that 
arrives first.'' The Commission's rule accommodates this situation; it 
does not preclude EAS Participants from sending out a CAP message 
before the matching legacy message is ready to be transmitted. 
Similarly, the rule does not compel EAS Participants to transmit the 
CAP version (if one is available) any later than it would have 
transmitted the legacy version. Thus, the basic requirement to poll for 
the CAP version of a received legacy alert with the timing adopted here 
will not materially delay or otherwise hamper the relay of the received 
legacy version to the public.
    14. Application of the CAP Priority Mandate. The Commission's new 
rules requiring EAS Participants to poll for and prioritize CAP-
formatted messages will apply to all EAS alert categories except for 
alerts with the Emergency Action Notification (EAN), National Periodic 
Test (NPT), or Required Weekly Test (RWT) event codes. As discussed 
below, with respect to these three codes, the Commission concludes that 
requiring CAP polling and prioritization would be counterproductive.
    15. The Commission exclude National Emergency Messages using the 
EAN code (i.e., Presidential alerts) because the expectation is that 
any Presidential alert announcing a national emergency would contain 
live audio, and the record confirms that IPAWS is not presently capable 
of reliably carrying live audio messages in CAP format in real time. 
Moreover, the EAS-CAP Industry Group (ECIG) Implementation Guide 
contains no technical guidelines that would support such live 
transmissions over IPAWS. Because IPAWS cannot currently support live 
streaming of a Presidential alert, the Commission concludes the CAP 
polling mandate should not apply to EAN messages at the present time.
    16. With respect to national test messages issued using the NPT 
code, the Commission does not require CAP polling or prioritization 
because it would undermine the objectives of testing. In some 
instances, the national EAS test conducted by FEMA is limited to 
testing EAS in the legacy format, i.e., the purpose of the test is to 
assess EAS's capacity to disseminate a legacy nationwide EAN alert. 
Because the Commission does not require EAS Participants to poll for a 
CAP version of an actual nationwide legacy EAN alert, there is no 
reason to require CAP polling when testing the system's capacity to 
transmit such an alert. Commenters concur that, for these reasons, 
requiring CAP polling of NPT alerts is unnecessary and potentially 
counterproductive. The same principle applies to instances where FEMA 
uses the NPT code to conduct a nationwide test of EAS in both legacy 
and CAP formats to compare the relative speed and propagation patterns 
for each format. In such instances, requiring EAS Participants to poll 
for and prioritize the CAP version of the message could skew the 
comparative test results by causing EAS Participants to rebroadcast 
(and further propagate over the daisy chain) the CAP version rather 
than the legacy version they received. Accordingly, the Commission 
declines to require CAP priority polling for the NPT at this time.
    17. Finally, the Commission does not require polling for RWT alerts 
because they typically consist solely of tones, contain no audio or 
visual messages, and are used merely to ensure that the EAS equipment 
is functioning. Under these circumstances, the Commission agrees with 
commenters that there is no appreciable benefit to requiring CAP 
polling for RWT messages. With respect to the Required Monthly Test 
(RMT) alerts, however, the Commission agrees with commenting parties 
that the CAP polling requirement should apply. Because RMT alerts, 
unlike RWT alerts, are audible (and readable as visible text) to the 
general public, CAP polling and prioritization will enable the public 
to benefit from the superior quality of the text of CAP messages for 
those alerts.
    18. The Commission declines to grant an exception from the CAP 
prioritization mandate for radio broadcasters, as advocated by NAB. NAB 
contends that ``there seems to be no reason to force radio stations to 
upgrade equipment or otherwise change their current practices'' since 
``the entire [Accessibility NPRM] is framed in terms of enhancing the 
accessibility of EAS alerts for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing 
through the dissemination of more alerts with matching visual crawls 
and audio messages.'' The Commission disagrees. While the Accessibility 
NPRM emphasized matching of visual with audio messages, there are ample 
reasons why radio broadcasters, like video service EAS Participants, 
should be required to distribute CAP messages rather than legacy-
formatted messages wherever possible. First, some digital radio 
broadcasters transmit visual alerts to digital radio receivers. 
Further, as discussed above, the audio generated from a CAP alert, 
whether from text-to-speech or from airing a CAP audio file, typically 
is superior in clarity and quality to that contained in a legacy alert. 
Use of text-to-speech has been standardized in EAS equipment and 
systems for over 12 years, and it is routinely used and supported 
today. Requiring radio broadcasters to prioritize CAP alerts over 
legacy alerts should result in optimizing the audio quality of the 
alert messages they broadcast, including rendering audio messages 
comprehensible that might otherwise be less intelligible had the legacy 
audio been broadcast instead. The Commission finds improving the audio 
quality of alerts to be an important public interest benefit, and the 
Commission therefore declines to exempt radio broadcasters from the CAP 
prioritization requirements adopted in this item.
    19. Finally, the Commission concludes that it would not serve the 
public interest to require all EAS Participants to transmit both the 
legacy version of an alert message and a subsequently-acquired CAP 
message, as the Accessibility Coalition suggests. Such a requirement 
would result in the airing of duplicate alerts, which have historically 
been prohibited in the EAS rules because they can cause congestion in 
the alerting process, create public confusion, and cause additional 
preemption of programming that might cause broadcasters to abandon 
carriage of state and local alerts. In any case, the Commission expects 
the 10-second minimum polling requirement will be sufficient to capture 
any available CAP version of a received legacy alert in the vast 
majority of cases without causing significant delay in transmitting the 
alerts.

B. Revising the Alert Text for Certain National EAS Codes

    20. Consistent with the proposals in the NDAA NPRM and the 
Accessibility NPRM, the Commission amends its rules prescribing the 
language to be used in audible and viewable messages generated from 
three national EAS alert codes: EAN (Emergency Action Notification), 
NPT (National Periodic Test), and PEP (Primary Entry Point). In each 
case, the Commission adopts simpler, more straightforward terms that 
will enable the public to understand the origin and purpose of these 
alerts more easily and, in particular, will enable

[[Page 67811]]

people who are deaf or hard of hearing to receive and comprehend the 
critical informational elements of the alerts. The revised text set 
forth below will be used in the messages displayed as text on the 
screens of viewers' devices. In addition, for alerts issued in CAP 
format with no audio message included, the EAS equipment will generate 
audio messages that include the revised text. The Commission also 
prescribes a scripted visual message that EAS Participants must display 
when FEMA conducts nationwide tests of the alert system in legacy EAS-
only format. In conjunction with these changes, the Commission adopts 
certain conforming edits to the Commission's implementing rules. The 
Commission discusses these changes below.
    21. The Commission revises the prescribed text associated with two 
event codes (EAN and NPT) and one originator code (PEP) listed in its 
rules. The Commission changes the text for the EAN event code from 
``Emergency Action Notification'' to ``National Emergency Message,'' 
changes the text for the NPT event code from ``National Periodic Test'' 
to ``Nationwide Test of the Emergency Alert System,'' and changes the 
text for the PEP originator code from ``Primary Entry Code System'' to 
``United States Government.'' The Commission agrees with the 
Accessibility Coalition that these changes to the alert text displayed 
to the public for these three codes will make the EAS more accessible 
to people who are deaf or hard of hearing. The Commission also agrees 
with FEMA, NWS, and many other commenters that these changes will make 
these national alerts easier for all members of the public to 
understand and will more effectively inform people of emergency 
situations. For consistency, the Commission also revises its rules to 
use the term ``National Emergency Messages'' instead of ``Emergency 
Action Notification'' wherever that term appears.
    22. The improvements brought about by these text changes are 
evident when comparing the alert header seen or heard by the public 
under the preexisting rules and under the Commission's new rules. Under 
the preexisting rules, an alert using the PEP and EAN codes would read, 
in relevant part, ``The Primary Entry Point system has issued an 
Emergency Action Notification. . . .'' The new version of this alert 
will read, ``The United States Government has issued a National 
Emergency Message. . . .'' Similarly, for nationwide test alert 
messages initiated by FEMA in CAP format, the existing header text 
reads ``the Primary Entry Point system has issued a Nationwide Periodic 
Test.'' Under the Commission's new rules, the header text will read 
``the United States Government has issued a Nationwide Test of the 
Emergency Alert System. . . .''
    23. The Commission finds that these changes will result in clearer 
and more comprehensible alert messages. The Commission agrees with the 
Accessibility Coalition that displaying clearer text for alerts will 
make these messages more accessible to people who are deaf or hard of 
hearing. NCTA also asserts, and NWS, NAB, DAS, and Sage agree, that 
such changes ``will provide the public with clearer, more uniform, and 
more readily understandable information. . . .'' The Commission 
concludes that changing the visual displays of alerts and related 
updates to improve clarity will mitigate the risk of reduced public 
response to emergency messages that the public misunderstands. The 
Commission also finds that clearer description of NPT test alerts will 
``minimize the potential for consumer confusion and alerting fatigue'' 
and is therefore in the public interest,'' even though the NPT is not 
warning the public of danger. Further, the Commission agrees with the 
Accessibility Coalition that clarifying visual alert displays will 
improve accessibility of the EAS for people with hearing-related 
disabilities. These changes will benefit the public by reducing 
confusion about what alert messages are communicating in times of 
emergency and ``clarif[ying] the critical informational elements 
included in nationwide EAS tests, particularly for members of the 
public that cannot access the audio message.''
    24. There is also ample justification for the specific wording of 
the new labels that the Commission is selecting for the EAN, PEP, and 
NPT codes. The Commission agrees with FEMA that ``National Emergency 
Message'' is a clearer and more accurate label for EAS alerts using the 
EAN code than ``Emergency Action Notification,'' which ``has no meaning 
or significance to the public and may create confusion, delaying the 
public taking protective actions to mitigate the impact of the 
impending emergency event.''
    25. Similarly, labeling alerts that use the PEP code as originated 
by the ``Primary Entry Point system'' is opaque to the general public 
and fails to provide any meaningful information about who originated 
the alert. In the NDAA NPRM, the Commission proposed to replace 
``Primary Entry Point system'' with the term ``National Authority.'' 
However, the Commission concludes that the term ``United States 
Government'' more clearly communicates the source of such alerts than 
``National Authority,'' and the Commission therefore adopts ``United 
States Government'' as the label for alerts using the PEP code.
    26. The Commission also finds that changing the NPT alert text from 
``National Periodic Test'' to ``Nationwide Test of the Emergency Alert 
System,'' as well as the NPT legacy script change discussed below, will 
make it clearer to the public that these alerts are only tests. This 
will eliminate confusion and will increase the public's overall trust 
in the alerting system, making it more likely that all members of the 
public will heed alert warnings and follow alert instructions in the 
future.
    27. The Commission declines to adopt any other changes to alert 
code descriptions or scripts beyond those adopted today. The Commission 
agrees with NWS that other alert code descriptions received by the 
public are already sufficiently clear and convey the nature of the 
alert in a concise and easily understandable way. The Commission also 
declines suggestions to establish a new regional test code and require 
EAS Participants to display the word ``regional'' instead of 
``national'' or ``nationwide'' when FEMA geotargets a test alert. The 
Commission finds that no confusion will result from using the term 
``national'' or ``nationwide'' even if a regional test alert is sent, 
since NPT alerts are test messages that contain no emergency 
instructions to the public. In addition, the infrequency of regional 
NPT tests further persuades us that creating a separate new code for 
regional test alerts is unnecessary.
    28. In the NDAA NPRM, the Commission proposed to change the three-
letter EAN and PEP codes to match the proposed new text labels for 
these codes. On review of the record, however, the Commission sees no 
need to change any of the existing three-letter codes. Unlike the text 
labels that are seen by the public, the three-letter codes are entirely 
functional and the public never sees or hears them. These codes are 
automated computer language that are received and processed with no 
human involvement. Even EAS Participants would rarely see them, if 
ever, once the text change for a code is programmed into EAS equipment 
with a one-time update. The only time any employee of an EAS 
Participant would see the codes is if a station engineer were present 
on site and looking at the EAS screen at the moment an alert was 
received. The Commission also finds that no confusion will result from 
using

[[Page 67812]]

codes that are not acronyms for the displayed text. This has long been 
the case for other codes currently in use without incident, like the 
``WXR'' code for ``National Weather Service.'' Thus, there is no risk 
of public confusion from retaining the existing codes. In addition, as 
several commenters point out, changing these three-letter codes could 
be costly to implement and might create a risk of alert failure, which 
could seriously jeopardize public safety. NWS contends that changes to 
the existing three-letter alert codes might cause NOAA Weather Radios 
to display inaccurate or partial visual messages on radio display 
screens. No commenter supported changing the three-letter codes or 
identified any benefit to the public, EAS Participants, or alert 
originators of doing so. The Commission concludes that changing only 
the text for these alert codes without modifying the codes themselves 
will fully achieve its public interest objective of more comprehensible 
alerts, while avoiding unnecessary costs or risks.
    29. Standard Script Displayed for Nationwide Test Alerts in Legacy 
EAS Format. The Commission adopts its proposal, discussed in the 
Accessibility NPRM, to modify the text display used in the visual crawl 
for EAS-based nationwide test alerts transmitted in legacy format. 
Specifically, when a legacy nationwide test alert is generated from the 
PEP and NPT header codes and uses the ``All-U.S.'' geographic location 
code, the Commission requires video service EAS Participants to display 
the following scripted text: ``This is a nationwide test of the 
Emergency Alert System, issued by the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, covering the United States from [time] until [time]. This is 
only a test. No action is required by the public.'' This new text will 
be much easier to understand than the text displayed for such test 
alerts under the current rules (``the Primary Entry Point system has 
issued a National Periodic Test . . .''). The Commission notes that the 
revised text will be displayed only when FEMA issues a nationwide test 
alert in legacy EAS format and therefore cannot use the enhanced text 
capabilities of CAP to explain the alert visually in greater detail. It 
is unnecessary to prescribe such a script for test alerts that FEMA 
issues in CAP format, since FEMA can add explanatory text to CAP-
formatted messages and ensure that the audio message matches the visual 
crawl generated for the alert.
    30. The Commission disagrees with Sage's and Timm's arguments that 
addition of a script is a departure from processing of actual EAN 
alerts that would render the testing process less effective. As the 
Commission has long acknowledged, the technical parameters of NPT test 
alerts need not be identical to those of EAN alerts announcing actual 
national emergencies to generate an effective test, especially if a 
slight difference will make the test alert message are more 
comprehensible and accessible, including to people who are deaf or hard 
of hearing. In this instance, a slight deviation between the use of a 
scripted message for legacy NPT test messages and the visual crawl that 
would be generated for an actual EAN alert will not significantly 
diminish the NPT's usefulness. The Commission agrees with Sage, 
however, that there is no need to prohibit translations, and therefore 
clarifies that EAS equipment manufacturers may translate the NPT script 
adopted today into additional languages, as some currently do for alert 
code text descriptions.
    31. The Commission also requires radio broadcasters to change the 
text for the NPT event code from ``National Periodic Test'' to 
``Nationwide Test of the Emergency Alert System.'' The Commission 
disagrees with NAB's contention that ``it seems inappropriate to impose 
the same obligation [to implement the new NPT text and NPT script] on 
audio-only EAS Participants, at least on the same terms as video 
service providers, as they do not contribute to the visual 
accessibility of EAS messages.'' The Commission also disagrees with 
NAB's suggestion that the only ``purpose of the CAP related obligation 
is to promote the ability of EAS alerting to provide matching visual 
and audio messages, to increase the clarity of alerts for persons who 
are deaf and hard of hearing.'' While these are central reasons why we 
are adopting these requirements, they are not the only factors 
justifying these rule changes, as discussed above. For example, some 
digital radio broadcasters display visual alerts on the screens of 
digital radio receivers. Moreover, it is important for radio 
broadcasters' NPT alerts to refer to ``Nationwide Test of the Emergency 
Alert System'' in instances when CAP-format text messages do not 
include any audio content and the audio alerts must be generated based 
on the CAP message header using text-to-speech functionality. 
Otherwise, if FEMA were to send an NPT alert in CAP format consisting 
exclusively of text without any audio component, or if a distribution 
failure resulted in a radio broadcaster receiving only the text but not 
the audio portion of the alert, a radio broadcaster that had not 
implemented the new NPT text would air the outdated ``National Periodic 
Test'' language that the Commission has found to be confusing to the 
public.
    32. While the Commission requires radio broadcasters to implement 
the new NPT header code text, it declines to require them to update 
their devices to accommodate the new prescribed script for legacy-
format NPT messages. The Commission concludes that imposing such a 
requirement on radio broadcasters would yield only minimal benefits, 
because the prescribed NPT script is to be used only in visual displays 
and would not affect audio messages. Although a few radio broadcasters 
might be able to display the new prescribed script on digital radio 
receiver screens, they would display the clearer NPT label that the 
Commission adopts today (``Nationwide Test of the Emergency Alert 
Message'') even if they were not required to display the more detailed 
NPT script; and imposing that requirement on the large majority of 
radio broadcasters would have no impact on alert clarity. Radio 
broadcasters are free to implement this updated script voluntarily, 
however, and the Commission encourages them to do so if it will improve 
digital radio visual displays, or for the sake of consistency across 
deployed EAS decoder devices.
    33. Eliminating National Information Center (NIC) Code. As the 
Commission proposed in the NDAA FNPRM, the Commission is deleting the 
National Information Center (NIC) event code because the federal 
National Information Center no longer exists, and there is thus no 
reason to maintain this event code in the rules. Most commenting 
parties agree. Deleting the NIC code will avoid confusion by preventing 
any accidental activation of this obsolete alert and will avert the 
risk of rogue alerts that might be caused by unauthorized parties' 
intentional misuse of the NIC code. Since deletion of the NIC code can 
be implemented by a simple software change that requires only an update 
to EAS encoders, the Commission requires EAS Participants to implement 
this change in the same timeframe as the other EAS encoder device 
changes adopted in this order. This should entail negligible costs 
since EAS Participants can implement all required encoder updates in a 
single package update. The Commission also directs SECCs to remove this 
code from state EAS plans and advises FEMA to remove NIC from its list 
of codes that can be accepted from alert originators and issued via 
IPAWS.
    34. The Commission rejects Sage's alternative proposals for 
preventing

[[Page 67813]]

issuance of NIC-coded alerts without deleting the NIC code, such as 
directing parties to ignore the code and asking FEMA and alert 
originators not to use it. These approaches would be more complicated 
to implement than simply deleting the NIC code, and they would be far 
less effective at preventing potential misuse of a code that is 
otherwise obsolete and unnecessary. The Commission also rejects 
Donelan's suggestion that the NIC code be retained and repurposed. The 
Commission cannot do this except in concert with FEMA, which has asked 
to delete the code.
    35. Conforming Changes to Implementing Rules. Finally, to avoid 
potential confusion stemming from associating the PEP originator code 
with the term ``United States Government,'' the Commission is replacing 
the term ``Primary Entry Point System'' in the rules with the term 
``National Public Warning System.'' The Commission notes that FEMA has 
ceased using ``Primary Entry Point System'' and has replaced it with 
the term ``National Public Warning System'' (NPWS), and the Commission 
finds that aligning its terminology with FEMA's is in the public 
interest. While the Commission did not specifically propose or mention 
this rule change in the NDAA NPRM or the Accessibility NPRM, the 
Commission believes it is a logical outgrowth of the proposal to change 
the text associated with the PEP originator code. Furthermore, to the 
extent necessary, the Commission invokes the exception in the 
Administrative Procedure Act that allows agencies to proceed without 
notice and comment to revise rules where notice and comment is 
unnecessary. Here, the Commission believes initiating another notice 
and comment proceeding to address this non-substantive conforming rule 
change is unnecessary and that adopting it without further notice and 
comment is in the public interest, because the change in terminology 
used to refer to certain entities in the Commission's rules will have 
no impact on any party's rights or obligations. The Commission also 
makes minor edits to Part 11 to update the contact information for the 
National Archives and Records Administration. These updates to NARA's 
contact information do not alter the substance of parties' obligations, 
but merely the procedures they follow to obtain required standards from 
NARA, and the Commission thus views them as procedural rule changes for 
which notice and comment is not required. To the extent that these 
rules were instead seen as something other than procedural rules, the 
Commission independently finds good cause to forgo notice and comment 
as an alternative basis for its decision. The Commission finds notice 
and comment unnecessary because regulated entities' rights and 
obligations are not being altered.

C. Compliance Time Frame

    36. The Commission requires all EAS Participants to comply with the 
rules adopted in this order no later than one year from the effective 
date of the order (subject to the exceptions discussed below). The 
Commission agrees with commenting parties that all rule changes 
requiring software updates to EAS encoder equipment can be accomplished 
on a one-year schedule. Equipment suppliers DAS and Sage indicate that 
changes such as the revised EAN code text and removal of the NIC event 
code ``can be accomplished via software updates'' to EAS equipment in 
tandem with ``regularly scheduled maintenance activities'' involving 
minimal cost and effort on the part of EAS manufacturers and 
participants and that ``[t]he normal estimate of a year would apply.'' 
These parties support the same implementation period for the new CAP 
polling and prioritization requirements: DAS says it has already 
installed ``a feature called Triggered CAP PollingTM'' on 
EAS devices and ``made [it] available on every software update since 
2018, while Sage states the feature ``can be implemented by Sage and 
installed by users over a one-year period.'' This one-year 
implementation period is consistent with past orders requiring EAS 
encoder software updates. This deadline applies to all EAS 
participants, including radio broadcasters.
    37. REC Networks requests that the CAP polling implementation 
deadline be extended to three years for analog radio broadcasters, 
contending that ``[t]here are many smaller broadcast stations, 
including LPFM stations, smaller noncommercial educational (NCE) 
stations as well as small `mom and pop' and other standalone commercial 
broadcasters, including those owned or controlled by minority groups[,] 
that do not have the budget or resources to implement CAP Polling 
within the proposed mandated one-year time frame.'' The Commission 
declines to do so. REC cites vendor costs of less than $500 for the 
necessary software changes, and does not provide any evidence to 
suggest that this would be a financial hardship for small broadcasters, 
much less all analog broadcasters. Any individual entity may seek a 
waiver if it can demonstrate that ``special circumstances'' justify 
deviation from the generally applicable requirement. The Commission 
notes that REC Networks generally disagrees with its decision to apply 
the CAP polling and prioritization requirements to analog radio 
broadcast stations, as discussed above. Those general policy objections 
do not justify a special carve-out from the generally applicable 
compliance timeframe for an entire industry segment.
    38. The Commission disagrees with NCTA's and ACA's argument that 
cable operators would need at least two years to conduct the downstream 
equipment testing and modifications needed to implement timed CAP 
polling and the changes to the PEP and NPT code texts and the NPT 
script. The EAS changes the Commission adopts in this Order are 
substantially similar to the NPT and national location code rule 
changes the Commission adopted in 2015, when NCTA agreed that one year 
was enough time for even a complex downstream equipment testing 
process. Neither NCTA nor ACA explains why the downstream equipment 
testing and modification process would take longer now than it did in 
the past. The Commission finds that one year is sufficient time (except 
in the circumstances described below) for all EAS Participants to 
implement the changes that the Commission deems necessary to improve 
public safety by making alerts more comprehensible and accessible, as 
promptly as practicable.
    39. The Commission recognizes, however, that it may take more than 
one year for cable operators to implement the required change to the 
EAN text. Cable industry commenters note that the text associated with 
EAN-coded alerts (unlike text associated with other alert codes) is 
sometimes hard-wired into ``downstream'' equipment in cable operators' 
networks, including set-top boxes that are controlled by the cable 
operator and installed at customers' premises. Thus, while cable 
operators can implement software upgrades in their EAS encoder/decoder 
equipment to transmit the new text for the EAN code, many downstream 
set-top boxes cannot be similarly reprogrammed through software 
modifications alone (a problem that is especially acute for some older, 
discontinued models for which manufacturers no longer provide software 
support). As a result, implementing the new EAN text will require these 
set-top boxes to be replaced. Moreover, NCTA argues persuasively that 
wide-scale hardware replacement at customers' premises on a short 
timeframe would entail excessively high costs.

[[Page 67814]]

    40. Specifically, the Commission grants cable operators six years 
from the effective date of today's order to complete the transition to 
the new EAN text display of ``National Emergency Message'' to the 
extent that the change requires replacement of navigation equipment 
(i.e., set-top boxes) that cannot be safely updated via software 
upgrades alone, and 15 months from the effective date of the order in 
other instances where implementing the EAN text change require upgraded 
software on set-top boxes and headend equipment used to control set-top 
boxes. The Commission finds these longer compliance time frames for 
implementing the EAN change in this limited context to be justified, 
due to the risk that improperly programmed equipment might fail to 
transmit EAN alerts properly, the need for testing such software 
changes to assure a smooth and effective rollout, and the excessive 
costs that immediate replacement of such equipment would impose. 
Similarly, to the extent such changes require replacement of set-top 
boxes or other navigation equipment at customer premises, the 
Commission finds that it would not be in the public interest to require 
replacement of all such equipment in cable networks with the EAN text 
change within one year. A six-year implementation period will avoid 
rushed compliance efforts without testing and verifying the proper 
functionality of such equipment, and will enable cable operators to 
gradually replace outdated set-top boxes to the extent necessary on a 
schedule closer to the average lifecycle of this equipment, resulting 
in costs that would not substantially exceed those they would incur in 
the ordinary course of business.
    41. The Commission's compliance timeline of six years is based on 
estimates of the average life span for replacement of cable set-top-
boxes and similar devices that cable industry representatives have 
submitted to government agencies in the past. For example, NCTA 
represented in 2017 that the average set-top box lifespan is five to 
seven years and that the average deployment cycle for set-top boxes is 
six years. NCTA more recently stated that ``its members estimate that 
set top boxes have ``a lifecycle of roughly 10+ years,'' but it has 
clarified that this estimate applies only to ``newer set-top boxes 
[that] are designed to have longer lifespans,'' not to all deployed 
set-top boxes. The six-year replacement timeline the Commission 
establishes today primarily applies to older legacy set-top boxes that 
cannot be updated via software changes. Therefore, it is appropriate to 
rely on the earlier estimates for purposes of establishing this 
timeline. Finally, the Commission does not adopt ACA Connects' proposal 
to exempt small cable operators from the set-top box replacement 
requirement or to extend the six-year timeline to ten years. While ACA 
Connects asserts that the requirement would be burdensome to small 
operators, it provides no evidence to support this assertion. ACA 
Connects states that ``the cable video business has become increasingly 
challenging in recent years, especially for the smallest operators,'' 
and argues that a mandate to replace set-top boxes ``could prove highly 
burdensome for some operators and even encourage exit from the cable 
video business,'' However, ACA Connects provides no cost data or other 
evidence that would support a blanket exemption for all small 
operators. To the extent that individual cable operators can 
demonstrate unique hardship or other special circumstances, they may 
seek a waiver pursuant to the Commission's rules.
    42. NCTA asserts that even where set-top boxes need not be 
replaced, implementing the EAN text change may require upgraded 
software on set-top boxes and headend equipment used to control set-top 
boxes, and it argues that the Commission should allow 18 months for all 
required software upgrades, including the upgrades to implement the new 
labels for the NPT and PEP codes. The Commission declines to do so. The 
Commission will allow cable operators additional time to comply with 
the required change to the text associated with the EAN code only, but 
finds that 15 months is more than adequate to account for these 
software-related complexities, including any unexpected difficulties. 
The additional time the Commission is allowing for cable operators to 
implement the EAN text change, as discussed above, is justified by the 
potentially more complex activities necessary to reprogram or replace 
some set-top boxes and set-top box controller equipment at cable 
headends. No such activities are needed to implement the other changes 
adopted in this order, such as the CAP polling and prioritization 
requirements or the new labels for the NPT and PEP codes. The 
Commission also is not persuaded by NCTA's argument that establishing 
identical deadlines for all of these changes is needed to reduce the 
risk of complications or disruption to consumers. Like other EAS 
Participants, cable operators can implement changes other than the EAN 
change by relatively simple software upgrades on EAS encoder/decoder 
equipment that do not involve modifying software in set-top boxes or 
related equipment in cable headends and are not disruptive to the end 
user.
    43. The Commission emphasizes that cable operators must implement 
any necessary EAN software modifications to their upstream EAS decoder 
equipment by the generally applicable one-year deadline. This will 
enable at least those subscribers with updated or newly replaced set-
top boxes to see the new ``National Emergency Message'' text for EAN 
code alerts as soon as reasonably possible. To ensure that cable 
operators continue to successfully deliver alerts that use the EAN 
event code to their subscribers as the rules currently mandate, the 
Commission also requires these software updates to be implemented in 
such a way that, for the interim period of time prior to the date six 
years after the effective date of this Order, any set-top box that 
cannot receive a software update will still process the EAN and will 
continue to display the old ``Emergency Action Notification'' text upon 
receiving the EAN. Commenting parties confirm that a change to the EAN 
text only (as opposed to a change to the three-letter EAN code) will 
allow non-updated downstream processing equipment to continue to 
display alert messages.
    44. To ensure that people with disabilities are supported during 
the interim equipment replacement period, the Commission further 
require that if a cable operator supplies or leases set-top boxes or 
similar navigation devices to its customers that cannot be updated to 
display the new text for EAN messages, the operator must, upon the 
request of any customer who is deaf or hard of hearing, replace that 
device with a new device capable of displaying the new EAN visual text. 
The cable operator must supply and, if necessary, install such a device 
within a reasonable time after receiving such a request, on the same 
terms and to the same extent as provided in 47 CFR 79.108. This rule, 
adopted as part of the Commission's implementation of the Twenty-First 
Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA), 
involved a nearly identical weighing of equities requiring cable 
operators to provide compliant set-top boxes to subscribers with 
disabilities upon request and within a reasonable time to ensure 
accessibility without unduly burdening cable operators, and is 
therefore an appropriate standard here. The Commission agrees with 
DeafLink that increased EAS accessibility for people who are deaf or 
hard of hearing is long overdue, and ``[t]he Deaf

[[Page 67815]]

community has long awaited an accessible solution . . .'' While the 
Commission is granting cable operators a six-year compliance window to 
avoid imposing excessive short-term costs, this does not excuse them 
from their obligation to promptly meet the needs of people who are deaf 
or hard of hearing for clear visual alerts. Moreover, since cable 
operators will need to implement equipment replacement plans to ensure 
that all set-top boxes on their networks can display the new EAN text 
by the end of the six-year period, the Commission believe it is 
reasonable to require that such plans include a mechanism to supply 
compliant set-top boxes at an earlier date to people who are deaf or 
hard of hearing who request them. To ensure that individuals with 
hearing disabilities can benefit from earlier access to new or updated 
set-top boxes, the Commission also requires cable operators to post 
information on the availability of such devices on their official 
websites as soon as new or updated devices are available for 
distribution to customers and explain the means for making requests for 
such equipment, in the same manner as by rule 79.108(d)(2). While the 
Commission did not explicitly seek comment on such proposed 
requirements, the Commission finds that these requirements are a 
logical outgrowth of the proposal in the NDAA FNPRM to revise the text 
of the EAN alert (if not the three letter code itself), in tandem with 
the cable industry's comments regarding the difficulty and time-
consumer nature of doing so, as well the existing requirements that 
cable providers provide notice on their official websites about the 
availability of accessible navigation devices.
    45. Finally, with respect to cable-card devices and smart TVs that 
are not controlled by cable operators, the Commission encourages those 
third-party manufacturers to update their deployed devices to reflect 
the new EAN text where possible, and to ensure future manufactured 
models reflect the new EAN text. Cable operators are required to 
transmit the EAN message to their subscribers, and should therefore 
take appropriate steps to minimize the risk that updates to their own 
facilities will trigger a downstream failure in existing third-party 
customer premise devices.

D. Persistent Alerts

    46. In the NDAA FNPRM, the Commission discussed a proposal, 
originally suggested by FEMA, to update legacy EAS to facilitate 
``persistent alerts''--that is, to enable alerts concerning 
``emergencies that require immediate public protective actions to 
mitigate loss of life'' to ``persist on EAS until the alert time has 
expired or is cancelled by the alert originator.'' After review of the 
record, the Commission declines to take further action on this proposal 
at this time. The Commission is not persuaded that implementing this 
proposal in legacy EAS would be technically feasible, and it takes note 
of the virtually unanimous opposition to the proposal by commenting 
parties, including alert originators, SECCs, EAS Participants, and 
equipment manufacturers. As one commenter notes, legacy EAS does not 
enable alert originators to retract or alter an alert once they issue 
it, and the Commission is troubled by the possibility that a persistent 
alert could become outdated or even counter-productive if conditions 
change as emergency responders address an incident. For example, a 
persistent alert in legacy EAS would likely block out all subsequent 
alerts (except an EAN or NPT) until the valid time period for the 
original alert expired. During that time, the audio portion of the EAS 
alert would continuously play, which would drown out the audio of 
regular programming as well as any emergency news programming that 
might provide updated information related to the emergency condition 
not covered in the original EAS alert audio message. Similarly, the 
original visual message would continuously scroll until the time period 
for the alert expired, thus blocking the display of potential updated 
information that the EAS Participant might be attempting to broadcast.
    47. While the Commission recognizes that persistent alerts could be 
feasible and potentially beneficial in a different aging system 
architecture, it does not see how those benefits could be realized in 
legacy EAS's architecture, which is designed to provide brief warnings 
to the public. Moreover, legacy EAS already provides a mechanism for 
repeatedly reminding the public of an impending emergency: alert 
originators can repeat their alerts if they determine that such action 
is warranted. Based on these considerations, the Commission is not 
adopting any new rules or policies to facilitate persistent alert 
messages in legacy EAS at this time.

E. Benefit-Cost Analysis

    48. Benefits. As discussed above, the Commission finds that today's 
rule changes will result in substantial public interest benefits. 
Specifically, the rule changes the Commission is adopting reduce 
confusion and make alerts easier to understand, making recipients more 
likely to trust alerts and respond to them, and will yield particular 
benefits by improving access to alert information for people with 
disabilities. The CAP polling rule change will lead to increased 
dissemination of CAP-formatted alerts, which provide more detailed 
alert information than legacy alerts to recipients, including better 
instructions on protective measures that the public should take. 
Similarly, the Commission's new rules requiring clearer identification 
of the purposes and origin of alerts increase the likelihood that the 
public will pay attention to them. Eliminating confusion and building 
trust in EAS makes it more likely that the public will follow alert 
instructions in the future. The public's increased understanding and 
trust in alerts improves public safety outcomes by saving lives and 
better protecting property.
    49. While it is difficult to quantify the precise dollar value of 
improvements to the public's safety, life, and health, the Commission 
nonetheless concludes that very substantial public safety benefits will 
result from the rules it adopts today. EAS alerts that convey more 
complete information and are easier to understand by the general 
public, especially those with hearing and vision disabilities, will 
enable more listeners and viewers to respond to emergency situations by 
taking appropriate protective actions, such as evacuating or 
sheltering-in-place, depending on the nature of the emergency. As a 
consequence, the Commission anticipates that the rule changes it adopts 
today will yield substantial life-saving benefits in the event of such 
emergencies. As discussed above, the Commission agrees with commenting 
parties that the CAP polling and prioritization requirement will result 
in greater display of alerts with clearer and more informative visual 
text to better inform the public, and that changing the text of certain 
alert codes will improve the visual displays of alert messages. The 
value of improved public safety in reducing the risk of avoidable 
deaths and injuries by better informing the public of pending 
emergencies is substantial. While the Commission cannot estimate the 
precise incremental dollar value of these changes, improvements to the 
EAS that increase accessibility, enable people to access and understand 
alerts more easily and respond more quickly, and increase overall 
confidence in the EAS will produce large benefits to preservation of 
life and property. The Commission notes that some agencies estimate the 
benefits of preservation of life and

[[Page 67816]]

property by considering the value of reduced mortality risk. If the 
Commission were to estimate that the rule changes it adopts today would 
reduce mortality risk sufficiently as to lead to an expected reduction 
of one life lost per year--an expectation the Commission finds 
reasonable and conservative here--the benefits of that risk reduction 
would be worth $59 million over the first five years after the rules 
take effect (i.e., 5 x $11.8 million).
    50. Costs. The measures adopted today are the most cost-effective 
ways to achieve the benefits of making EAS more comprehensible, and 
therefore more effective, as described above. By declining to adopt 
proposals to change the PEP code to NAT or the EAN code to NEM, the 
Commission avoids imposing additional and potentially excessive costs 
that its new requirements could have imposed on industry. By allowing 
six years for complete cable system EAN text change compliance, the 
Commission avoids imposing excessive costs on the cable industry that 
would have resulted from a shorter compliance timeframe. By exempting 
radio broadcasters from the legacy NPT script change, the Commission is 
reducing the extent of decoder software updates made outside of the 
normal course of planned upgrades. Yet, because the Commission is 
allowing sufficient time and flexibility to allow EAS Participants to 
make upgrades in tandem with general software upgrades installed during 
the regular course of business, the cost of the software changes needed 
due to the requirements adopted today will not significantly exceed the 
costs of software updates that most EAS Participants would need to 
implement whether or not these rule changes are adopted. Accordingly, 
most EAS Participants will avoid this cost.
    51. In the NDAA FNPRM and the Accessibility NPRM, the Commission 
asked for cost estimate submissions from parties subject to today's 
decision. No party did so. The Commission believes, however, that the 
cost of implementing the EAS decoder equipment changes adopted in this 
order will be roughly in line with the cost of changes adopted in the 
2016 Weather Alerts Order and the 2017 Blue Alerts Order, which 
similarly entailed few costs beyond the reprogramming of EAS decoder 
equipment. In the Blue Alerts Order, for example, the Commission 
concluded that the only cost to EAS Participants for installing the new 
EAS software is the labor cost involved in downloading the software 
patches into their devices and associated clerical work. The Commission 
follows the procedure of estimating the labor costs of updating 
software used in the Weather Alerts Order and the Blue Alerts Order.
    52. To form an upper bound of the cost, the Commission assumes that 
the software update takes 5 hours, which it expects is substantially 
longer than the average time a software update would take. The Office 
of Management and Budget approved an estimate of $25 per hour of labor 
cost for an EAS Participant to fill out the Commission online report 
form for EAS National Tests in 2011. The Commission finds that the real 
labor cost of software updates to implement all of today's changes 
would be similar and adjusts the labor cost upward to $35 to reflect 
inflation since 2011. Each devi