Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from Microsoft Word.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.
*****************************************************************
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
Amendment of Part 11 of the Commission's Rules ) EB Docket
No. 01-66
Regarding the Emergency Alert System ) RM-9156
) RM-9215
REPORT AND ORDER
Adopted: February 22, 2002 Released: February 26, 2002
By the Commission:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraph
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. BACKGROUND 3
III. DISCUSSION 5
A.EAS Codes 5
1. Event Codes 7
a.Naming Convention 7
b.New Event Codes 11
c.Cancellation Codes 31
2. Location Codes 34
a.Marine Area Location Codes 35
b.Entire Country Location Code 37
c.Customized Location Codes 40
3. Originator Codes 42
B.EAS Equipment 44
1. Selective Displaying and Logging of EAS Messages 44
2. Equipment Authorization Requirements 46
C.EAS Testing 48
D.Modulation Level of EAS Codes 51
E.Protocol for Text Transmission 54
F.Carriage of Audio of Presidential Messages from Non-EAS
Sources57
G.Use of Common EAS Equipment by ``Key'' Broadcast Stations
and Cable Systems 60
H.EAN Network 62
I.International High Frequency Stations 64
J.Waiver Requests 66
K.Other Matters 76
IV. CONCLUSION 83
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 84
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES 86
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Report and Order, we amend Part 11 of the
Commission's Rules (``Rules'') to revise the technical and
operational requirements for the Emergency Alert System
(``EAS'').1 Specifically, we amend the Part 11 rules to (1)
add new state and local event codes, including a Child
Abduction Event Code, and new location codes; (2) permit
broadcast stations and cable systems to program their EAS
equipment to selectively display and log state and local EAS
messages; (3) increase the time for retransmitting Required
Monthly Tests (``RMTs'') from 15 to 60 minutes of receipt of
the RMT message; (4) revise the minimum required modulation
level of EAS codes; (5) permit broadcast stations to air the
audio of a presidential EAS message from a higher quality,
non-EAS source; (6) eliminate references to the now-defunct
Emergency Action Notification (``EAN'') network; (7)
eliminate the requirements that international High Frequency
(``HF'') broadcast stations purchase and install EAS
equipment and cease broadcasting immediately upon receipt of
a national-level EAS message; (8) exempt satellite/repeater
broadcast stations which rebroadcast 100% of the programming
of their hub station from the requirement to install EAS
equipment; (9) authorize cable systems serving fewer than
5,000 subscribers to meet the October 1, 2002 deadline by
installing certified EAS decoders, to the extent that such
decoders may become available, rather than both encoders and
decoders; and (10) provide that low power FM stations need
not install EAS decoders until one year after any such
decoders are certified by the Commission.
2. The rule changes we are adopting in this Report and
Order are primarily intended to enhance the capabilities and
performance of the EAS during state and local emergencies.
Recent events in this country have highlighted the
importance of maintaining an alert system which affords
national as well as state and local authorities the
capability to provide emergency communications and
information to the American public immediately via broadcast
stations and cable systems. Nevertheless, we recognize that
participation in EAS at the state and local levels remains
voluntary and we do not wish to impose additional costs or
burdens on broadcast stations and cable systems that may
have the unintended effect of discouraging voluntary
participation in state and local EAS activities. Therefore,
we will not require broadcast stations and cable systems to
upgrade their existing EAS equipment to add the new state
and local event codes and location codes that we are
adopting in this proceeding. Rather, we will permit
broadcast stations and cable systems to upgrade their
existing EAS equipment to add the new event and location
codes on a voluntary basis until the equipment is replaced.
All existing and new models of EAS equipment manufactured
after August 1, 2003 will be required to be capable of
receiving and transmitting the new codes. We believe that
this approach strikes an appropriate balance between
promoting public safety by permitting enhancements to state
and local EAS and ensuring that any such enhancements do not
result in reduced voluntary participation in state and local
EAS activities.
II. BACKGROUND
3. In 1994, the Commission adopted rules establishing the
EAS as a replacement for the Emergency Broadcast System
(``EBS'') and requiring cable systems as well as broadcast
stations to participate in EAS.2 The Commission extended
the EAS requirements to wireless cable systems in 1997.3
Participation in national EAS alerts is mandatory for
broadcast stations, cable systems and wireless cable
systems.4 These entities participate in state and local
area EAS plans on a voluntary basis. Broadcast stations were
required to install the new EAS equipment by January 1,
1997. Cable systems with 10,000 or more subscribers were
required to install new EAS equipment by December 31, 1998.
Cable systems with fewer than 10,000 subscribers and
wireless cable systems5 are required to install EAS
equipment by October 1, 2002.
4. On March 20, 2001, the Commission issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM'')6 to seek comment on various
revisions to technical and operational EAS requirements
requested in petitions for rulemaking filed by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (``NOAA'') National
Weather Service (``NWS'')7 and the Society of Broadcast
Engineers (``SBE'').8 The NPRM also proposed to revise the
EAS rules to eliminate obsolete references to the EAN
network and its participants and to delete the requirement
that international HF broadcast stations purchase and
install EAS equipment. Thirty-four parties filed comments
on the NPRM.9
III. DISCUSSION
A. EAS Codes
5. The EAS equipment used by broadcast stations and cable
systems sends and receives messages using a precise format
called the EAS protocol. Each EAS message has four parts:
digital header codes, a two-tone attention signal, an audio
and/or video message, and an End of Message code. The
header codes define the nature of the event or emergency
(event code), the location of the emergency (location code),
the party that originated the emergency message (originator
code), and the valid time period of the message. The two-
tone attention signal, which must be transmitted for a
minimum of eight seconds, provides an audio alert to
audiences that emergency information is about to be sent.
The EAS protocol is virtually identical to the NOAA Weather
Radio (``NWR'') Specific Area Message Encoding (``SAME'')
technique, which NWS uses to transmit messages over NWR
transmitters around the country.
6. The NPRM sought comment on numerous revisions to the
EAS codes requested by NWS and SBE, including the adoption
of a naming convention for event codes, new event and
location codes, and a revision of NWS's originator code.
1. Event Codes
a. Naming Convention
7. In the NPRM, we invited comment on NWS's request that
the Commission adopt a naming convention for state and local
event codes.10 Under the naming convention suggested by
NWS, the third letter of all hazardous state and local event
codes would be limited to one of four letters: ``W'' for
warnings, ``A'' for watches, ``E'' for emergencies, and
``S'' for statements.11 NWS asserted that the naming
convention would make possible a wider range of consumer
products without lessening the current capabilities of the
EAS or NWR-SAME. We noted in the NPRM that adoption of the
naming convention would require revision of the existing
event codes for Tornado Warning (TOR), Severe Thunderstorm
Warning (SVR) and Evacuation Immediate (EVI) to TOW, SVW and
IEW, respectively. We expressed concern that adding the
revised codes and deleting the existing codes for these
three important events would require any broadcast station
or cable system that wishes to participate in state and
local EAS alerts to modify or upgrade its EAS equipment to
handle the revised codes. Therefore, we sought comment on
ways to ease the transition in the event that we adopted the
naming convention, such as requiring NWS to transmit both
the revised codes and the existing codes for these three
events during a transition period. We also requested
specific information on any costs that broadcast stations
and cable systems participating voluntarily in state and
local EAS alerts may incur if the naming convention is
adopted and the impact the revised codes would have on
existing EAS equipment that is not modified or upgraded.
8. Based on our review of the comments, we conclude that
the best approach is to use the naming convention suggested
by NWS on a going-forward basis for the new event codes that
we adopt in this proceeding and any new event codes we may
adopt in the future, but not to revise any existing event
codes. NWS asserts that adoption of the naming convention
will ensure that the NWR-SAME and EAS systems are downward
compatible with consumer products using these code
systems.12 NWS explains that although it is not possible to
integrate new three-character event codes into the hundreds
of thousands of existing consumer products or the millions
of such products anticipated in coming years, adoption of
the naming convention would allow an algorithm in consumer
devices to check the third character of any event code not
integrated in the device for a W, A, E, or S and generate a
generic notification with the intended alert level. Thus,
for example, if the third letter in an event code is ``W,''
the consumer device would recognize the event as a warning
and alert, even if the device does not recognize the first
two letters of the event code.13 We agree that it is
logical to apply the naming convention prospectively to new
event codes because it will enable existing and future
consumer products to alert upon receipt of a new event code
even if the product does not recognize the particular code.
9. However, we believe that any benefits that may result
from revising any existing codes to conform with the naming
convention are outweighed by the costs. As several
commenters point out, it does not appear that it is
necessary to revise the existing codes.14 NWS does not
offer any specific reason or justification for revising the
existing codes. Rather, NWS simply states that ``[w]hile it
may appear that not revising these event codes would have no
adverse consequences, it is not unreasonable to conclude
that inaction now may result in reduced future applications,
complications, and significant costs for changes.''15 We
are not persuaded that some possible, undefined future
consequences justify the costs that would be incurred by
broadcast stations and cable systems if we revised the
existing codes to accommodate the naming convention. In
this regard, we share concerns voiced by some commenters
that revising the existing codes would require any broadcast
station or cable system that wishes to participate in state
and local EAS alerts to upgrade its EAS equipment to handle
the revised codes.16 Two EAS equipment manufacturers
indicate that the revised codes could be accomplished
through software and/or firmware upgrades to existing
equipment,17 while the National Cable & Telecommunications
Association (``NCTA'') states that the manufacturers it has
contacted have suggested that hardware and/or software
upgrades will be required to the equipment in each and every
location with equipment.18 Estimates of the cost of such
upgrades provided by the equipment manufacturers range from
$100 to $300 plus shipping and handling.19 NCTA estimates
that for the cable industry the cost to upgrade equipment
would be $200 to $500 plus labor and the administrative
costs of installing the upgrades for some companies in as
many as 2,500 headends and nodes.20 Commenters express
concern that some broadcast stations and cable systems,
particularly smaller entities, may forego equipment upgrades
necessary to incorporate the revised codes because of these
costs.21 As we discuss in more detail below, we do not wish
to impose additional costs and burdens on EAS participants
that may result in reduced voluntary participation in state
and local EAS activities. We are also very concerned that
revision of the existing codes may cause the public to miss
emergency warnings for these important events if some
broadcast stations and cable systems choose not to upgrade
their EAS equipment.
10. Moreover, NWS disputes our suggestion in the NPRM that
it has the capability to transmit both existing and revised
codes for Tornado Warning, Severe Thunderstorm Warning and
Evacuation Immediate events during a transition period,
asserting that NWR-SAME systems cannot encode two event
codes in the same message header.22 Other commenters also
raise strenuous objections to this suggestion, arguing that
the simultaneous transmission of existing and revised codes
for these important events could lead to confusion and
error.23 Thus, it appears that providing a transition
period during which both existing and revised codes could be
used is not a viable option. Particularly in view of the
cost and safety concerns cited above, we are unwilling to
revise any existing event codes without being able to afford
broadcast stations and cable systems an adequate period of
time to ease the transition.
b. New Event Codes
11. Section 11.31(e) of the Rules lists the authorized
three-letter event codes for national EAS events and tests,
which broadcasters and cable systems are required to receive
and transmit, and for state and local EAS events, which
broadcasters and cable systems voluntarily participating in
state and local area EAS plans may transmit on an optional
basis.24 We sought comment in the NPRM on requests by NWS
and others that we amend Section 11.31(e) to add new state
and local event codes for emergency conditions not included
in the current list and for certain administrative messages
and non-EAS applications.25 We included a listing of the
recommended new event codes in an Appendix to the NPRM.26 We
also sought comment on whether, as an alternative to adding
new state and local event codes and location codes, we
should amend the rules to provide that any modifications to
existing authorized EAS equipment that are necessary to
implement revisions in EAS codes are Class I permissive
changes that do not require a new application for and grant
of equipment certification.27 Under this alternative,
broadcasters and cable systems could satisfy their EAS
obligations with equipment designed to function with either
the existing codes or an expanded range of codes.
Additional state and local event codes and location codes
could be developed directly by state and local officials,
broadcasters and cable operators, equipment manufacturers
and other interested parties. The use of these codes and
the equipment needed to access them would be implemented on
a permissive basis as determined by the specific needs and
interests of the local area participants. We suggested that
this alternative approach would eliminate the need to
conduct rulemakings to revise the state and local event
codes, and would afford equipment manufacturers greater
flexibility in the design and modification of EAS equipment.
12. We will amend Section 11.31(e) of the Rules to add new
state and local event codes. There is widespread support
among the commenters for the addition of new event codes.28
Commenters assert that adding new event codes to Section
11.31(e) will improve and expand the capabilities of EAS and
thereby promote public safety.29 We agree. In addition,
commenters overwhelmingly oppose our alternative suggestion
to leave the development of state and local event codes and
location codes to state and local authorities.30 Commenters
fear that this approach would result in great variations in
EAS equipment throughout the country, which could threaten
the reliability of the EAS system and jeopardize public
safety.31 Commenters are also concerned that equipment
manufacturers may be reluctant to insert new codes into
their equipment unless the codes are specified in the
Commission's rules and that the cost of purchasing
customized equipment might be prohibitive and result in
decreased voluntary participation in EAS.32 We believe that
these are valid concerns and therefore will not adopt our
alternative suggestion to leave the development of event
codes and location codes to state and local authorities.33
13. Although commenters generally support the addition of
new state and local event codes, they differ on how the new
codes should be implemented. Some commenters urge us to
require all broadcast stations and cable systems to upgrade
existing EAS equipment to incorporate the new codes and
commence use of the new codes on a specified future date.34
Other commenters favor voluntary upgrades of existing
equipment.35 We will adopt NCTA's suggestion to permit
broadcast stations and cable systems to upgrade their
existing EAS equipment to add the new event codes on a
voluntary basis until it is replaced.36 Further, we are
cognizant of the effects of these rule changes on equipment
manufacturers and therefore will not require that newly
manufactured equipment be capable of receiving and
transmitting these new event codes until August 1, 2003.
Thus, all existing and new models of EAS equipment
manufactured after August 1, 2003 will be required to be
capable of receiving and transmitting these codes. We
believe that this approach is preferable for several
reasons.
14. First, participation in EAS at the state and local
levels has been voluntary since we first authorized its use
for state and local emergencies in 1976.37 Despite the fact
that participation in state and local EAS is voluntary,
broadcast stations and cable systems have participated
extensively in state and local EAS activities and have
helped to make EAS an invaluable tool for disseminating
information about state and local emergencies to the public.
We fully expect that broadcast stations and cable systems
will continue to be active participants in their state and
local EAS plans and we strongly encourage them to upgrade
their existing equipment and begin using the new codes
without delay. We think, however, that it would be contrary
to the voluntary nature of state and local EAS to mandate
upgrades to existing EAS equipment to incorporate new
optional event codes.
15. In addition, we are concerned that imposing additional
costs and burdens on broadcast stations and cable systems at
this time may have the undesired effect of reducing
voluntary participation in state and local EAS activities.
The commenters confirm that implementation of the new codes
will necessitate software/firmware and, in some cases,
hardware upgrades to existing equipment.38 Two equipment
manufacturers which filed comments estimate that such
upgrades will cost from $100 to $300 plus shipping and
handling.39 While these costs may seem relatively modest,
we recognize that they may present a financial burden to
some broadcast stations, particularly radio stations in
smaller markets.40 Furthermore, it appears that the costs
of upgrades for cable systems may be significantly higher.
In this regard, NCTA estimates, based on discussions with
equipment manufacturers, that the cost for cable systems to
upgrade their equipment would be $200 to $500 plus labor and
the administrative costs of installing the upgrades in each
and every headend.41 NCTA further observes that for cable
systems this additional expense would come only three years
after making substantial expenditures to purchase and
install new EAS equipment.42 Similarly, the National
Association of Broadcasters (``NAB'') points out that it has
only been about five years since broadcast stations made
substantial investments in new EAS equipment.43 Several
commenters predict that the costs and burdens associated
with a requirement to retrofit existing equipment to
implement the new codes would cause some broadcast stations
and cable systems to suspend their voluntary participation
in state and local EAS.44 We are troubled that this could
result in the public missing important emergency warnings.
Moreover, the record before us is incomplete in that only
two EAS equipment manufacturers submitted comments including
specific cost information for their equipment. While we
expect that the costs of upgrading other models of EAS
equipment will be comparable, we are unable to fully assess
the impact that mandatory upgrades of existing equipment
would have on broadcast stations and cable systems without
specific cost information for all types of EAS equipment.
Thus, for these reasons, we think that the public safety
objectives underlying addition of the new codes are best
accomplished by encouraging maximum voluntary participation
in state and local EAS plans, rather than by mandating
upgrades to existing equipment.
16. Although we are not mandating that broadcast stations
and cable systems upgrade their existing EAS equipment to
incorporate the new event codes, we will require broadcast
stations and cable systems which replace their EAS equipment
after February 1, 2004 to install EAS equipment that is
capable of receiving and transmitting the new event codes.
Thus, after February 1, 2004, broadcast stations and cable
systems may not replace their existing EAS equipment with
used equipment or older models of equipment that has not
been upgraded to incorporate the new event codes. This will
ensure that all broadcast stations and cable systems have
the capability to receive and transmit the new event codes
when their EAS equipment is replaced.
17. We recognize that broadcast stations and cable systems
which do not upgrade their existing equipment will be unable
to receive or transmit the new event codes.45 However, we
believe that any minor inconvenience this may cause EAS
participants (e.g., by causing their equipment to log an
``unknown event'') is offset by the benefits to the public
of adding the new event codes. In addition, we are
confident that permitting EAS participants to upgrade
existing equipment on a voluntary basis will not compromise
the functioning of the EAS system. The State Emergency
Communications Committees (``SECCs'') and Local Emergency
Communications Committees (``LECCs'') have played a critical
role in developing state and local EAS operating plans and
ensuring that the public receives timely and useful
information when natural disasters and other emergency
situations arise. We expect that the SECCs and LECCs will
continue to demonstrate their commitment and dedication to
EAS by updating their state and local plans and taking other
steps necessary to ensure the smooth implementation of the
new codes within their states (e.g., by encouraging key
sources which relay EAS messages to obtain the upgrades
promptly).
18. Commenters express differing views on which new event
codes should be added to the list in Section 11.31(e). Some
commenters assert that event codes should only be added to
the extent necessary to address the public's need to be
informed in an emergency and to enhance public safety,46 and
some commenters caution that the total number of event codes
should be modest to avoid threatening the memory and
functioning of EAS equipment.47 Many commenters make
specific recommendations as to which codes should be adopted
and which should be rejected as redundant or unnecessary.48
We will add the following new event codes to the list in
Section 11.31(e):
Nature of Activation Event Code
Avalanche Warning AVW
Avalanche Watch AVA
Child Abduction Emergency CAE
Civil Danger Warning CDW
Coastal Flood Warning CFW
Coastal Flood Watch CFA
Dust Storm Warning DSW
Earthquake Warning EQW
Fire Warning FRW
Hazardous Materials Warning HMW
Law Enforcement Warning LEW
Local Area Emergency LAE
Network Message Notification NMN
911 Telephone Outage Emergency TOE
Nuclear Power Plant Warning NUW
Radiological Hazard Warning RHW
Shelter in Place Warning SPW
Special Marine Warning SMW
Tropical Storm Warning TRW
Tropical Storm Watch TRA
Volcano Warning VOW
As we discuss above, we are using NWS's naming convention
for these new codes. In adopting these new codes, we have
attempted to balance the interest in promoting public safety with
the various concerns articulated by commenters. Following is a
discussion of the event codes which prompted specific comments or
objections.
19. Child Abduction Emergency Code. We included a Missing
Child Statement (MIS) event code in the list of suggested
event codes in the NPRM based on requests to Commission
staff for a specific event code to be used in connection
with local, state and regional AMBER Plans.49 Fourteen
parties filed comments endorsing the addition of a specific
event code to activate AMBER Plans.50 As the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children (``NCMEC'')
explains, the AMBER51 Plan is a voluntary partnership
between law enforcement agencies and the media to send out
an emergency alert to the public in serious child abduction
cases.52 It was established in 1996 in response to the
abduction and murder of a nine-year old girl in Dallas,
Texas. Under the AMBER Plan, area radio and television
stations interrupt programming to broadcast information
concerning a serious child abduction case using the EAS. To
maintain the integrity of the EAS and prevent its overuse,
AMBER alerts are only used for the most serious child
abduction cases, where police believe the child is in danger
of serious bodily harm or death, not for runaways or most
parental abductions. Currently, there are approximately 26
active AMBER Plans nationwide on the local, state and
regional levels and numerous other AMBER Plans under
development. However, because there is no specific EAS
event code for serious child abductions, AMBER Plans are
presently activated using the Civil Emergency Message event
code. NCMEC states that the use of the Civil Emergency
Message event code for AMBER alerts has caused confusion
among some listeners and viewers, who initially think that
the Civil Emergency Message is being used to alert the
public about a natural disaster.
20. We conclude that the public interest will be served by
adding a specific event code to be used for AMBER alerts.
We believe that the addition of a specific code for this
purpose will promote public safety by providing local law
enforcement authorities and EAS participants with a means to
quickly disseminate information pertaining to serious child
abduction cases. Additionally, we are very concerned that
the current practice of using the Civil Emergency Message
code to activate AMBER alerts may mislead and confuse some
listeners and viewers. However, we agree with commenters
who maintain that the Missing Child Statement code suggested
in the NPRM may misrepresent the purpose of the AMBER Plan
and lead to overuse of the EAS system.53 Accordingly, we
will instead add a Child Abduction Emergency (CAE) event
code. We think that the designation Child Abduction
Emergency is more appropriate because it underscores that
the code is only to be used for the most serious child
abduction cases when a child's life is believed to be in
danger; thus, use of the Child Abduction Emergency code will
protect the integrity and credibility of both the AMBER Plan
and the EAS system. In response to concerns raised by one
commenter,54 we emphasize that participation in local AMBER
Plans will be entirely voluntary under our rules.
21. Nuclear Power Plant Warning Code. The NPRM sought
comment on recommendations to add Nuclear Power Plant Test
Message (NPM) and Nuclear Power Plant Warning (NPW) event
codes.55 Two commenters object that use of these codes could
conflict with internal NWS codes used for ``non-
precipitation warnings.''56 Another commenter asserts that
a separate code for nuclear power plants is redundant and
unnecessary if the Radiological Hazard Warning code is
adopted.57 One commenter submits that separate Radiological
Hazard Warning and Nuclear Power Plant Warning event codes
are appropriate because the risk posed by a nuclear plant is
greater and could impact a much wider geographical area;
this commenter suggests that we add NPP for Nuclear Power
Plant Warning to avoid any conflicts with internal NWS
codes.58
22. We will add a NUW event code for Nuclear Power Plant
Warnings in lieu of the codes suggested in the NPRM. This
code will not conflict with the internal non-precipitation
warning codes used by NWS. Moreover, while a nuclear power
plant emergency could fall under the general category of
radiological hazards, we believe that it is appropriate to
add a separate, more specific code for nuclear power plant
emergencies because they pose a greater risk to the public.
We think that the NUW code is preferable to the NPP code
suggested by one commenter because it conforms with the
naming convention we are adopting in this proceeding.
23. School Closing Statement Code. In the NPRM, we
requested comment on a recommendation to add a School
Closing Statement (SCS) event code.59 Two commenters oppose
adding this code, arguing, among other things, that the
media already does an adequate job of announcing school
closures due to inclement weather and other causes and that
school closings are typically done on a district-by-district
or school-by-school basis so there would have to be separate
alerts for each district and school.60 None of the
commenters expressly support addition of this code. We
concur with the arguments made by commenters and therefore
will not add the School Closing Statement event code.
24. Dam Break Warning Code. We requested comment in the
NPRM on the addition of a Dam Break Warning (DBW) event
code.61 NWS opposes the addition of this code.62 NWS
states that, as part of its legislatively-mandated mission,
it issues Flash Flood Warnings and other messages for dam
break emergencies based on information provided by federal,
state and local land and water management authorities
through agreements with appropriate agencies. NWS contends
that adding another code for the same event would create
operational conflicts and possible public confusion during
emergencies. SBE disagrees with NWS, arguing that the Dam
Break Warning is more than a simple Flash Flood Warning and
would reach parties that would not normally require
notification and call to action for typical flash flood
situations.63 We will not add the Dam Break Warning event
code. We will defer to NWS's view that this code is
unnecessary in light of its expertise as the agency
primarily responsible for issuing alerts for dam break
emergencies.
25. NWS's Internal Use Only Administrative Codes. The NPRM
sought comment on four ``administrative'' event codes which
would be used by NWS to control individual NWR transmitter
systems: Transmitter Primary On (TXP), Transmitter Backup
On (TXB), Transmitter Carrier On (TXO), and Transmitter
Carrier Off (TXF).64 One commenter objects to adding these
codes to the EAS rules because they are for internal NWS
machine command and control functions and thus fall outside
the scope of EAS, which is intended to be used for the
dissemination of call to action and warning messages.65
This commenter also maintains that inclusion of these codes
in the EAS rules would limit NWS's operational flexibility
because further rulemakings would be required before NWS
could implement any additional such codes.
26. We will not add these administrative codes to the list
of event codes in Section 11.31(e). We see no need to amend
the EAS rules to include event codes which are clearly not
intended for transmission over the EAS system. Instead, we
think that a better approach would be to leave it to NWS's
discretion to implement these internal use only
administrative codes over its NWR-SAME system.66 This
approach will afford NWS greater flexibility to make any
necessary changes or additions to its administrative codes
and to implement such codes without having to request a
Commission rulemaking.
27. SKYWARN Code. Two commenters request that we add the
new event code SKY to be used to activate SKYWARN, which is
the NWS's national volunteer severe weather spotting
program.67 According to these commenters, NWS Forecast
Offices (``NWSFOs'') currently activate the SKYWARN
volunteers using telephone trees, pagers and announcements
on NWR. The commenters state that the addition of the
SKYWARN code would enable the NWSFOs to automate the
activation of the SKYWARN volunteers and would also get the
SKYWARN activation message via the EAS to news media, which
would result in the greatest possible dissemination of the
activation message. One commenter asserts that we should
not act on the request for a SKYWARN code at this time,
arguing that recommendations in this area should be made by
NWS.68
28. Although we recognize that the SKYWARN volunteers
provide a valuable service, we will not add the SKYWARN code
to the list of event codes in Section 11.31(e). Notably,
NWS has not endorsed the adoption of this event code. We
agree that recommendations in this area should be made or at
least supported by NWS. In addition, we are concerned that
transmission of this code over the EAS would vastly increase
message traffic on the EAS system. In this regard, we are
worried that overuse of the EAS, particularly for non-
emergency messages, could reduce voluntary participation in
EAS and could also desensitize the audience to the alerting
system.
29. Miscellaneous Watch and Statement Codes. The NPRM
requested comment on a number of new event codes recommended
for ``watch'' events, including Avalanche Watch (AVA), Civil
Danger Watch (CDA), Coastal Flood Watch (CFA), Dust Storm
Watch (DSA), Earthquake Watch (EQA), Hazardous Materials
Watch (HMA), Radiological Hazard Watch (RHA), Tropical Storm
Watch (TSA) and Volcano Watch (VOA). Two commenters oppose
adding many of these watch event codes due to concerns over
the physical limitations of existing EAS equipment, i.e.,
concerns that adding too many codes will threaten the memory
and functioning of the equipment.69 Additionally, they
complain that many of the recommended watch event codes are
not useful and contend that it would be more appropriate to
skip the watch and proceed directly to a warning for these
events.70 For similar reasons, both commenters also
recommend elimination of many of the existing watch and
statement event codes.
30. Although it is unclear from the record what effect, if
any, the addition of the relatively modest number of event
codes recommended in this proceeding would have on existing
EAS equipment,71 we are sensitive to concerns that adding
too many codes could threaten the memory and functioning of
the equipment. Furthermore, we agree with the commenters
that some of the suggested watch event codes may not be
particularly useful. A ``watch'' is defined as an event
which poses a significant threat to public safety and/or
property, but either the onset time or probability of
occurrence or location is uncertain.72 Watches are
typically issued where the conditions are ripe or favorable
for the event to occur, but the event has not yet been
created or confirmed, e.g., a hurricane watch or a tornado
watch. However, for some events, such as Civil Danger, it
may not be particularly useful to issue an EAS alert where
the probability of occurrence or location is still
uncertain. In such cases, it would seem to make more sense
to proceed directly to a warning if and when it is
determined that there is a high probability that the event
will occur. Thus, we do not think that it is necessary to
add a corresponding watch code for every warning code we
add. Therefore, we will not add all of the watch event
codes suggested in the NPRM.73 We will not, however,
eliminate any of the existing watch and statement event
codes. We do not think that it would be prudent to remove
from the EAS rules any codes that are already in use.
c. Cancellation Codes
31. In the NPRM, we sought comment on SBE's suggestion that
we amend the rules to include a cancellation code for each
event code in the current list and for each event code that
will be added to the list.74 SBE maintained that
cancellation codes are needed for situations where a warning
can be cancelled prior to its issued expiration time. We
stated in the NPRM that we were not convinced that the
cancellation codes suggested by SBE are necessary given that
EAS messages already contain a code that specifies the valid
time period of the message. We therefore requested specific
comment on how frequently situations arise where a warning
can be cancelled prior to its issued expiration time.
32. We will not add any cancellation codes at this time.
It is unclear based on the record before us that
cancellation codes are necessary. Only two commenters
addressed the question we raised in the NPRM regarding how
frequently situations arise where a warning can be cancelled
prior to its issued expiration time. NCTA states that the
cable industry's experience is that cancellation
circumstances do not arise with sufficient frequency to
justify addition of cancellation codes.75 The Ohio
Emergency Management Agency (``Ohio EMA'') reports that the
State of Ohio has not experienced a single situation where a
cancellation code was needed.76 Furthermore, SBE indicates
in its comments that it no longer seeks the addition of
cancellation codes for all event codes, but rather only for
specific event codes ``where a clear advantage can be
demonstrated.''77 SBE suggests that cancellation codes
would be appropriate for the Evacuation Immediate, 911
Telephone Outage and Shelter in Place event codes.78 Two
other commenters also support the addition of cancellation
codes for certain specific event codes, such as Civil
Emergency Message, Evacuation Immediate, 911 Telephone
Outage and Shelter in Place.79 However, even for these few
events, the commenters have not explained why they believe
cancellation codes are necessary or demonstrated that there
is a greater likelihood that the warnings for these events
can be cancelled prior to the issued expiration time.
33. As an alternative to adding cancellation codes, one
commenter suggests that EAS alerts could be cancelled by
resending the alert with the valid time period set for zero
(+0000-), which would be decoded to mean that the alert has
been cancelled.80 In its reply comments, SBE acknowledges
that this suggestion may have merit, but maintains that it
can only offer tentative support for this suggestion without
input from manufacturers as to its impact on EAS
equipment.81 We conclude that we cannot evaluate this
suggestion without specific information from manufacturers
as to what effect it might have on existing EAS equipment.
2. Location Codes
34. Location codes are six-digit numerical codes used in
the transmission of EAS messages to indicate what geographic
areas may be affected by an emergency. These codes have
three separate parts. The ``SS'' portion of the location
code is a two-digit number that identifies the state or
territory in which the emergency is located. The ``CCC''
portion of the location code is a three-digit number that
identifies the county or city affected by the emergency.
The ``P'' portion of the location code is optional and
allows the message originator to divide a county into nine
sections to further pinpoint the affected portion of the
county. The ``SS'' and ``CCC'' numbers are unique Federal
Information Processing Standard numbers assigned by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology. The ``SS''
numbers are listed in Section 11.31(f) of the Rules.82 The
``CCC'' numbers are contained in the State EAS Mapbook.
a. Marine Area Location Codes
35. The NPRM sought comment on NWS's request that we add
new location codes to cover marine areas, which are not
presently included in the location codes specified in
Section 11.31(f) of the Rules.83 The marine areas are
immediate offshore areas likely to be affected by extreme
weather conditions and are identified by two-digit numbers
that would comprise the ``SS'' portion of the location code.
We included a listing of the specific marine area location
codes requested by NWS in an Appendix to the NPRM.84
36. We will amend Section 11.31(f) of the Rules to add the
marine area location codes suggested by NWS. Numerous
commenters support adding marine area location codes to the
EAS rules to ensure the public's safety in near shore and
open waters.85 We are persuaded that addition of these
location codes, which will be used with the Special Marine
Warning (SMW) event code we are adopting in this Report and
Order, will enhance public safety. In its comments, SBE
suggests an alternative method of defining the marine areas
in which the marine areas would be listed as ``water
counties'' and assigned to the nearest state or the state
where the responsible NWSFO is located.86 However, we think
that the alternative suggested by SBE would be unworkable
because, as NWS points out in its reply comments,87 NWSFOs
change over time. One commenter questions whether marine
weather alerts transmitted via NWS weather radio would need
to be relayed to commercial broadcast stations and cable
systems for EAS transmission since land areas adjacent to
bodies of water would be covered by land weather alerts.88
In addition, NCTA asserts that the cable industry does not
serve sailing vessels that are not in port and therefore
would have little reason to transmit these codes.89 While
we anticipate that the Special Marine Warnings will
primarily be transmitted over NWR to marine weather radios,
we expect that some EAS participants which serve communities
adjacent to the marine areas may wish to transmit the marine
alerts voluntarily over EAS. However, consistent with the
approach we are adopting for new event codes, we will not
require broadcast stations and cable systems to update their
existing equipment to add the new location codes. Rather,
broadcast stations and cable systems may upgrade their
existing equipment on a voluntary basis until it is
replaced. All existing and new models of EAS equipment
manufactured after August 1, 2003 will be required to be
capable of receiving and transmitting these location codes.
In addition, broadcast stations and cable systems which
replace their EAS equipment after February 1, 2004 must
install EAS equipment that is capable of receiving and
transmitting the new location codes.
b. Entire Country Location Code
37. In the NPRM, we requested comment on whether we should
add an entire country location code to be used by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (``FEMA'') when issuing
a national level EAS message.90 NWS and SBE sought addition
of an 000000 location code so that multiple alerts are not
needed to activate the entire country when a national level
emergency situation arises. In addition, we requested
comment on NWS's proposal that we require EAS equipment at
broadcast stations and cable systems, when retransmitting
the event code and 000000 location code, to trigger
transmission of all county location codes stored within the
equipment in order to enable activation of consumer products
that activate only upon transmission of the location code
for the county in which they are located. We expressed
concern that the triggering proposal would require costly
modification of existing equipment at broadcast stations and
cable systems but asked whether we should permit this as an
optional feature of EAS equipment. Further, we sought
comment on whether there are a significant number of
consumer devices which rely upon EAS transmissions of
broadcast stations and cable systems rather than NWS weather
transmitters.
38. We will not add an entire country location code to the
EAS rules at this time. While a number of the commenters
support the addition of an entire country location code,91
it is unclear from the record in this proceeding that an
entire country location code is needed. As NAB observes,92
we previously considered this issue and determined, after
consultation with FEMA, that ``alerting the nation on a
regional basis would be much more manageable and reliable
but would retain effective and timely warning
capability.''93 We think that it would be premature to add
an entire country location code without further evidence of
a need for such a code. It is also unclear from the record
whether modifications to existing EAS equipment would be
required to implement an entire country location code and,
if so, what such modifications would cost. The cost of any
such modifications is particularly significant because an
entire country location code would be used for national EAS
alerts, which all broadcast stations and cable systems are
required to transmit. One equipment manufacturer indicates
that addition of an entire country location code would not
require any modification of its existing EAS units.94
Another manufacturer reports that an entire country location
code is not necessary for its EAS equipment because its
equipment reacts to any message with an EAN code, regardless
of the location code embedded in the message.95 However, we
are unable to thoroughly assess the impact that addition of
this code would have on broadcast stations and cable systems
without specific information from manufacturers on all
models of EAS equipment. We may revisit this issue at a
later date if we receive evidence that it would not require
modification of any existing models of EAS equipment.
39. Two commenters also suggest subdividing the country
into nine regions and creating regional location codes.96
However, we note that entities which originate EAS alerts
are already able to include up to 31 state location codes in
EAS messages.97 In this way, a group of several states can
be activated for a regional emergency. We think that this
approach, which can also be used to activate several
regional groups for a national emergency, affords alerting
entities more flexibility to tailor their EAS messages to
particular regions of the country.
c. Customized Location Codes
40. In the NPRM, we invited comment on NWS's suggestion
that we permit the use of any combination of the standard
alphabet and numbers in the ``CCC'' portion of the location
code.98 NWS stated that organizations responsible for the
warning communications associated with special facilities -
such as nuclear power plants, chemical, biological and
nuclear weapons storage facilities, and plants that produce
and store hazardous materials - are now using or evaluating
the use of NWR as their primary radio communications system.
NWS further stated that allowing the geographic code blocks
to include both numbers and letters plus the * symbol would
enable these organizations to create up to 1.4 million
possible location code and message combinations, which could
provide site specific information such as shelter in place
information, evacuation routes and safe areas.
41. We will not amend Part 11 of the Rules to permit the
use of customized location coding in EAS messages. The
majority of commenters which addressed this issue vigorously
oppose the use of customized location coding in EAS
messages.99 Among other things, these commenters argue that
customized location coding is not necessary because the
current EAS protocol for location codes has not been used to
its potential; that compatibility problems could result if
all codes permitted for use in EAS equipment are not
specified in the Part 11 rules; that customized location
codes could cause existing, non-upgraded EAS equipment to
false alert; and that a substantial amount of memory would
be needed to store customized location codes in EAS
equipment. We believe that these concerns are valid and
therefore will not authorize the use of customized location
coding in EAS messages without assurances that it will not
compromise the EAS system.
3. Originator Codes
42. We asked for comment in the NPRM on NWS's request that
we revise its originator code from WXR to NWS.100 We
expressed concern, however, that adding the NWS code and
deleting the WXR code could have a substantial adverse
impact on the use of the EAS for state and local emergency
purposes because NWS is the originator of emergency weather
information. Therefore, any broadcast station or cable
system that wishes to participate in state and local EAS
alerts would need to modify or upgrade its EAS equipment to
handle the revised originator code.
43. In its comments, NWS states that it no longer seeks
revision of its originator code, conceding that ``the
minimal benefit would not justify the work necessary to make
the revision.''101 In addition, all but one of the
commenters which addressed this issue oppose revision of
NWS's originator code.102 Accordingly, we will not revise
NWS's originator code.
B. EAS Equipment
1. Selective Displaying and Logging of EAS Messages
44. In the NPRM, we sought comment on whether we should
amend Part 11 to permit equipment manufacturers to include
an optional feature in EAS equipment that would allow EAS
users the capability to program their EAS decoders to
selectively display and log EAS messages that contain state
and local event codes.103 Currently, the Part 11 rules
require EAS equipment to display and log every message
received.104 We observed that permitting this optional
feature would promote compatibility of EAS equipment with
NWR-SAME equipment because it would relieve EAS participants
that monitor NWR-SAME transmissions of the burden of logging
every message transmitted, even unwanted test messages.
45. We will amend the Part 11 rules to permit broadcast
stations and cable systems to program their EAS equipment to
preselect which EAS messages containing state and local
event codes they wish to display and log.105 Many
commenters favor some degree of selective displaying and
logging.106 NWS states that this feature is ``critical'' to
improving the effectiveness of both the EAS and NWR.107 We
agree that permitting selective logging and displaying of
state and local EAS messages will greatly enhance EAS. It
will relieve EAS participants from the burden of logging
unwanted messages, e.g., messages that do not apply to a
participant's service area or messages concerning events
which the participant has decided not to transmit.
Additionally, it will enable NWS to broadcast non-alerting
messages, conduct tests, and perform system administration
and control functions without impacting EAS participants
which monitor NWR transmissions. SBE maintains that this
feature should be limited to ``administrative'' event codes
that are not intended to reach the general public, such as
the designated monthly practice/demonstration (DMO).108 SBE
fears that relaxation of the requirement to display and log
all emergency events, including events that are designated
for the geographic area for which the decoder is programmed,
could degrade the system's ability to deliver emergency
information to decoder locations near or adjacent to areas
directly impacted. However, we conclude that it is more
consistent with the voluntary nature of state and local EAS
to allow broadcast stations and cable systems to choose
which state and local EAS messages they wish to display and
log. We are confident that EAS participants will exercise
good judgement in making these choices. Broadcast stations
and cable systems may upgrade their existing EAS equipment
to include the selective displaying and logging capability
on an optional basis until the equipment is replaced. All
existing and new models of EAS equipment manufactured after
August 1, 2003 must be capable of selectively displaying and
logging messages with state and local event codes.
Broadcast stations and cable systems which replace their EAS
equipment after February 1, 2004 must install EAS equipment
that is capable of selectively displaying and logging EAS
messages with state and local event codes. We emphasize
that this selective displaying and logging feature applies
only to state and local events. EAS equipment must continue
to display and log all national EAS messages and all
required weekly and monthly tests.
2. Equipment Authorization Requirements
46. As explained above, we have decided not to adopt the
alternative suggestion set forth in the NPRM to leave the
development of event codes and location codes to state and
local authorities. However, we will amend the rules to
provide that any modifications to existing authorized EAS
equipment that are necessary to implement revisions in EAS
codes or to implement the selective displaying and logging
feature for state and local events are Class I permissive
changes that do not require a new application for and grant
of equipment certification. We believe that this amendment
will provide equipment manufacturers more flexibility in the
design and modification of EAS equipment.
47. Furthermore, as discussed above, we are amending Part
11 to require that all existing and new models of EAS
equipment manufactured after August 1, 2003 be capable of
transmitting and receiving the new event and location codes
adopted in this Report and Order. Similarly, we are
amending Part 11 to require that all existing and new models
of EAS equipment manufactured after August 1, 2003 be
capable of selectively displaying and logging messages with
state and local event codes.
C. EAS Testing
48. Current Part 11 rules require broadcast stations and
cable systems to retransmit the Required Monthly Test
(``RMT'') within 15 minutes of receipt of the RMT
message.109 In the NPRM, we proposed to amend Part 11 to
increase the time for retransmitting RMTs to 60 minutes from
the time of receipt of the RMTs.110 We tentatively
concluded that a longer relay window for RMTs would ease
scheduling difficulties for all EAS participants without
negatively affecting EAS test procedures.
49. Commenters overwhelmingly support increasing the relay
window to 60 minutes, noting that it will provide additional
flexibility to insert the RMT message into the program
schedule without disruption.111 Only one commenter opposes
this proposal, arguing that a 60-minute relay window would
not be a meaningful test of the EAS because it would not
simulate a true emergency.112 We will adopt the proposal to
increase the time for retransmitting RMTs from 15 minutes to
60 minutes from the time of receipt of the RMTs. We agree
with the majority of commenters that a longer relay window
will provide EAS participants more flexibility and reduce
the risk of program disruptions. Moreover, we do not
believe that increasing the relay window for RMTs will
compromise the ability of the EAS to deliver a real EAS
message in a timely manner.
50. One commenter suggests decreasing the relay window for
RMTs to five minutes ``based on the observed tendency to put
it off until it's too late,''113 and another commenter
suggests eliminating the requirement to relay the RMT
altogether.114 We conclude that it would not be in the
public interest to decrease the relay window for RMTs. In
this regard, there is no evidence in the record
demonstrating that EAS participants have a tendency to put
off relaying RMTs until it is too late. Additionally, we do
not think that the public interest would be served by
eliminating the requirement to relay the RMT altogether. As
SBE points out, the RMT is the only test EAS participants
conduct to verify their ability to relay an EAN, and it has
not been shown that the requirement to relay the RMT is
unduly burdensome.115
D. Modulation Level of EAS Codes
51. In the NPRM, we proposed to reduce the minimum required
modulation level of EAS codes from 80% to 50% of full
channel modulation limits.116 SBE had requested this
change, asserting that in most cases the tone insertion
equipment must be inserted after station processing to
attain the required modulation level and that this situation
is ``adverse to acceptable engineering practice.''
52. In its comments, SBE states that shortly after the
adoption of the Part 11 rules, it became clear that the
composition of the EAS tones generally prohibited achieving
the prescribed 80% modulation requirement in the vast
majority of broadcast installations due to the reaction of
audio processing and modulation control equipment.117 SBE
recommends that rather than stating a minimum modulation
level of 50% as proposed in the NPRM, the Commission should
require that the modulation level of EAS codes be at the
maximum possible level, but in no case less than 50%. SBE
maintains that this change will bring the Part 11 rules into
alignment with the technical limitations of the equipment
involved. Of the other commenters that addressed this
issue, only RadioShack Corporation (``RadioShack'') objects
to reducing the modulation level of EAS codes.118 According
to RadioShack, reducing the modulation level to 50% would
diminish the ability of consumers living in fringe areas to
receive EAS alerts on their consumer weather radios. In its
reply comments, SBE clarifies that the proposed change will
not reduce the existing modulation percentage but will
simply bring the Commission rules into alignment with the
actual modulation levels used by broadcasters. Thus, SBE
asserts that the proposed change will not compromise the
ability of existing consumer weather radios to receive EAS
alerts.
53. We will amend Part 11 to require that the modulation
level of EAS codes be at the maximum possible level, but in
no case less than 50% of full channel modulation limits.
This amendment will bring the Part 11 rules into alignment
with the actual modulation levels currently obtainable by
broadcasters. Because this amendment simply conforms the
Part 11 rules with current practice, we are satisfied that
it will not reduce the ability of consumer weather radios to
receive EAS alerts.
E. Protocol for Text Transmission
54. In the NPRM, we invited comment on SBE's request that
we amend the Part 11 rules to include a specific protocol
for text transmission.119 According to SBE, a protocol for
text transmission would enable broadcasters and cable
operators to make greater use of already formatted text
messages in order to provide more detailed disaster
information and updates. SBE suggested that text
information could be transmitted immediately following the
existing EAS message format, using the existing Audio
Frequency Shift Keying (``AFSK'') technique. We noted,
however, that we had no information or data to support the
addition of text messaging to the EAS system using the AFSK
technique or any other scheme and that we were aware of no
comprehensive field tests that have been conducted to show
the viability of different text formats. As an alternative
to SBE's suggestion, we sought comment on whether we should
add a local event code (TXT) that can be used as an
indicator that textual information will be transmitted after
the End of Message code. We observed that this alternative
would allow for the testing of different textual formats and
could eventually lead to an industry standard.
55. We will not adopt a specific EAS text transmission
protocol at this time. The general consensus among the
commenters is that further study and evaluation of text
transmission techniques and additional data on the cost and
feasibility of adding text processing to existing EAS
equipment are needed before the Commission can adopt a text
transmission protocol.120 Even SBE now advocates additional
study of the matter with the goal of creating a widely
supported technical standard.121 We agree that further
study and field testing of text transmission methodologies
is needed before a specific text protocol can be adopted.
Furthermore, we believe that the costs and feasibility of
upgrading existing EAS equipment to add text messaging
capability must be carefully evaluated. We note that there
is presently no information in the record on which to base
such an evaluation. In addition, we share the concern
raised by NCTA that the adoption of a text protocol may
require modification of the standard developed by the cable
industry for digital EAS alerts.122 Accordingly, we will
not take action on this matter herein. We encourage the
broadcast and cable industries to work with state and local
EAS authorities, the hearing impaired community and other
interested parties to evaluate different text transmission
techniques and develop an industry standard for EAS text
transmission.
56. We also decline to add a TXT event code to be used for
evaluating different text formats and text transmission
techniques. A number of commenters support addition of the
TXT event code.123 However, we note that addition of the
TXT code would necessitate adoption of a protocol for
determining when a text transmission has ended. There is
insufficient information in the record to permit adoption of
such a protocol at this time.
F. Carriage of Audio of Presidential Messages from Non-EAS
Sources
57. The NPRM sought comment on SBE's request that in the
case of a national EAS alert, broadcast stations be
permitted to air the President's voice message from a source
other than the EAS source from which the alert was
received.124 In support of this request, SBE stated that
most broadcast stations are equipped with high audio quality
network connections, whereas the audio received on an EAS
decoder may be of questionable quality. SBE also expressed
concern that severe video to audio synchronization problems
may occur if a television station chooses to air the video
of the President from the station's network feed, but is
required to air the audio portion of the President's message
from the EAS source which provided the activation.
58. We will amend Part 11 to permit broadcast stations to
override the EAS audio feed during a national EAS alert and
substitute an audio feed of the President's message from
another source. Commenters point out that the quality of the
EAS audio feed is far inferior to the high quality audio
network connections available to most broadcast stations125
and that it may be difficult or impossible for television
stations to synchronize the EAS audio feed with their video
feeds.126 We agree with commenters that the public interest
will be served by amending Part 11 to allow broadcast
stations to provide the highest quality audio available to
them during a national emergency. Because National Primary
broadcast stations will still be required to relay all
national EAS messages in accordance with Section 11.51 of
the Rules,127 this amendment will not compromise the
integrity of the EAS system or prevent those broadcast
stations that do not have access to alternative audio feeds
from transmitting presidential EAS messages to the public.
59. One commenter cautions that we must ensure that lengthy
delays do not result because broadcast stations are waiting
for audio feeds from alternative sources.128 We emphasize
that broadcast stations may not delay the transmission of
national EAS messages in order to substitute alternative
audio feeds. Rather, broadcast stations must continue to
transmit all national EAS messages immediately upon
receipt.129
G. Use of Common EAS Equipment by ``Key'' Broadcast
Stations and Cable Systems
60. Under the Part 11 rules, broadcast stations that are
co-owned and co-located with a combined studio and cable
systems that are co-owned and co-located with a combined
control facility are permitted to use a common set of EAS
equipment to comply with the EAS rules.130 In the NPRM, we
sought comment on a suggestion by SBE that the Commission
amend Part 11 to provide that where more than one of the co-
owned and co-located broadcast stations or cable systems are
designated as ``key'' stations or systems,131 the common EAS
equipment must be configured such that the EAS message of
one key station or system is either simulcast or relayed by
the remaining key station(s) or system(s).132 In support of
this request, SBE stated that since EAS equipment does not
provide for the relay of a message originated by itself, co-
located key stations that do not simulcast program
originations must originate tests and alerts separately.
When the same EAS message is originated on co-located key
stations at different times, two apparently separate
messages for the same event circulate through the EAS relay
web, and automated, unattended, or manned stations set to
automatic will air both messages.
61. We will not adopt SBE's suggestion concerning co-owned,
co-located key stations and systems. Several commenters
endorse this suggestion, asserting that there is a potential
for confusion when the same EAS message is originated on co-
located key stations at different times.133 However, as we
noted in the NPRM, we have not received any reports of
specific instances of the problem described by SBE.134
Further, none of the commenters in this proceeding cite
specific instances where this problem has occurred.135 In
addition, we have no information as to how many co-owned,
co-located key stations and systems there currently are. We
also note that one EAS equipment manufacturer indicates that
adoption of SBE's suggestion would necessitate a major
redesign effort with respect to its equipment and estimates
that the per unit cost to modify existing hardware and
software to incorporate this feature might exceed $500.136
Given that it is unclear from the record before us whether
or to what extent the problem described by SBE exists, we
are unwilling to require potentially costly modifications to
EAS equipment. Instead, if this problem does arise, we
think that a better approach would be for broadcast stations
and cable systems to work with their SECCs and LECCs to
explore less costly alternatives, e.g., by taking steps to
ensure that two or more co-owned, co-located stations or
systems are not designated in state and local EAS plans as
key stations or systems.
H. EAN Network
62. In the NPRM, we proposed to delete those portions of
the Part 11 rules that reference the now-defunct Emergency
Action Notification (``EAN'') network and its
participants.137 Previously, the EAN network was one of two
networks used to distribute national emergency messages from
the federal government.138 It consisted of a dedicated
communications service connecting industry networks, wire
services and common carriers with government activation
points. FEMA phased out the EAN network in 1995 in
accordance with a presidential directive.139
63. The two parties which commented on this issue both
support our proposal.140 Accordingly, we will amend Part 11
as proposed in the NPRM to eliminate all references to the
EAN network and its participants.
I. International High Frequency Stations
64. The NPRM proposed to amend Part 11 of the Rules to
eliminate the requirement that international HF broadcast
stations purchase and install EAS equipment.141 The NPRM
also proposed to delete Section 11.54(b)(9) of the Rules,
which requires international HF broadcast stations to cease
broadcasting immediately upon receipt of a national-level
EAS message and remain off the air until they receive an EAS
message terminating the activation.142 We noted that in
1996, after concluding that the technical and political
concerns which gave rise to the requirements of Section
11.54(b)(9) are no longer relevant, Commission staff granted
a request by the National Association of Shortwave
Broadcasters, Inc. to exempt all FCC licensed international
HF broadcast stations from the requirement to purchase and
install EAS equipment.143
65. Ohio EMA, the only commenter which addressed this
issue, concurs with our proposals.144 Therefore, for the
reasons set forth in the NPRM, we will amend Part 11 as
proposed in the NPRM to eliminate the requirement that
international HF broadcast stations purchase and install EAS
equipment and to delete Section 11.54(b)(9).
J. Waiver Requests
66. Several parties filed comments seeking waivers of the
EAS rules. The Public Broadcasters, a group of public
universities, public broadcasters and government or non-
profit entities operating noncommercial educational radio
and television stations, seek permanent waivers of the
requirement to install EAS equipment for satellite/repeater
stations which rebroadcast 100% of the programming of their
lead or hub station.145 The Public Broadcasters note that
under the old EBS rules, the Commission permitted licensees
of broadcast station transmitters located at different
geographic points but programmed from a common studio point
to use only one set of EBS equipment upon a showing that one
set of equipment could meet the requirements and intent of
the EBS rules.146 The Commission staff has granted
permanent waivers of the requirement to install EAS
equipment for satellite/repeater stations that rebroadcast
100% of the programming of their hub station and are located
in the same local EAS area as the hub station, but has
granted only temporary waivers where the satellite/repeater
stations are outside the hub station's local EAS area.147
The Public Broadcasters argue that these temporary waivers
should be made permanent because they can comply with the
requirements and intent of the EAS rules without incurring
the additional costs and burdens of installing EAS equipment
at each of the satellite/repeater stations. The Public
Broadcasters assert that satellite/repeater stations which
simulcast 100% of their hub station's programming comply
with the requirement that broadcast stations participate in
national EAS alerts because national EAS alerts carried by a
hub station are automatically retransmitted over the
satellite/repeater stations. They further assert that they
should not be required to install EAS equipment at each of
the satellite/repeater locations for the sole purpose of
transmitting state and local EAS alerts because
participation in state and local EAS activities is voluntary
under the EAS rules. None of the commenters addressed the
Public Broadcasters' waiver request.
67. We will amend the Part 11 rules to exempt
satellite/repeater stations which rebroadcast 100% of the
programming of their hub station from the requirement to
install EAS equipment. Specifically, we will consider the
use of a single set of EAS equipment at a hub station (or
common studio/control point where there is no hub station)
to satisfy the EAS obligations of the satellite/repeater
stations which rebroadcast 100% of the hub station's
programming. This exemption will apply to existing
satellite/repeater stations and any proposed new
satellite/repeater stations. As the Public Broadcasters
point out, the satellite/repeater stations will comply with
the requirement to transmit all national EAS alerts because
all national alerts will be passed through from the hub
station. In addition, we acknowledge that it may be
unnecessarily burdensome for the governmental and
educational institutions operating these satellite/repeater
stations to incur the substantial cost of installing EAS
equipment at each such satellite/repeater station for the
sole purpose of being able to transmit state and local EAS
alerts, which are voluntary under our rules. Furthermore,
only a small number of broadcast stations will be eligible
for this exemption.148 We emphasize, however, that if any
of the satellite/repeater stations start originating any of
their own programming, they will be required to install EAS
equipment. Finally, we note that some models of EAS
equipment have the capability to monitor the assigned EAS
sources for more than one local EAS area, i.e., a hub
station may have the capability to monitor the assigned EAS
sources of some or all of its satellite stations in addition
to its own sources. Where this capability exists, we
strongly encourage the hub station to voluntarily transmit
at least the most serious local emergency alerts (e.g.,
tornado warnings) over its entire network of satellite
stations to help ensure widespread dissemination of vital
emergency information to the affected community or
communities.
68. Two commenters seek waivers or other relief involving
the use of EAS decoders. NCTA, Telecommunications for the
Deaf, Inc. and the National Association for the Deaf
(jointly, ``NCTA/TDI/NAD'') seek a waiver which would allow
cable systems serving fewer than 5,000 subscribers per
headend to comply with the EAS rules by installing a decoder
only, rather than both an encoder and a decoder.149 Cable
systems serving fewer than 5,000 subscribers are required to
install encoders and decoders by October 1, 2002.150
NCTA/TDI/NAD assert that purchasing equipment without
encoding capability will allow for significant cost savings
to these small cable systems. NCTA/TDI/NAD acknowledge that
their waiver request assumes that EAS decoders will become
available.
69. Media Access Project (``MAP'') requests a temporary
blanket waiver of the requirement that low power FM
(``LPFM'') stations install FCC-certified EAS decoders or,
alternatively, suggests that the Commission could authorize
LPFM stations to install non-FCC-certified decoders or
change the certification criteria for EAS decoders.151
Under the EAS rules, LPFM stations are only required to
install certified decoders, not the combined encoder/decoder
units which full power stations are required to install.152
MAP states that when the Commission adopted the requirement
that LPFM stations install certified decoders, it
acknowledged that certified decoders were not currently
available, but assumed that they would become available at a
cost similar to non-certified decoders.153 However, MAP
states that certified decoders are still not available and
that such decoders are unlikely to become available because
adding a memory function in order to achieve certification
would be expensive and therefore unobtainable for limited
budget LPFM stations. MAP also indicates that estimates
have placed the cost of a certified decoder at or near the
cost of a combined encoder/decoder unit.
70. The Commission staff issued a public notice on November
30, 2001 to solicit supplemental comment on the requests of
NCTA/TDI/NAD and MAP.154 Eighteen parties submitted
comments in response to the public notice.155 Four
equipment manufacturers, HollyAnne Corporation
(``HollyAnne''), Sage Alerting Systems, Inc. (``Sage''), TFT
and Vela Research, L.P. (``Vela''), address our request for
specific comment on the future availability of FCC-certified
decoders. These commenters confirm that there are currently
no FCC-certified decoder-only units available. HollyAnne
and Sage both submit that it is unlikely that low-cost, FCC-
certified decoders will become available.156 HollyAnne
states that if it produced and certified an EAS decoder, it
does not anticipate any reduction in cost because of the
technology it uses in the manufacture of its
encoder/decoder.157 Sage indicates that the market
represented by LPFM stations is too small to warrant
significant investment by existing or new EAS vendors of
certified decoders.158 TFT states that it has no current
plans to certify a decoder only unit because only minimal
savings would be realized from removing the encoder from its
certified encoder/decoder unit and still complying with the
certification requirements for decoders.159 However, TFT
notes that it currently manufacturers a low-cost, non-
certified decoder, the TFT Safety 1st, for the commercial
and industrial markets not subject to Part 11 requirements.
The TFT Safety 1st is not compliant with the Part 11
requirements for EAS decoders because it does not have a
digital input and does not have the ability to record and
store the last ten message header codes received.160 TFT
urges the Commission to relax the certification standards
for EAS decoders because that will permit the manufacture of
low-cost decoder-only units.161 Vela, a manufacturing
partner of TFT, acknowledges that the TFT Safety 1st lacks
two of the capabilities to make it fully certifiable under
the Part 11 requirements for EAS decoders.162 However, Vela
states that when the TFT Safety 1st is combined with Vela's
EAS controller components, Vela and TFT are able to provide
a fully compliant decoder-only solution for the cable
market. Vela states that if the Commission authorizes small
cable systems to comply with the EAS rules by installing a
decoder only, it plans to submit this decoder-only system
for certification in the first quarter of 2002. Vela
maintains that the cost savings to small cable systems of
this decoder-only system will be significant. By
eliminating the encoder function, Vela asserts that an EAS
decoder-only system can reduce the cost by 64% over what a
cable operator would spend for an encoder/decoder unit.
71. After reviewing the supplemental comments, we conclude
that the public interest will be served by amending the Part
11 rules to permit cable systems serving fewer than 5,000
subscribers to use an FCC-certified decoder, if such a
device becomes available by October 1, 2002, in lieu of an
encoder/decoder unit. If FCC-certified decoders are not
available by the October 1, 2002 compliance deadline, cable
systems serving fewer than 5,000 subscribers will continue
to be required to comply with the EAS rules by installing an
encoder/decoder unit. We agree with the American Cable
Association (``ACA'') that authorizing the use of decoder-
only units will, to the extent that such decoders may become
available at a lower price than encoder/decoder units,
benefit the public by reducing costs for small cable systems
in meeting the October 1, 2002 compliance deadline.163
Similarly, we agree with the Wireless Communications
Association International, Inc. (``WCA'') that permitting
small wireless cable operators to use decoder-only units, to
the extent that such decoders may become available at a
lower price than encoder/decoder units, will serve the
public interest.164 Accordingly, we will extend this policy
to wireless cable systems serving fewer than 5,000
subscribers as requested by WCA.
72. We agree with SBE that it is important that EAS
decoders have the capability to store and forward EAS
messages or to automatically pass through EAS messages.165
Accordingly, we will not relax the certification
requirements for EAS decoders. In order to receive FCC
certification, EAS decoders will be required to satisfy all
of the existing requirements for decoders set forth in
Section 11.33 of the Rules.166 Small cable systems which
opt to install decoder-only units will not be able to
originate EAS messages or generate RWTs. However, these
small cable systems will still be able to pass through EAS
messages and accomplish Required Weekly Testing by
forwarding a received RWT. Thus, we do not believe that
permitting small cable systems to install decoder-only units
will compromise or diminish the EAS system.
73. Although ACA supports a policy of allowing small cable
systems to install decoder-only units, it asserts that such
a policy should not interfere with the financial hardship
waiver process available to small cable systems.167
According to ACA, even with a decoder-only option, hundreds
of small cable systems will face serious financial hardship
unless case-by-case relief is granted. We clarify that the
Commission will continue to grant waivers of the EAS rules
to small cable systems on a case-by-case basis upon a
showing of financial hardship. The waiver request must
contain at least the following information: (1)
justification for the waiver, with reference to the
particular rule sections for which a waiver is sought; (2)
information about the financial status of the requesting
entity, such as a balance sheet and income statement for the
two previous years (audited, if possible); (3) the number of
other entities that serve the requesting entity's coverage
area and that have or are expected to install EAS equipment;
and (4) the likelihood (such as proximity or frequency) of
hazardous risks to the requesting entity's audience.168 We
emphasize, however, that any financial hardship waivers
granted to small cable systems will not, as a general rule,
be permanent waivers. In this regard, we note that Section
624(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
requires that cable systems be capable of providing EAS
alerts to their subscribers.169
74. With respect to LPFM stations, a number of parties that
filed comments in response to the public notice urge us to
temporarily or permanently exempt LPFM stations from the
requirement to install FCC-certified decoders or to
authorize LPFM stations to install uncertified decoders.170
Among other things, these commenters assert that low-cost,
FCC-certified decoders have not become available as
anticipated by the Commission in the LPFM proceeding because
the number of authorized LPFM stations is currently too
small to create sufficient demand for the manufacture of
such devices.171 By contrast, two LPFM applicants assert
that they have allocated funds to purchase a combined
encoder/decoder unit.172
75. In the LPFM proceeding, the Commission concluded that
LPFM stations should be required to participate in EAS by
installing EAS decoders only, rather than combined
encoder/decoder units.173 We reasoned that this modified
EAS requirement would balance the cost of compliance, the
ability of LPFM stations to meet that cost, and the needs of
the listening public to be alerted in emergency situations.
While we anticipated that FCC-certified decoders would
become available for under $1,000 in the near future, we
stated that if certified decoder equipment is not available
when the first LPFM stations go on the air, we can grant a
temporary exemption for LPFM stations until such time as it
is reasonably available.174 As of December 31, 2001, the
Commission staff had granted 174 construction permits for
LPFM stations and a number of LPFM stations have begun
operating. However, certified EAS decoders have not reached
the market as quickly as we expected. Therefore, as stated
in the LPFM proceeding, we will grant a temporary exemption
to LPFM licensees of the requirement to install FCC-
certified decoders. Specifically, we will amend the Part 11
rules to provide that LPFM stations need not install EAS
decoders until one year after the Commission publishes in
the Federal Register a public notice indicating that at
least one EAS decoder has been certified.
K. Other Matters
76. In paragraph 32 of the NPRM, we stated that we did not
propose to adopt various other changes to the EAS rules
suggested by NWS and SBE because they appear to be either
unnecessary or not in the public interest, but we
nevertheless invited interested parties to comment on these
suggestions.175 Although most of these suggested changes
did not generate any comments, a few commenters addressed
SBE's suggestions to replace the Required Monthly Test with
a Required Quarterly Test,176 make the two-tone Attention
Signal optional,177 and add the Evacuation Immediate (EVI)
event code to the list of national event codes for which we
require immediate retransmission.178 Notably, SBE now
recommends that these three suggestions not be adopted.179
After reviewing the comments, we continue to believe that
these and the other suggested changes referenced in
paragraph 32 of the NPRM are unnecessary or not in the
public interest and therefore we will not adopt them. We
note, in this regard, that the frequency of the RMT has not
been shown to be a burden to EAS participants; that the two-
tone Attention Signal continues to serve the important
purpose of alerting the public that an emergency warning
message is about to be issued; and that the transmission of
state and local event codes, such as the EVI code, is
entirely voluntary under the EAS rules.
77. NAB requests that we reexamine our policy on selective
overrides in light of the changes to the EAS rules proposed
in this proceeding.180 In 1994, in response to concerns
that a cable system's EAS message could override more
detailed emergency information provided by a local broadcast
station, we authorized voluntary selective overrides by
modifying the EAS rules to provide that a cable system, upon
written agreement with a broadcast station, may elect not to
override the programming of a broadcast station carrying
news or weather related emergency information with state and
local EAS messages.181 In 1998, we denied NAB's request
that we mandate selective overrides, concluding that in
certain circumstances cable systems may be better suited to
provide necessary emergency information to local
communities.182 NAB asserts that the new event and location
codes adopted in this proceeding, when combined with live
news coverage, will enable local broadcast stations to
provide more useful and in-depth emergency information than
that which might be generated by a cable operator.183 NCTA
disagrees, arguing that the adoption of new event and
location codes provides no basis for reexamination of the
selective override policy.184 We conclude that nothing in
the record of this proceeding alters our previous decision
that local facts and circumstances, not a federal mandate,
should determine whether selective overrides will serve the
public interest.185
78. NAB and several other commenters urge the Commission to
take steps to resolve the Quad Dimension, Inc. (``QDI'') EAS
patent issue by, for example, seeking a blanket patent
license or subsidizing broadcasters for the cost of
individual patent licenses.186 QDI claims to hold a patent
on the technology used in EAS equipment and has asked
broadcasters to sign patent licensing agreements and pay
patent licensing fees to QDI. We note, however, that NWS
disputes QDI's patent claim and that the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office has not yet issued a final determination on
the claim. Moreover, it is not clear from the record what
steps NAB or other groups of broadcasters have taken
themselves to secure a blanket patent license. In any
event, this issue is beyond the scope of this proceeding.
79. Several commenters request that we redefine four of the
county subdivision codes identified by the ``P'' portion of
the six-digit ``PSSCCC'' location code.187 The ``P''
portion of the location code is optional and allows the
message originator to divide a county into nine sections to
further pinpoint the affected portion of the county.
Currently, the county subdivisions are defined as follows:
0 = all or an unspecified portion of a county; 1 =
Northwest; 2 = North Central; 3 = Northeast; 4 = West
Central; 5 = Central; 6 = East Central; 7 = Southwest; 8 =
South Central; and 9 = Southeast.188 According to the
commenters, this subdivision scheme does not work well
within irregularly shaped counties. The commenters
therefore recommend that we drop the ``central'' from the
North Central, West Central, East Central and South Central
codes so that each of these codes simply states its root
compass direction. We agree that this minor change will
permit a more orderly and logical use of the county
subdivision scheme and we will revise the rules accordingly.
Because we are simply revising the definitions of the codes,
not the actual codes, this revision will not require any
modification to existing equipment.
80. Thunder Eagle complains that, as a matter of policy,
NWS will not encode an alert message for more than six hours
or reissue an alert message after the initial six-hour
period, even though the message may actually have a valid
time period of greater than six hours.189 Thunder Eagle
requests that we amend the Part 11 rules to specifically
require either (a) that the valid time period indicate the
actual duration of the alert, or (b) that the issuing agency
reissue the alert message at the end of every six-hour
period for which a previously issued alert is still in
effect. We will not amend the rules as requested by Thunder
Eagle. We think that this is a matter best left to the
discretion of NWS and other agencies that issue EAS alerts.
81. SBE requests that we specifically apply the EAS
protocol and standards specified in the Part 11 rules to
other radio services, such as amateur radio services (Part
97) and land mobile radio services (Part 90), which have
recently begun to transmit EAS and NWR-SAME messages.190
This proposal is beyond the scope of the instant proceeding
and will not be considered here.
82. Finally, we are revising the Part 11 rules to make a
few non-substantive and editorial amendments.
IV. CONCLUSION
83. In this Report and Order, we revise the technical and
operational requirements for the EAS. In particular, we
adopt new event codes and location codes to be used in
transmitting EAS alerts to the public during state and local
emergencies. Broadcast stations and cable systems will be
permitted to upgrade their existing EAS equipment to include
the new event and location codes on a voluntary basis until
the equipment is replaced. Thus, the rules we are adopting
in this proceeding will promote public safety by enhancing
the performance and capabilities of EAS without imposing
additional costs or burdens on broadcast stations and cable
systems that may discourage their voluntary participation in
state and local EAS activities.
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
84. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 604, the
Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis of the possible impact on small entities of the
rule changes contained in this Report and Order. The Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is set forth in Appendix C.
The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference
Information Center, will send a copy of this Report and
Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
85. Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. This
Report and Order does not contain any new or modified
information collection. Therefore, it is not subject to the
requirements for a paperwork reduction analysis, and the
Commission has not performed one.
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES
86. According, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to the authority
contained in Sections 1, 4(i) and (o), 303(r), 624(g) and
706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
§§ 151, 154(i) and (o), 303(r), 554(g) and 606, that Part 11
of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 11, IS AMENDED as
set forth in Appendix B, effective 30 days after publication
of this Report and Order in the Federal Register.
87. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer
Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send
a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
88. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding IS
TERMINATED.
89. For additional information on this proceeding, please
contact the FCC Enforcement Bureau, Technical and Public
Safety Division, at (202) 418-1160.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
William F. Caton
Acting Secretary
APPENDIX A
List of Commenting Parties
Comments:
1. Susan M. Collins, Member, United States Senate (Collins)
2. Connecticut Broadcasters Association Emergency
Communications Committee (CBA/EAS)
3. Cox Broadcasting, Inc. (Cox)
4. Dallas/Fort Worth Area Radio Managers (ARMS)
5. Central Michigan University, Idaho State Board of Education
(Boise State University), Iowa Public Broadcasting Board, Kent
State University, Maine Public Broadcasting Corporation,
Nebraska Educational Telecommunications Commission, Nevada
Public Radio Corporation, Inc., Rocky Mountain Public
Broadcasting Network, Inc., Sistema Universitario Ana G.
Mendez, Inc., the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State
University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, University
of Oklahoma, University of Wyoming, Washington State
University, West Central Illinois Educational
Telecommunications Corporation, and WSKG Public
Telecommunications Council (Public Broadcasters)
6. Martin Frost, Member, United States Congress (Frost)
7. Greater Metropolitan Washington Area Amber Plan (DC AMBER
Taskforce)
8. Gene Heskett
9. KPVI-TV
10. Nick Lampson, Billy Tauzin, Bill Pascrell, Jr., Martin
Frost, Dale Kildee, Connie Morella, Ken Bentsen, Michael
Capuano, John Shimkus, Mark Green, Julia Carson, Mike Ross,
Mark Foley, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Bud Cramer, Doug Ose, Ben
Gilman, Sam Farr, Sivestre Reyes, Ellen Tauscher, Melissa
Hart, Bob Schaffer, John Tanner, Steve Largent, Lloyd Doggett,
Patsy Mink, Jim Ryun, Peter Visclosky, Christopher Smith, Fred
Upton, Joe Barton, Ed Whitfield, Jose Serrano, Chip Pickering,
Donald Payne, James Greenwood, Edward Markey, Steve Rothman
and Diana Degette, Members, United States Congress (39 Members
of Congress)
11. Multiplex One, Inc.
12. Named State Broadcasters Associations (Named StBAs)
13. National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)
14. National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA)
15. National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC)
16. National Weather Service (NWS)
17. Oklahoma Amber Plan Committee (OAPC)
18. RadioShack Corporation (RadioShack)
19. Salem Communications Corporation (Salem)
20. Van H. Schallenberg (Schallenberg)
21. Seven Ranges Radio Co., Inc. (Seven Ranges)
22. Small Business in Telecommunications (SBT)
23. Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc. (SBE)
24. James C. Tharp (Tharp)
25. Thunder Eagle, Inc. (Thunder Eagle)
26. Washington State Association of Broadcasters and Washington
State Emergency Communications Committee (WSAB/WA SECC)
Reply comments, late-filed comments and ex parte comments:
1. James Gorman (Gorman)
2. Nick Lampson, Member, United States Congress (Lampson)
3. Arthur J. Martin (Martin)
4. Media Access Project (MAP)
5. NCTA
6. National Cable Television Association, Telecommunications
for the Deaf, Inc. and National Association for the Deaf
(NCTA/TDI/NAD)
7. Named StBAs
8. NWS
9. Ohio Emergency Management Agency (Ohio EMA)
10. Range Telecommunications (Range)
11. RadioShack
12. SBE
13. TFT, Inc. (TFT)
14. Tharp
15. Thunder Eagle
Supplemental comments submitted in response to November 30, 2001
Public Notice:
1. American Cable Association (ACA)
2. Dr. Kenneth W. Bowles (Bowles)
3. Christian Community Broadcasters (CCB)
4. Christian Witness, Inc. (Christian Witness)
5. HollyAnne Corporation (HollyAnne)
6. Brad Johnson (Johnson)
7. KURC-LP (KURC)
8. Lexington Calvary Chapel (Lexington Calvary)
9. Newport Musical Arts Association (Newport)
10. Prometheus Radio Project (Prometheus)
11. SBE
12. Sage Alerting Systems, Inc. (Sage)
13. Paul B. Saunders (Saunders)
14. Joseph Steinberger (Steinberger)
15. TFT
16. Vela Research L.P. (Vela)
17. Reverend Karl R. Viernstein (Viernstein)
18. Wireless Communications Association International, Inc.
(WCA)
APPENDIX B
RULES CHANGES
Part 11 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 11 - EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM (EAS)
90. 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.
91. Section 11.11 is amended by revising the three tables
in paragraph (a) and revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
§ 11.11 The Emergency Alert System (EAS)
(a) ***
BROADCAST STATIONS
EAS AM & FM TV FM CLASS LPTV [FN LPFM CLASS A
Require- D 1] [FN4] TV
ment
Two-tone
encoder Y Y N N N Y
[FN2]
[FN3]
EAS Y 1/1/97 Y 1/1/97 Y 1/1/97 Y 1/1/97 Y Y
decoder
EAS Y 1/1/97 Y 1/1/97 N N N Y
encoder
Audio Y 1/1/97 Y 1/1/97 Y 1/1/97 Y 1/1/97 Y Y
message
Video N/A Y 1/1/97 N/A Y 1/1/97 N/A Y
message
[FN1] LPTV stations that operate as television broadcast
translator stations are exempt from the requirement to have EAS
equipment.
[FN2] Effective July 1, 1995, the two-tone signal must be 8-25
seconds.
[FN3] Effective January 1, 1998, the two-tone signal may only be
used to provide audio alerts to audiences before EAS emergency
messages and the required monthly tests.
[FN4] LPFM stations must install a decoder within one year after
the FCC publishes in the Federal Register a public notice
indicating that at least one decoder has been certified by the
FCC.
CABLE SYSTEMS
A. Cable systems serving
fewer than 5,000 subscribers
from a headend must either
provide the National level EAS
message on all programmed
channels--including the
required testing--by October
1, 2002, or comply with the
following EAS requirements.
All other cable systems must
comply with B.
B. EAS Equipment Requirement System
size and
effective
dates
> 10,000 >5,000 but <5,000
subscrib- < 10,000 subscrib-
ers subscrib- ers
ers
Two-tone signal from storage Y 12/31/98 Y 10/1/02 Y 10/1/02
device [FN1]
EAS decoder Y 12/31/98 Y 10/1/02 Y 10/1/02
EAS encoder [FN2] Y 12/31/98 Y 10/1/02 Y 10/1/02
Audio and Video EAS Message on Y 12/31/98 Y 10/1/02 N
all channels
Video interrupt and audio N N Y 10/1/02
alert message on all
channels;[FN3] Audio and Video
EAS message on at least one
channel
[FN1] Two-tone signal is only used to provide an audio alert to
audience before EAS emergency messages and required monthly test.
The two-tone signal must be 8-25 seconds in duration.
[FN2] Cable systems serving <5,000 subscribers are permitted
to operate without an EAS encoder if they install an FCC-
certified decoder.
[FN3] The Video interrupt must cause all channels that carry
programming to flash for the duration of the EAS emergency
message. The audio alert must give the channel where the EAS
messages are carried and be repeated for the duration of the EAS
message.
NOTE: Programmed channels do not include channels used for the
transmission of data such as interactive games.
WIRELESS CABLE
SYSTEMS
(MDS/MMDS/ITFS
STATIONS)
A. Wireless
cable systems
serving fewer
than 5,000
subscribers from
a single
transmission
site must either
provide the
National level
EAS message on
all programmed
channels¾includ-
ing the required
testing--by
October 1, 2002,
or comply with
the following
EAS
requirements.
All other
wireless cable
systems must
comply with B.
B. EAS System size and
Equipment effective dates
Requirement
> 5,000 subscribers < 5,000 subscribers
EAS decoder Y 10/1/02 Y 10/1/02
EAS encoder Y 10/1/02 Y 10/1/02
[FN1] [FN2]
Audio and Video Y 10/1/02 N
EAS Message on
all channels
Video interrupt N Y 10/1/02
and audio alert
message on all
channels;[FN3]
Audio and Video
EAS message on
at least one
channel
[FN1] Two-tone signal is only used to provide an audio alert to
audience before EAS emergency messages and required monthly test.
The two-tone signal must be 8-25 seconds in duration.
[FN2] Wireless cable systems serving <5,000 subscribers are
permitted to operate without an EAS encoder if they install an
FCC-certified decoder.
[FN 3] The Video interrupt must cause all channels that carry
programming to flash for the duration of the EAS emergency
message. The audio alert must give the channel where the EAS
messages are carried and be repeated for the duration of the EAS
message.
NOTE: Programmed channels do not include channels used for the
transmission of data services such as Internet.
(b) Class D non-commercial educational FM stations as
defined in § 73.506, LPFM stations as defined in §§ 73.811 and
73.853, and LPTV stations as defined in § 74.701(f) are not
required to comply with § 11.32. LPTV stations that operate as
television broadcast translator stations, as defined in §
74.701(b) of this chapter, are not required to comply with the
requirements of this part. FM broadcast booster stations as
defined in § 74.1201(f) of this chapter and FM translator
stations as defined in § 74.1201(a) of this chapter which
entirely rebroadcast the programming of other local FM broadcast
stations are not required to comply with the requirements of this
part. International broadcast stations as defined in § 73.701 of
this chapter are not required to comply with the requirements of
this part. Broadcast stations that operate as satellites or
repeaters of a hub station (or common studio or control point if
there is no hub station) and rebroadcast 100% of the programming
of the hub station (or common studio or control point) may
satisfy the requirements of this part through the use of a single
set of EAS equipment at the hub station (or common studio or
control point) which complies with §§ 11.32 and 11.33 of this
part.
* * * * *
92. Section 11.14 is amended by revising the heading and
text to read as follows:
§ 11.14 Primary Entry Point (PEP) System.
The PEP system is a nationwide network of broadcast stations
and other entities connected with government activation points.
It is used to distribute the EAN, EAT and EAS national test
messages, and other EAS messages.
93. Section 11.16 is amended by revising the introductory
text to read as follows:
§ 11.16 National Control Point Procedures.
The National Control Point Procedures are written
instructions issued by the FCC to national level EAS control
points. The procedures are divided into sections as follows:
* * * * *
94. Section 11.31 is amended by revising paragraphs (c),
(d), (e) and (f) as follows:
§ 11.31 EAS Protocol
* * * * *
(c) The EAS protocol, including any codes, must not be
amended, extended or abridged without FCC authorization. The EAS
protocol and message format are specified in the following
representation. Examples are provided in FCC Public Notices.
________________________________________________________________-
_______
[PREAMBLE]ZCZC-ORG-EEE-PSSCCC+TTTT-JJJHHMM-LLLLLLLL-
(one second pause)
[PREAMBLE]ZCZC-ORG-EEE-PSSCCC+TTTT-JJJHHMM-LLLLLLLL-
(one second pause)
[PREAMBLE]ZCZC-ORG-EEE-PSSCCC+TTTT-JJJHHMM-LLLLLLLL-
(at least a one second pause)
(transmission of 8 to 25 seconds of Attention Signal)
(transmission of audio, video or text messages)
(at least a one second pause)
[PREAMBLE]NNNN
(one second pause)
[PREAMBLE]NNNN
(one second pause)
[PREAMBLE]NNNN
(at least one second pause)
________________________________________________________________-
_______
[PREAMBLE] This is a consecutive string of bits (sixteen bytes
of AB hexadecimal [8 bit byte 10101011]) sent to clear the
system, set AGC and set asynchronous decoder clocking cycles.
The preamble must be transmitted before each header and End Of
Message code.
ZCZC- This is the identifier, sent as ASCII characters ZCZC to
indicate the start of ASCII code.
ORG- This is the Originator code and indicates who originally
initiated the activation of the EAS. These codes are specified
in paragraph (d) of this section.
EEE- This is the Event code and indicates the nature of the EAS
activation. The codes are specified in paragraph (e) of this
section. The Event codes must be compatible with the codes used
by the NWS Weather Radio Specific Area Message Encoder (WRSAME).
PSSCCC- This is the Location code and indicates the geographic
area affected by the EAS alert. There may be 31 Location codes
in an EAS alert. The Location code uses the Federal Information
Processing Standard (FIPS) numbers as described by the U.S.
Department of Commerce in National Institute of Standards and
Technology publication FIPS PUB 6-4. Each state is assigned an
SS number as specified in paragraph (f) of this section. Each
county and some cities are assigned a CCC number. A CCC number
of 000 refers to an entire State or Territory. P defines county
subdivisions as follows: 0 = all or an unspecified portion of a
county, 1 = Northwest, 2 = North, 3 = Northeast, 4 = West, 5 =
Central, 6 = East, 7 = Southwest, 8 = South, 9 = Southeast.
Other numbers may be designated later for special applications.
The use of county subdivisions will probably be rare and
generally for oddly shaped or unusually large counties. Any
subdivisions must be defined and agreed to by the local officials
prior to use.
+TTTT- This indicates the valid time period of a message in 15
minute segments up to one hour and then in 30 minute segments
beyond one hour; i.e., +0015, +0030, +0045, +0100, +0430 and
+0600.
JJJHHMM- This is the day in Julian Calendar days (JJJ) of the
year and the time in hours and minutes (HHMM) when the message
was initially released by the originator using 24 hour Universal
Coordinated Time (UTC).
LLLLLLLL- This is the identification of the broadcast station,
cable system, MDS/MMDS/ITFS station, NWS office, etc.,
transmitting or retransmitting the message. These codes will be
automatically affixed to all outgoing messages by the EAS
encoder.
NNNN- This is the End of Message (EOM) code sent as a string of
four ASCII N characters.
(d) The only originator codes are:
Originator ORG Code
Broadcast station or cable system EAS
Civil authorities CIV
National Weather Service WXR
Primary Entry Point System PEP
(e) The following Event (EEE) codes are presently
authorized:
Nature of Activation Event Codes
National Codes (Required):
Emergency Action Notification EAN
(National only)
Emergency Action Termination EAT
(National only)
National Information Center NIC
National Periodic Test NPT
Required Monthly Test RMT
Required Weekly Test RWT
State and Local Codes (Optional):
Administrative Message ADR
Avalanche Warning AVW1
Avalanche Watch AVA1
Blizzard Warning BZW
Child Abduction Emergency CAE1
Civil Danger Warning CDW1
Civil Emergency Message CEM
Coastal Flood Warning CFW1
Coastal Flood Watch CFA1
Dust Storm Warning DSW1
Earthquake Warning EQW1
Evacuation Immediate EVI
Fire Warning FRW1
Flash Flood Warning FFW
Flash Flood Watch FFA
Flash Flood Statement FFS
Flood Warning FLW
Flood Watch FLA
Flood Statement FLS
Hazardous Materials Warning HMW1
High Wind Warning HWW
High Wind Watch HWA
Hurricane Warning HUW
Hurricane Watch HUA
Hurricane Statement HLS
Law Enforcement Warning LEW1
Local Area Emergency LAE1
Network Message Notification NMN1
911 Telephone Outage Emergency TOE1
Nuclear Power Plant Warning NUW1
Practice/Demo Warning DMO
Radiological Hazard Warning RHW1
Severe Thunderstorm Warning SVR
Severe Thunderstorm Watch SVA
Severe Weather Statement SVS
Shelter in Place Warning SPW1
Special Marine Warning SMW1
Special Weather Statement SPS
Tornado Warning TOR
Tornado Watch TOA
Tropical Storm Warning TRW1
Tropical Storm Watch TRA1
Tsunami Warning TSW
Tsunami Watch TSA
Volcano Warning VOW1
Winter Storm Warning WSW
Winter Storm Watch WSA
1Effective [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], broadcast stations, cable systems and wireless cable
systems may upgrade their existing EAS equipment to add these
event codes on a voluntary basis until the equipment is replaced.
All models of EAS equipment manufactured after August 1, 2003
must be capable of receiving and transmitting these event codes.
Broadcast stations, cable systems and wireless cable systems
which replace their EAS equipment after February 1, 2004 must
install equipment that is capable of receiving and transmitting
these event codes.
(f) The State, Territory and Offshore (Marine Area) FIPS
number codes (SS) are as follows. County FIPS numbers (CCC) are
contained in the State EAS Mapbook.
State FIPS#
AL 01
AK 02
AZ 04
AR 05
CA 06
CO 08
CT 09
DE 10
DC 11
FL 12
GA 13
HI 15
ID 16
IL 17
IN 18
IA 19
KS 20
KY 21
LA 22
ME 23
MD 24
MA 25
MI 26
MN 27
MS 28
MO 29
MT 30
NE 31
NV 32
NH 33
NH 33
NJ 34
NM 35
NY 36
NC 37
ND 38
OH 39
OK 40
OR 41
PA 42
RI 44
SC 45
SD 46
TN 47
TX 48
UT 49
VT 50
VA 51
WA 53
WV 54
WI 55
WY 56
Terr. FIPS#
AS 60
FM 64
GU 66
MH 68
MH 68
PR 72
PW 70
UM 74
VI 78
Offshore (Marine Areas)1 FIPS#
Eastern North Pacific Ocean, and along U.S. West Coast
57
from Canadian border to Mexican border
North Pacific Ocean near Alaska, and along Alaska coastline,
58
including the Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska
Central Pacific Ocean, including Hawaiian waters 59
South Central Pacific Ocean, including American Samoa waters
61
Western Pacific Ocean, including Mariana Island waters
65
Western North Atlantic Ocean, and along U.S. East Coast,
73
from Canadian border south to Currituck Beach Light, N.C.
Western North Atlantic Ocean, and along U.S. East Coast,
75
south of Currituck Beach Light, N.C., following the coastline
into
Gulf of Mexico to Bonita Beach, FL., including the Caribbean
Gulf of Mexico, and along the U.S. Gulf Coast from the Mexican
77
border to Bonita Beach, FL.
Lake Superior 91
Lake Michigan 92
Lake Huron 93
Lake St. Clair 94
Lake Erie 96
Lake Ontario 97
St. Lawrence River above St. Regis 98
1Effective [INSERT DATE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], broadcast stations, cable systems and wireless cable
systems may upgrade their existing EAS equipment to add these
marine area location codes on a voluntary basis until the
equipment is replaced. All models of EAS equipment manufactured
after August 1, 2003 must be capable of receiving and
transmitting these marine area location codes. Broadcast
stations, cable systems and wireless cable systems which replace
their EAS equipment after February 1, 2004 must install equipment
that is capable of receiving and transmitting these location
codes.
95. Section 11.33 is amended by revising paragraphs
(a)(3)(ii) and (a)(4) to read as follows:
§ 11.33 EAS Decoder
(a) * * *
(3) ***
(ii) Store at least ten preselected event and originator
header codes, in addition to the seven mandatory event/originator
codes for tests and national activations, and store any
preselected location codes for comparison with incoming header
codes. A non-preselected header code that is manually
transmitted must be stored for comparison with later incoming
header codes. The header codes of the last ten received