[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 135 (Tuesday, July 15, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41159-41172]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16417]
[[Page 41159]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 11
[EB Docket No. 04-296; FCC 14-93]
Review of the Emergency Alert System
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) seeks comment on proposed changes to its rules governing
the Emergency Alert System (EAS) to establish a national location code
for EAS alerts issued by the President amend the Commission's rules
governing a national EAS test code for future nationwide tests require
broadcasters, cable service providers, and other entities required to
comply with the Commission's EAS rules (EAS Participants) to file test
result data electronically and require EAS Participants to meet minimal
standards to ensure that EAS alerts are accessible to all members of
the public, including those with disabilities.
DATES: Comments are due on or before August 14, 2014 and reply comments
are due on or before August 29, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Commenters may submit comments, identified by EB Docket No.
04-296 by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience
delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
People with Disabilities: Contact the Commission to
request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign
language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone:
202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Fowlkes, Deputy Bureau Chief,
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 418-7452, or by
email at [email protected]. For additional information concerning
the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements
contained in this document, contact Benish Shah at (202) 418-7866 or
send an email to [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in EB Docket No. 04-296, FCC 14-93,
adopted on June 25, 2014, and released on June 26, 2014. The full text
of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th
Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this document
also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy
and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC
20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
This document contains proposed information collection
requirements. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, 109 Stat 163 (1995).
The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork
burdens, invites the general public and OMB to comment on the
information collection requirements contained in this document, as
required by the PRA. Public and agency comments on the PRA proposed
information collection requirements are due September 15, 2014.
Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on the respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks
specific comment on how it might ``further reduce the information
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.''
OMB Control Number: 3060-0207.
Title: Emergency Alert System Information Collection.
Form Number: Not applicable.
Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Non-profit
entities.
Number of Respondents: 27,468.
Estimated Time per Response: 3.28 hours.
Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirements; Reporting
requirements; Third party disclosure requirement.
Obligation to Respond: Mandatory.
Total Annual Burden: 90,095 hours.
Total Annual Cost: $3,423,611.52.
Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission will treat
submissions pursuant to 47 CFR 11.61(a)(3) as confidential. See Review
of the Emergency Alert System, EB Docket No. 04-296, Third Report and
Order, 26 FCC Rcd 1460, 1485, paragraph 65 (2011).
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact of the proposals described in the attached NPRM on
small entities. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA.
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments in the NPRM. The Commission will send a
copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the
NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal
Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
2. The NPRM proposes rules to resolve problems with the EAS
uncovered in the first nationwide Emergency Alert System (EAS) test
conducted on November 9, 2011, and proposes further rules to evolve the
paradigm for the future testing, exercise and use of the EAS to enhance
the effectiveness of the EAS as an alerting tool for the public. In
this NPRM, the Commission proposes that a national location code be
adopted, that ``six zeroes'' should be that code; and that the National
Periodic Test code be used to evaluate the readiness of the EAS for a
live EAN. The Commission also proposes to establish a reporting
[[Page 41160]]
requirement using an updated, online EAS test reporting system (ETRS).
Finally, the Commission proposes to establish minimum standards for
visual crawl speed, completeness and placement that will improve the
accessibility of EAS alerts. These proposed rules will help to ensure
that the EAS better protects the life and property of all Americans.
3. Specifically, the NPRM contains the following proposed rule
changes, and seeks comment on each:
Proposes to establish a national location code for EAS
alerts issued by the President;
Proposes to adopt the National Periodic Test (NPT) code
that emulates the functionality of the EAN for future nationwide EAS
tests;
Proposes to require EAS Participants to file test result
data electronically using a new EAS Test Reporting System (ETRS);
Proposes to require EAS Participants to meet minimal
accessibility and comprehensibility standards.
B. Legal Basis
Authority for the actions proposed in this NPRM may be
found in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335,
403, 624(g), 706, and 715 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307,
309, 335, 403, 544(g), 606, and 615.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
Rules Will Apply
1. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where
feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be
affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (``SBA'').
2. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. The rules proposed in the attached NPRM may, over time,
affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present,
beyond the list of representative entities listed in the subsequent
paragraphs. The Commission therefore describes here, at the outset,
three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards. First,
nationwide, there are a total of approximately 27.9 million small
businesses, according to the SBA. In addition, a ``small organization''
is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' Nationwide, as
of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,315 small organizations.
Finally, the term ``small governmental jurisdiction'' is defined
generally as ``governments of cities, towns, townships, villages,
school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than
fifty thousand.'' Census Bureau data for 2011 indicate that there were
89,476 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. The
Commission estimates that, of this total, as many as 88,506 entities
may qualify as ``small governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, the
Commission estimates that most governmental jurisdictions are small.
3. Television Broadcasting. The SBA has developed a small business
sized standard for television broadcasting, which consists of all such
firms having $13 million or less in annual receipts. Business concerns
included in this industry are those ``primarily engaged in broadcasting
images together with sound.'' According to Commission staff review of
BIA Publications, Inc. Master Access Television Analyzer Database, as
of May 16, 2003, about 814 of the 1,220 commercial television stations
in the United States had revenues of $12 million or less. The
Commission notes, however, that, in assessing whether a business
concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business
(control) affiliations must be included. The Commission's estimate,
therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be
affected by the Commission's action, because the revenue figure on
which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from
affiliated companies. There are also 2,127 low power television
stations (``LPTV''). Given the local nature and power limits of this
service, the Commission will presume that all LPTV licensees qualify as
small entities under the SBA size standard.
4. Radio Stations. The revised rules and policies potentially will
apply to all AM and commercial FM radio broadcasting licensees and
potential licensees. The SBA defines a radio broadcasting station that
has $6.5 million or less in annual receipts as a small business. A
radio broadcasting station is an establishment primarily engaged in
broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. Included in this
industry are commercial, religious, educational, and other radio
stations. Radio broadcasting stations which primarily are engaged in
radio broadcasting and which produce radio program materials are
similarly included. However, radio stations that are separate
establishments and are primarily engaged in producing radio program
material are classified under another NAICS number. According to
Commission staff review of BIA Publications, Inc. Master Access Radio
Analyzer Database on March 31, 2005, about 10,840 (95 percent) of
11,410 commercial radio stations have revenue of $6 million or less.
The Commission notes, however, that many radio stations are affiliated
with much larger corporations having much higher revenue. The
Commission's estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small
entities that might be affected by the Commission's action.
5. Cable and Other Program Distribution. The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for cable and other program distribution,
which consists of all such firms having $12.5 million or less in annual
receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 1997, in this category
there was a total of 1,311 firms that operated for the entire year. Of
this total, 1,180 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and
an additional 52 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999.
Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered
small. In addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate
that the total number of cable and other program distribution companies
increased approximately 46 percent from 1997 to 2002.
6. Cable System Operators (Rate Regulation Standard). The
Commission has developed its own small business size standard for cable
system operators, for purposes of rate regulation. Under the
Commission's Rules, a ``small cable company'' is one serving 400,000 or
fewer subscribers nationwide. The Commission has estimated that there
were 1,065 cable operators who qualified as small cable system
operators at the end of 2005. Since then, some of those companies may
have grown to serve over 400,000 subscribers, and others may have been
involved in transactions that caused them to be combined with other
cable operators. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are
fewer than 1,065 small entity cable system operators that may be
affected by the rules and policies proposed herein.
[[Page 41161]]
7. Cable System Operator (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable
system operators, which is ``a cable operator that, directly or through
an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all
subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity
or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed
$250,000,000.'' The Commission has determined that an operator serving
fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its
annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all
its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Industry
data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but ten
are small under this size standard. The Commission notes that the
Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable
system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual
revenues exceed $250 million, and therefore the Commission is unable to
estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that
would qualify as small under this size standard.
8. Broadband Radio Service (BRS). The proposed rules apply to
Broadband Radio Service (BRS), operated as part of a wireless cable
system. The Commission has defined ``small entity'' for purposes of the
auction of BRS frequencies as an entity that, together with its
affiliates, has average gross annual revenues that are not more than
$40 million for the preceding three calendar years. This definition of
small entity in the context of BRS auctions has been approved by the
SBA. The Commission completed its BRS auction in March 1996 for
authorizations in 493 basic trading areas. Of 67 winning bidders, 61
qualified as small entities. At this time, the Commission estimates
that of the 61 small business BRS auction winners, 48 remain small
business licensees.
9. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. This industry
comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating studios and
facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a subscription or fee
basis. The broadcast programming is typically narrowcast in nature
(e.g., limited format, such as news, sports, education, or youth-
oriented). These establishments produce programming in their own
facilities or acquire programming from. The programming material is
usually delivered to a third party, such as cable systems or direct-to-
home satellite systems, for transmission to viewers. The SBA size
standard for this industry establishes as small any company in this
category which receives annual receipts of $15 million or less. Based
on U.S. Census data for 2007, in that year 659 establishments operated
for the entire year. Of that 659,197 operated with annual receipts of
$10 million a year or more. The remaining 462 establishments operated
with annual receipts of less than $10 million. Based on this data, the
Commission estimates that the majority of establishments operating in
this industry are small.
10. The Educational Broadband Service (EBS). The proposed rules
would also apply to The Educational Broadband Service (EBS) facilities
operated as part of a wireless cable system. The SBA definition of
small entities for pay television services also appears to apply to
EBS. There are presently 2,032 ITFS licensees. All but 100 of these
licenses are held by educational institutions. Educational institutions
are included in the definition of a small business. However, the
Commission does not collect annual revenue data for EBS licensees, and
are not able to ascertain how many of the 100 non-educational licensees
would be categorized as small under the SBA definition. Thus, the
Commission tentatively concludes that at least 1,932 are small
businesses and may be affected by the established rules.
11. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (``LECs''). The Commission
has included small incumbent LECs in this present IRFA analysis. As
noted above, a ``small business'' under the RFA is one that, inter
alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a
telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and
``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' The SBA's Office of
Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not
dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not
``national'' in scope. The Commission has therefore included small
incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis, although the
Commission emphasizes that this RFA action has no effect on Commission
analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts. Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard
specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The appropriate
size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission
data, one-thousand three-hundred and three carriers have reported that
they are engaged in the provision of incumbent local exchange services.
Of these 1,303 carriers, an estimated 1,020 have 1,500 or fewer
employees and 283 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange
service are small businesses that may be affected by the Commission's
proposed rules.
12. Competitive (LECs), Competitive Access Providers (CAPs),
``Shared-Tenant Service Providers,'' and ``Other Local Service
Providers.'' Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small
business size standard specifically for these service providers. The
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission
data, 769 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision
of either competitive access provider services or competitive local
exchange carrier services. Of these 769 carriers, an estimated 676 have
1,500 or fewer employees and 93 have more than 1,500 employees. In
addition, 12 carriers have reported that they are ``Shared-Tenant
Service Providers,'' and all 12 are estimated to have 1.500 or fewer
employees. In addition, 39 carriers have reported that they are ``Other
Local Service Providers.'' Of the 39, an estimated 38 have 1,500 or
fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local
exchange service, competitive access providers, ``Shared-Tenant Service
Providers,'' and ``Other Local Service Providers'' are small entities
that may be affected by the Commission's proposed rules.
13. Satellite Telecommunications and Other Telecommunications. The
Commission has not developed a small business size standard
specifically for providers of satellite service. The appropriate size
standards under SBA rules are for the two broad categories of Satellite
Telecommunications and Other Telecommunications. Under both categories,
such a business is small if it has $12.5 million or less in average
annual receipts. For the first category of Satellite
Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 1997 show that there were a
total of 324 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total,
273 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and an additional
twenty-four firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Thus, the
majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms can be considered small.
[[Page 41162]]
14. The second category--Other Telecommunications--includes
``establishments primarily engaged in . . . providing satellite
terminal stations and associated facilities operationally connected
with one or more terrestrial communications systems and capable of
transmitting telecommunications to or receiving telecommunications from
satellite systems.'' Of this total, 424 firms had annual receipts of $5
million to $9,999,999 and an additional 6 firms had annual receipts of
$10 million to $24,999,990. Thus, under this second size standard, the
majority of firms can be considered small.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
This NPRM proposes that EAS Participants submit data
concerning their compliance with the EAS rules via a mandatory
electronic reporting system, the Electronic Test Reporting System
(ETRS). The Commission proposes that any reporting under the ETRS would
be identical that required of all EAS Participants, including small
entities, in the November, 2011 Nationwide EAS Test, a collection that
was approved by OMB. The impact on small entities of the ETRS is
consistent with their past OMB-approved practice under the EAS, and
thus would impose no undue burden.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
15. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) and exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.''
16. The NPRM is technologically neutral in order to enable small
entities flexibility to comply with the Commission's proposed rules
using EAS equipment offered by a variety of vendors. Commenters are
invited to propose steps that the Commission may take to minimize any
significant economic impact on small entities. When considering
proposals made by other parties, commenters are invited to propose
significant alternatives that serve the goals of these proposals. The
Commission expects that the record will develop to demonstrate
significant alternatives. In particular, the Commission expects that
the record will develop to indicate whether EAS Participants who
otherwise would be required to replace their EAS equipment can comply
with the rules the Commission proposes by deploying an intermediary
device.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
17. None.
Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A. Scope
1. Since the first nationwide EAS test in 2011, there have been
technological advances and deployments of new systems in the alerting
landscape. Most relevant to EAS has been the changeover to alerting
that uses the Internet-based Common Alerting Protocol (CAP). In
addition to CAP implementation, beginning in April 2012, FEMA, the
Commission and the wireless industry deployed the Wireless Emergency
Alert (WEA) system, which allows the public to receive geographically-
targeted alerts over WEA-capable cell phones and other mobile devices.
Further, the Nation's communications networks are in the midst of
technology transitions which will entail fundamental and comprehensive
changes in how data and voice are communicated end to end (involving
virtually all aspects of the routing and coding of such
communications). Many stakeholders, realizing the impact that this
transition will have on the way in which consumers will be able to
receive timely and accurate emergency alerts, express the need and
desire to routinely test and exercise not only the EAS, but also the
WEA and the entire IPAWS to ensure that Americans continue to have
access to an effective emergency alert system.
2. While the Commission agrees with this assessment and understands
the desire for prompt testing of these systems, the Commission believes
it is imperative first to establish at the national level overarching
parameters for such testing. Such an alerting paradigm would allow
alert originators at the federal, state and local levels, as well as
other stakeholders, to ensure that these systems are an effective and
viable tool for alerting the public. Consequently, with this NPRM, the
Commission continues its dialogue with federal government partners,
state and local governments, communications service providers and other
alerting stakeholders to achieve this result.
3. As the Commission continues this discussion, it is crucial that
it first take steps to address known vulnerabilities in the EAS. In
this NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on proposed rule changes
designed to address two of the problems identified by the 2011
Nationwide EAS Test, specifically the lack of a national location code,
and the lack of minimum comprehensibility and accessibility guidelines
to ensure that the public, including those with disabilities, can
clearly understand alerts provided to them. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether it should adopt an electronic EAS Test Reporting
System (ETRS), and how the Commission should define use of the NPT code
for future nationwide tests.
B. Proposed Rule Changes Affecting Header Code Elements
1. Use of a National Location Code
4. Section 11.31(c) of the Commission's rules requires, among other
things, that all EAS alert messages include a geographic location code
to indicate the affected area of an emergency. The EAS rules contain a
list of location codes for the States, Territories and offshore Marine
Areas that EAS equipment are required to recognize. The EAS rules do
not contain a location code for the entire United States. In the Third
Report and Order, the Commission declined to adopt a national location
code for the first nationwide EAS test out of concern that to do so
would require significant reprogramming of EAS equipment. Rather, for
the first test, the Bureau and FEMA elected to use the Washington, DC
location code. Use of this code resulted in inconsistent results across
the country. As detailed in the EAS Nationwide Test Report, although
many EAS Participants outside of Washington, DC were able to process
the Washington, DC code, some EAS Participants reported that their EAS
and other network equipment rejected the ``out of area'' alert, and
terminated the test alert partway through the transmission. In the EAS
Operational Issues Public Notice, the Bureau noted the difficulties
arising from the use of the Washington DC location code and sought
comment on whether the Commission should adopt a national location code
for future testing, and if so, what that code should be.
5. Most commenters, including FEMA, support adoption of a national
[[Page 41163]]
location code to facilitate national activations and testing of the
EAS. In particular, commenters overwhelmingly support the adoption of
``six zeroes'' (000000) as the national location code. Commenters
provide an array of justifications for their position. FEMA asserts
that use of the ``six zeroes'' location code will further harmonize the
Commission's EAS rules with CAP standards, which already recognize
``six zeroes'' as the national location code. Trilithic adds that the
addition of the ``six zeroes'' code for general use is a prerequisite
for geo-targeting of the EAN, as EAS equipment would otherwise ignore
the location codes if the event code is an EAN. NCTA states that use of
``six zeroes'' as the national location code will ensure that the EAN
is processed and retransmitted in the same format throughout the EAS
ecosystem. Sage also supports the use of ``six zeroes'' as the national
location code, but concedes that the ``DC code may have a smaller total
system cost.'' Only DirecTV does not support the ``six zeroes''
location code, stating its belief that ``[r]ather than embark upon an
untested approach that would rely upon a new nationwide location code .
. . the Commission would be better served by continuing to use the
approach taken for the Nationwide EAS Test.''
6. With regard to the steps that equipment manufacturers need to
take to integrate a ``six zeroes'' location code into their equipment,
Monroe and Trilithic note that most equipment is already capable of
processing ``six zeroes'' as the national location code either because
the code is resident in the equipment, or because the software in the
equipment can be upgraded to accommodate the location code. Other
manufacturers note that equipment that reaches the end of its lifecycle
will need to be replaced because manufacturers no longer support such
equipment and will not provide the type of software upgrade necessary
to activate the ``six zeroes'' national location code. NCTA comments
that, notwithstanding the fact that the software in most of its
members' EAS equipment can be upgraded to accommodate the ``six
zeroes'' national location code, cable and other multichannel video
programming distributors (MVPD) will have to upgrade various
``downstream'' portions of their networks to accommodate the ``six
zeroes'' code and accurately deliver alerts.
7. Based on the comments received in response to the Bureau's EAS
Operational Issues Public Notice, the Commission proposes that EAS
Participants be required to have the capability to receive and process
a national location code, and that ``six zeroes'' be designated as that
code. The Commission believes that the addition of this national
location code will bring additional consistency to the operation of EAS
equipment in both national and local activations. In addition, the
equipment and network upgrades that will enable the use of a national
location code, taken in conjunction with the Commission's rules
requiring that EAS equipment recognize all header codes, will prevent
EAS equipment from programmatically ignoring location header codes when
used with an EAN event code, thus enabling FEMA to use other specific
location codes for a geo-targeted EAN should the President wish to
address a particular part of the country rather than the nation as a
whole. The Commission also agrees with FEMA that adoption of ``six
zeroes'' as the national location code has the additional long-term
benefit of ensuring consistency between the Commission's EAS rules and
industry CAP standards, which, in turn, will facilitate the integration
of the EAS into IP-based alerting systems such as IPAWS. The Commission
seeks comment on this proposal and rationale.
2. Use of the National Periodic Test Code (NPT)
8. In the Third Report and Order, the Commission chose to use the
EAN for the first nationwide EAS test primarily because an EAN-based
test most closely mirrored an actual alert. At that time, the
Commission also acknowledged that there was value to testing the
national-level EAS without using a live code, and concluded that it
would consider an alternative to live code testing such as the NPT in
the future. For that first test, in order to minimize confusion from
the use of the live EAN code and its attendant video text crawl
announcing a national emergency, EAS Participant stakeholder
organizations provided ``This is only a Test'' slides for broadcast and
MVPD EAS Participants to display during the test. Not all cable service
providers were able to display the slide, and as noted in the EAS
Nationwide Test Report, while the use of the EAN had been successful,
some deaf and hard of hearing people had reported confusion caused by
the inability of some EAS Participants to visually display the ``This
is only a Test'' slide. The EAS Nationwide Test Report noted that one
way to avoid such confusion in the future would be to use the NPT, and
that ``use of the NPT would allow FEMA and the FCC to conduct
nationwide EAS tests without the need for an extensive public outreach
campaign such as that necessary for the first nationwide EAS test.''
9. In the EAS Operational Issues Public Notice, the Bureau sought
comment on whether it should consider amending its rules to facilitate
use of the NPT code instead of the EAN for future testing. The Bureau
also sought guidance on the technical feasibility and operational
requirements of an NPT activation, and whether the Commission's rules
should ``require that EAS messages containing the NPT code be
promulgated throughout the EAS just like an EAN.'' In its comments,
FEMA expresses a desire to use the NPT code for the next nationwide
test of the EAS component of IPAWS--a test that FEMA also notes that it
wishes to conduct ``in the near future--but acknowledges that the EAS
rules do not provide enough guidance on how EAS equipment must process
the NPT. Accordingly, FEMA requests that the Commission provide such
guidance, and notes its preference that the NPT be ``relayed and
forwarded in the same fashion and with the same immediacy as an EAN.''
Other commenters agree that the NPT should be used for most nationwide
EAS tests, but also believe that the NPT does not need to fully emulate
the EAN duration function to be an effective test code.
10. Commenters support the use of the NPT, but most agree that
requiring the NPT to emulate the EAN's priority and duration qualities
will entail significantly more substantial software and hardware
upgrades for EAS Participants than those required for the national
location code the Commission proposes. Commenters also state that use
of an NPT that fully emulates the EAN will require testing, and updates
to software and standards for downstream equipment such as cable set
top boxes and Digital Network Control Systems (DNCS). NCTA, in
particular, notes that requiring an NPT coded test to trigger
automatically, immediately upon receipt, and to last longer than two
minutes would require changes to the SCTE 18 2013 standard, as well as
to corresponding product specifications and system design changes that
would affect the entire MVPD industry. According to NCTA, this process
would take as long as three years to complete, and would be
significantly more expensive than requiring the ``six zeroes'' location
code alone.
11. According to commenters, a less expensive and more rapidly
deployable method of utilizing the NPT for a national EAS test would
simply be to enable the NPT as it is currently programmed in most, if
not all, EAS equipment. Specifically, Sage recommends that programming
EAS
[[Page 41164]]
equipment to treat the NPT as a ``normal'' EAS alert would be a simpler
and equally effective way to test the integrity of the links in the EAS
distribution hierarchy. As the Commission noted in the Third Report and
Order, although such use of the NPT would be limited to two minutes,
EAS Participants could ensure mandatory carriage of the NPT by manually
reprogramming their EAS equipment to automatically respond to the NPT.
12. The Commission agrees with the majority of commenters that
there should be a non-EAN option for future EAS testing, and that the
NPT is the obvious alternative. The Commission is aware that it must
balance the need for regular testing of the EAS with a clear standard
by which such tests should be conducted, and that any EAS testing rules
should offer FEMA maximum flexibility to test the EAS and the other
IPAWS elements that FEMA administers. At the same time, the Commission
wants to ensure that its rules provide a benefit that fully justifies
the costs that implementing any proposed rules would impose on EAS
Participants. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to amend its rules
to create an option to use the NPT for EAS testing. That being said,
the Commission is cognizant that the NPT can be tailored in different
ways, with different costs and benefits. The Commission therefore seeks
comment on the manner in which the NPT should be deployed for any
upcoming EAS tests.
13. The Commission first seeks comment on whether it should require
that the NPT be activated like any other EAS alert. This option,
according to commenters, offers almost all the benefits of full EAN
emulation. However, it would not test the reset functionality of EAS
equipment by lasting longer than two minutes, and it would not override
all other EAS alerts. An NPT event code that does not exceed two
minutes in length is consistent with the existing EAS rules, as the EAN
is the only event code that does not limit the duration of the alert.
The Bureau currently has the delegated authority to require that EAS
Participants use the NPT for future national testing, and the Bureau
may exercise this authority at any time to require the NPT to be used
in a nationwide EAS test in a manner consistent with the current rules,
i.e., that it be treated like any other event code. Treating the NPT
like any other EAS activation also would satisfy FEMA's stated desire
for a test in near future, and would do so in a manner that imposes
minimal costs on EAS Participants. Thus, should FEMA decide to schedule
a nationwide EAS test that does not exceed two minutes in length, the
Bureau may, should this issue still be pending before the Commission,
require that EAS Participants reprogram their EAS equipment to
automatically process the NPT.
14. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should revise
its EAS rules to define the NPT as a test code that fully emulates the
EAN in all of its characteristics--particularly its priority over any
other message, and its indefinite length. The Commission notes that an
NPT that fully emulates the EAN would create a test environment that
closely approximates real emergency conditions, thereby maximizing the
information that can be derived from testing the EAS with a non-EAN
option. On the other hand, it would be a far more costly option for EAS
Participants, and the extra time that it would take for EAS
Participants to implement an EAN-emulating NPT would preclude FEMA's
ability to use such an NPT for a test conducted in the near future.
Thus, would the benefits of full emulation outweigh the costs? The
Commission also seeks comment on whether a test that lasts more than
two minutes is necessary. Can the question of whether EAS equipment
will reset after the first two minutes of an EAN alert (or an EAN-
emulating NPT test) be answered in a test bed, or does such a test
require that the entire ``daisy chain'' linkage be involved? If a test
of more than two minutes is needed, could FEMA avoid the expense of
such a test by using the EAN option instead? How would the cost of
conducting another EAN-based nationwide test compare with the costs of
conducting a test with an NPT that fully emulates the EAN? What were
the costs to EAS Participants to participate in the first nationwide
EAS test, including any efforts to conduct public outreach in advance
of the test? Would the costs of a new EAN-based test differ from those
of the first nationwide EAS test? How would such costs compare to a
test using the NPT that operates within a two minute duration, the
approach suggested by some commenters? Commenters should offer specific
figures and data to support their comments and should include costs of
any public outreach that would be required with each type of test. The
Commission also seeks comment on whether the three-year time period for
full implementation of an EAN-emulating NPT, suggested by some
commenters, is reasonable or necessary. Can an EAN emulating NPT be
deployed in a shorter period of time? Would deploying an NPT that fully
emulates the EAN increase costs fourfold, as some commenters suggest?
Parties should offer specific technical and cost-based support to their
comments.
C. Updated EAS Test Reporting System (ETRS)
15. In the Third Report and Order, the Commission adopted a new
Sec. 11.61(a)(3)(iv) to require that EAS Participants submit
nationwide test result data to the Commission within 45 days following
the test (i.e., by December 27, 2011, for the first test). EAS
Participants had the option of complying with the reporting
requirements either with a paper filing or through an electronic
reporting system.
16. As the Bureau reported in the EAS Nationwide Test Report, over
16,000 EAS Participants submitted test result data; the vast majority
chose to file electronically rather than submit paper filings. The data
available from the electronic reporting system allowed the Commission
to generate reports that would not have been feasible with paper
filings alone. As a result of the positive response to the electronic
filing system employed in the first nationwide EAS test, the EAS
Nationwide Test Report recommended that the Commission develop a new
electronic reporting system and related database to expedite filing of
test result data by EAS Participants. Subsequently, at its March 20,
2014 meeting, the CSRIC also recommended that the Commission adopt a
federal government database to contain EAS Participants' monitoring
assignments.
1. Mandating ETRS
17. EAS Participants and other stakeholders support use of an
electronic reporting system to facilitate filing of EAS test result
data. NAB suggests improvements, primarily the addition of a filing
receipt to provide verification that the EAS Participant has
successfully and timely submitted its report.
18. Based on the preference shown for the electronic filing option
prior to and during the first nationwide EAS test, and on the largely
positive responses to a permanent electronic filing system in general,
the Commission proposes to designate in the Commission's EAS rules the
ETRS (as defined below) as the primary EAS reporting system, and to
require that all EAS Participants submit nationwide EAS test result
data electronically via the ETRS for any future national EAS tests. As
the Commission discusses in further detail
[[Page 41165]]
below, the Commission also proposes to require EAS Participants to file
ETRS Form One, the self-identifying portion of the ETRS, within one
year of the effective date of the rules the Commission ultimately
adopts, and to update the information that EAS Participants are
required to supply in Form One on a yearly basis, and as required by
any updates or waivers to EAS State Plans.
19. The ETRS adopted for the 2011 Nationwide EAS Test is comprised
of the following three web-based forms: Form One asked each EAS
Participant for identifying and background information, including EAS
designation, EAS monitoring assignments, facility location, equipment
type, and contact information, and other relevant data. Form Two asked
each EAS Participant whether it received the Nationwide EAS Test alert
code and, if required to do so, whether the EAS Participant propagated
the alert code downstream. Form Three asked each EAS Participant to
submit detailed information regarding its receipt and propagation, if
applicable, of the alert code, including an explanation of any
complications in receiving or propagating the code. The Commission
proposes that it adopt the identical format for the permanent ETRS,
subject to the revisions it proposes below regarding filing receipts
and the pre-population of the forms with identifying data already in
the Commission's possession. The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal and the proposed forms.
20. Based on the Bureau's experience during the first nationwide
EAS test, and on stakeholder comments, the Commission also agrees that
the next iteration of the ETRS should give filers the capability to
review filings prior to final submission and to retrieve previous
filings to correct errors. The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal.
21. We further propose that EAS Participants not be required to
input into the ETRS data that EAS Participants may have previously
provided to the Commission elsewhere. The Commission agrees with the
recent CSRIC Report that pre-populating the ETRS with data such as
transmitter location, call signs, etc., that are already in the
possession of the Commission would lessen the burden of filing and make
the reporting process more cost effective for EAS Participants. The
Commission seeks comment on what data should be included in this
category. The Commission further proposes that data drawn from other
systems, such as a licensing database, not be editable in the ETRS by
the filer. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
2. State Plan Data Tables
22. The Commission next proposes that it revise its rules to
integrate the identifying information provided by Form One of the new
ETRS into the EAS State Plans filed pursuant to Sec. 11.21 of the
Commission's EAS rules. This rule requires that EAS State Plans include
``a data table, in computer readable form, clearly showing monitoring
assignments and the specific primary and backup path for EAN messages
that are formatted in the EAS Protocol (specified in Sec. 11.31), from
the PEP to each station in the plan.'' The rules further require that
such tables be combined into an FCC Mapbook that ``organizes all
broadcast stations and cable systems according to their State, EAS
Local Area, and EAS designation.'' The CSRIC endorses the use of a
tabular matrix for the collection of test data from EAS Participants.
To date, however, the State Emergency Communication Committees (SECCs)
have not been able to supply the Commission with the data necessary to
populate the data tables or Mapbook.
23. In the Commission's review of the data from the first
nationwide EAS test, it noted that the data from Form One of the ETRS
could be used to create the required data table and the FCC Mapbook,
and that both could be maintained in a dynamic, consistently updated
manner. The Commission believes that using the data from the ETRS in
this fashion has great value, as it transforms the ETRS from a one-time
burden into a permanently useful tool that will allow the Commission
and authorized state authorities to see how an EAN (or any other EAS
alert) is actually propagated through the EAS architecture, and see any
vulnerabilities and single points of failure in the distribution
architecture before such a failure could cause real harm. Accordingly,
the Commission proposes that the ETRS be maintained on a permanent
basis to act as a complement to the EAS State Plans that are filed with
the Commission.
D. Visual Crawl and Audio Accessibility
1. Visual Crawl
24. It is the Commission's statutory obligation, as well as
longstanding Federal government and Commission policy, to ensure that
all members of the public, including those with disabilities, have
access to emergency alerts. The Commission's EAS rules are designed to
provide such accessibility by requiring that EAS Participants deliver
EAS alerts in both audio and visual form. The visual form of an EAS
alert generally takes the form of a text crawl that is displayed at the
top of the screen.
25. According to several comments and other feedback the Commission
received, the test message transmitted during the first nationwide test
was inaccessible to many consumers. For example, stakeholders note that
the visual message in some of the text crawls generated for the EAN
scrolled across the screen too quickly, or its font was difficult to
read. Others state that ``the national EAS test message did not
consistently present the alert in both audio and visual formats.''
26. In the EAS Operational Issues Public Notice, the Bureau noted
that although the EAS rules require that EAS alerts be presented
visually, the rules do not specify font size or text crawl speed. The
Bureau sought comment on whether and how the Commission should address
this lack of guidance. Specifically, the Bureau asked whether the
Commission should encourage the development of industry best practices,
amend its EAS rules to establish minimum specifications for the
presentation of EAS text crawls, or propose other solutions. The Bureau
invited suggestions for how specifications could be crafted for all
text crawl elements.
27. Most commenters agree that EAS alert accessibility must be
improved. Some commenters emphasize the importance of equal access to
information, and assert that information provided visually also should
be provided audibly, and vice versa. Despite this general agreement, no
party provides detailed recommendations for achieving this goal. In
addition, EAS Participants and other stakeholders argue that, rather
than ``one size fits all'' rules, the Commission should address this
issue by encouraging the development of voluntary best practices either
through an initiative spearheaded by the CSRIC, or by encouraging
consumer groups and industry organizations to engage in joint efforts
themselves. Industry stakeholders argue that text crawls are generated
in multiple fashions and by various pieces of equipment other than EAS
encoder/decoders. As a result, these commenters argue, the process is
too ``decentralized'' to be encompassed within the EAS rules.
Commenters also claim--without supplying specific cost data--that any
Commission ``one size fits all'' rules would lead to ``astronomical''
costs because such rules would necessitate replacement of much of the
multi-use hardware involved in message display.
28. We are mindful of EAS Participants' concerns about cost and
[[Page 41166]]
the desire for flexibility in managing their technical systems.
However, all members of the public should be able to receive timely and
accurate EAS alerts so that they can take quick action to protect their
lives as well as those of family members. It is critical, therefore,
that the EAS be accessible to all members of the public, including
those with disabilities. Moreover, as noted above, FEMA expresses a
desire to test the EAS again in the near future. Even more importantly,
a national emergency requiring activation of the EAS by the President
could come at any time. In light of this, the Commission believes it is
imperative that the Commission consider the option of establishing
minimum accessibility requirements. In so doing, the Commission's goal
is to ensure that EAS alerts are delivered in a format that is readily
understood by the public and therefore can accomplish their intended
impact, i.e., to warn the public about impending threats to life and
property. Accordingly, as discussed below, the Commission proposes to
amend its EAS rules to require minimum standards for EAS visual crawls,
specifically with respect to crawl speed, completeness and placement.
The Commission seeks comment on these proposals. In addition, the
Commission encourages parties representing industry and consumers,
including those with disabilities to work together to develop
alternative recommendations and to submit them promptly in the record
for the Commission's consideration in this proceeding.
29. Crawl Speed: The Commission believes that its Commission's
closed captioning rules provide a useful guide in addressing the visual
crawl speed issue. Those rules require that ``captions be displayed on
the screen at a speed that can be read by viewers.'' The Commission
believes that such a standard should apply to EAS alerts and thus
propose to revise Sec. 11.51(d) of the Commission's EAS rules to
require that an EAS text crawl be displayed on the screen at a speed
that can be read by viewers. The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on what might
constitute ``a speed that can be read by viewers,'' and whether the
Commission should include a specific crawl speed in the EAS rules. Is
there research demonstrating whether text crawls of certain word or
character lengths and speeds are more or less challenging to read or
comprehend? The Commission also seeks comment on a standard for non-
English alerts.
30. Completeness: Under the closed captioning rules,
``completeness'' requires that closed captions must run from the
beginning to the end of the program, to the fullest extent possible.
The Commission believes that a text crawl describing the nature of the
EAS alert or test should continue throughout the duration of the EAS
activation. Thus, the Commission proposes to revise Sec. 11.51(d) of
the Commission's EAS rules to require that an EAS text crawl must be
displayed continuously throughout the duration of any EAS activation.
The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
31. Placement: Under the Commission's closed captioning rules,
captions must be ``well-placed.'' In other words, they ``shall not
block other important visual content on the screen,'' caption font
should be sized appropriately for legibility, lines of captions should
not overlap one another, and captions should be adequately positioned
so that they do not run off the edge of the video screen. The
Commission believes that the EAS rules already contain a portion of
this requirement, stating that an EAS text crawl ``shall be displayed
at the top of the television screen or where it will not interfere with
other visual messages.'' The Commission believes that adding the
remainder of the closed caption placement standard to its EAS rules
would address the difficulties that certain members of the public had
understanding the text crawls during the first nationwide EAS test, and
would do so in a manner that provides EAS Participants and other EAS
stakeholders with sufficient flexibility to accommodate various
broadcast and MVPD ecosystems. Accordingly, the Commission proposes
that it revise Sec. 11.51(d) of the Commission's EAS rules to
incorporate the language of the closed captioning rules with respect to
text crawl placement. In other words, an EAS text crawl must be
displayed in a manner that (1) does not block other important visual
content on the screen, (2) utilizes a text font that is sized
appropriately for legibility, (3) prevents overlap of lines of text
with one another, and (4) positions the text crawl adequately so it
does not run off the edge of the video screen. Similarly, the
Commission proposes prohibiting MVPD EAS Participants from placing
crawls or other information on the video screen in a manner that would
interfere with the ability of the public to read EAS crawls. The
Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
2. Audio Accessibility
32. At the outset, the Commission notes that FEMA has already
addressed and corrected the primary audio quality problems experienced
during the first nationwide EAS test, i.e., a technical malfunction
that occurred at the National Primary level that affected the
underlying quality of EAS audio nationwide. Thus, its primary concern
in this Section is to seek comment on how the Commission may improve
the accessibility of EAS audio by taking steps to ensure that the audio
and visual elements of an EAS alert convey the identical, or at a
minimum, comparable text. Currently, the visual element of an EAS alert
(i.e., the text crawl) is generated from header codes (location, event,
etc.) that are preprogrammed into EAS equipment, whereas the audio
portion may be recorded by the alert originator (e.g., the National
Weather Service). Because the audio and visual elements of an EAS alert
are generated from two different sources, they can differ significantly
in language and detail, notwithstanding that they are describing the
same event. The Commission believes that for an EAS alert to be fully
accessible, the audio and visual elements should convey the same
message. What steps would need to be taken to achieve this goal? For
example, how would the Commission ensure that the public is able to
receive the same, i.e., comparable, information, irrespective of
whether they receive the alert in an audio or visual format? In
furtherance of this goal, the Commission notes that the implementation
of the CAP standard enables alert message originators to include
enhanced text in their messages, and that the Commission's rules
require EAS Participants to utilize enhanced text, when available, for
the generation of text crawls. The Commission notes that the ECIG
Implementation Guide states that ``[i]t is a recommended practice that
the recorded audio message match the alert text display message.''
Should the Commission take further steps to achieve this goal?
33. We also note that text to speech (TTS) may also offer a
mechanism to provide audio-visual alert message parity. TTS refers to
an artificial process of converting text into human speech. Although
the Commission initially declined to allow EAS equipment to use TTS
software to generate the visual crawl element of an EAS alert, in the
Fifth Report and Order on Reconsideration, in response to a strong
record of support for TTS solutions, the Commission revised its earlier
position and allowed EAS Participants to deploy text-to-speech
solutions to generate the audio portion of EAS alerts. To what extent
are EAS Participants currently using TTS technology to generate EAS
[[Page 41167]]
audio? Has it proven to be an effective manner of ensuring parity
between the audio and visual elements of an EAS alert? The Commission
seeks comment on whether text-to-speech is sufficiently technologically
advanced to become a mandatory element of the Commission's EAS Rules.
E. Proposed Effective Dates
34. Based on the record, the Commission proposes that a reasonable,
minimally burdensome time for all EAS Participants to replace
unsupported equipment and to perform necessary firmware upgrades and
required testing to implement the proposed rules regarding the national
location code, the ETRS and the Commission's proposed accessibility
rules would be six months from the effective date of any rules the it
may adopt as a result of this NPRM. The Commission believes that the
public safety benefits of the Commission's proposed rules, plus FEMA's
stated desire to conduct a further test, militates for a more rapid
implementation period than commenters request. As the record indicates,
most equipment and systems already have the capability to implement the
Commission's proposed rules. The Commission believes that a six month
period will allow EAS Participants and equipment manufacturers to
schedule any required equipment replacement, software or certification
upgrades and necessary testing, and that this schedule will have
minimal impact on the costs discussed in this Section. The Commission
seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission notes that the record
indicates that an NPT that fully emulates an EAN cannot be implemented
in six months and that, if FEMA wants to have a test in such a near
term, a test of more than two minutes using an NPT would not be an
option. The Commission seeks comment on this view, and also seeks
comment on what would be a reasonable date for compliance with the
Commission's proposed rule requiring the NPT fully to emulate the EAN.
For example, would a three year period from the effective date of any
rules adopted as a result of this NPRM be appropriate?
F. Cost Benefit Analysis
35. In this Section, the Commission compares the expected costs
that would be imposed by the Commission's proposed rules to their
expected benefits and seek comment on the accuracy of these estimates.
The Commission believes that the significant public safety benefit of
its proposed rules far outweighs the costs associated with those rules.
In particular, the Commission believes that by proposing rules that
require EAS equipment to distribute alerts consistently, accessibly,
and in a manner that can be accurately measured, it ensures that the
public is provided with the most effective alerting system currently
possible. The Commission's cost estimates are based on industry figures
submitted in response to questions raised in the EAS Operational Issues
Public Notice. According to these figures, the Commission anticipates
that the Commission's proposed requirements would impose costs on EAS
Participants in three affected areas: (1) EAS national location code
and NPT in lieu of EAN for tests, (2), Electronic Test Reporting
System, and (3) visual and audio accessibility. As the Commission
discusses in greater detail in below, the Commission seeks comment on
estimates that put the total cost for EAS Providers to implement the
proposed requirements between $7.0 million and $13.6 million. With
regard to benefits, the Commission estimates that the minimum expected
benefit common to all of the Commission's proposed changes is $9.1M.
The Commission believes all three proposed changes are essential for
the EAS to function properly and thus share the common benefit of
saving human lives, reducing injuries, mitigating property damage, and
minimizing the disruption of the national economy.
36. Our proposed rules pertaining to the national location code and
NPT, as well as those pertaining to test reporting and accessibility,
will establish the baseline for a rigorous program of EAS testing and
use that will allow the Commission to continue to improve the EAS.
Further, the Commission's proposed rules will allow the Commission to
quantify the EAS's effectiveness as a lifesaving tool, as well as its
progress towards CAP compatibility, an improvement that will enhance
the overall efficacy of the EAS in the future. The Commission therefore
requests comment that will enable it to weigh the costs and benefits
associated with these proposed rules. The Commission requests that
commenters provide specific data and information, such as actual or
estimated dollar figures for each specific cost or benefit addressed,
including a description of how the data or information was calculated
or obtained and any documentation or other support.
37. Proposed National Location Code Rules. Commenters claim that
the costs associated with implementing the Commission's proposed rules
regarding the national location code will include both operational
costs associated with the installation, configuration, and testing of
necessary software updates in EAS and related equipment, as well as
capital costs associated with hardware replacement, where necessary.
According to Sage and Trilithic, operational costs for most broadcaster
EAS Participants will be minimal. According to NCTA, cable provider EAS
Participants face additional operational costs associated with
programming middleware, set-top boxes and other downstream equipment to
accept the new code. Commenters agree that the costs associated with
implementing the Commission's proposed rules can be reduced by bundling
all required upgrades into a regularly scheduled system update.
Further, EAS Participants in both the cable and broadcast industries
may need to replace older EAS equipment if they are using EAS equipment
that has exceeded its useful life, is no longer supported by the
manufacturer, and thus cannot be upgraded to comply with the
Commission's proposed rules. The Commission seeks comment on the
reasonableness of this analysis and its underlying assumptions.
38. NCTA asserts that implementing the Commission's proposed rules
regarding the national location code will present cable service
provider EAS Participants with approximately $1.1 million in aggregated
capital and operational costs for the entire cable industry. The
Commission seeks comment on this assessment, and whether such costs are
outweighed by the benefits of adopting the proposed national location
code. While broadcasters would not experience the operational costs
that cable providers would face, there are approximately three times as
many broadcast-based EAS Participant facilities as there are cable EAS
Participant facilities. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on
whether a similar $1.1 million figure would apply to the broadcast
industry, including the reasonableness of this analysis and its
underlying assumptions.
39. Proposed NPT rules. The costs associated with implementation of
the rules the Commission proposes regarding the NPT would vary,
depending on whether the NPT is deployed as a ``normal'' EAS alert, or
whether the Commission revises its rules to implement the NPT in a
manner that fully emulates an EAN. In the case of the former, the
Commission seeks comment on whether the costs would be de minimis. The
NPT is already present in the EAS rules and programmed into EAS
equipment. As Sage notes, costs
[[Page 41168]]
would largely be limited to those incurred by EAS Participants having
to manually reprogram their EAS equipment to automatically respond to
the NPT, a cost which could further be mitigated by bundling any
reprogramming with that required for the national location code. Should
the Commission revise its rules to define the NPT as an event code that
would fully emulate the EAN, NCTA asserts that such a requirement would
add approximately $3.3 million to the cost, thus totaling $4.4 million
to accommodate all rules changes, and would require approximately three
years, as opposed to one year, to complete. According to NCTA, these
additional costs would be necessary because requiring the NPT to
emulate the EAN would require the underlying SCTE 18 standard to be
revised, sub-standards rewritten, EAS and MVPD downstream equipment
reprogrammed, and significant testing to be undertaken. Although
broadcasters in general do not have as extensive downstream facilities
as do cable facilities, they do possess such facilities, and this also
will be affected by the necessary standards revision. Thus, the
Commission seeks comment whether the same three year time frame would
also be borne by the broadcast industry. Further, and as the Commission
discusses above, the greater number of broadcasters may increase their
overall cost to an amount that could approximate the $4.4 million
dollar cost for cable. The Commission notes, however, that costs
associated with use of the NPT could be offset by savings elsewhere.
For example, as the Commission discusses in paragraph 15 above, EAS
Participant stakeholder organizations provided ``This is only a Test''
slides for broadcast and MVPD EAS Participants to display during the
test, a requirement that would be obviated were the NPT to be used.
Further, as noted in the EAS Nationwide Test Report, the various
stakeholders engaged in significant outreach to avoid any public
confusion associated with the use of the live code EAN. The Commission
seeks comment on whether all parties would incur cost savings
associated with not having to conduct such ``live code'' test outreach,
and if so, what such cost savings might be. The Commission otherwise
seeks comment on the reasonableness of this analysis and its underlying
assumptions.
40. Proposed ETRS Rules. Regarding the Commission's proposed ETRS
rules, the Commission seeks comment on whether any costs that arise
from the adoption of the ETRS, either for test reporting purposes or
for integration into Commission's EAS State Plan rules will be minimal.
Most of the information that the Commission proposes EAS Participants
submit to the ETRS has already been populated in other FCC databases,
and thus compliance with this requirement may require little further
action beyond a simple review for accuracy. For the few data fields
that EAS Participants would need to supply, the Commission has already
determined that compliance would entail a one-time cost of
approximately $125.00 per EAS Participant, a figure that has already
been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget.
Accordingly, the cost associated with the Commission's proposed ETRS
rules may be a one-time cost of $125.00 per EAS Participant, or
approximately $3.4 million in the aggregate for all EAS Participants.
The Commission seeks comment on the reasonableness of this analysis and
its underlying assumptions.
41. Accessibility Rules. Finally, regarding the accessibility
standards that the Commission proposes, the Commission breaks these
down into their two constituent elements: the visual text crawl element
and the audio element. With regard to the visual text crawl element,
one approach to estimating its cost would be the methodology adopted by
the Commission in its Closed Captioning Order. Using this approach, the
Commission calculates that text crawls might be necessary for
approximately 50 hours of alerts. Thus, at a cost of $500 an hour, if
the Commission were requiring EAS closed captions, the aggregate costs
of the Commission's proposed visual crawl rules for all EAS
Participants under this methodology could be as much as $25,000.
However, EAS text crawls are not closed captions. They are largely
generated automatically and employ the same or similar language for the
extreme weather and child abduction incidents that comprise the vast
majority of EAS alerts, and thereby require far less time to produce.
Thus, the costs associated with that proposed rule change may be de
minimis, potentially far less than $25,000. The Commission seeks
comment on this analysis.
42. Regarding the Commission's proposed audio accessibility rules,
as the Commission discusses above, it believes that an effective way to
ensure that the audio and text portions of an EAS alert are equivalent
is to use CAP-based text to speech functionalities. Thus, the
Commission's cost estimate for the Commission's proposed audio
equivalency rule is based on the aggregate cost for all EAS
Participants to employ TTS. The Commission believes that the number of
EAS Participants that would need to employ hardware and/or software TTS
upgrades is approximately 2,750. Given that the TTS upgrade will cost,
on average, $500, the aggregate one-time cost for EAS Participants to
comply with the Commission's proposed audio equivalency rules could be
no more than approximately $1.4 million (i.e., 2,750 x $500 =
$1,375,000). The Commission seeks comment on this analysis.
43. Comparison of total costs and benefits. The EAS must remain a
resilient public alert and warning tool if it is to save lives and
protect property during times of national, state, regional, and local
emergencies. The Commission seeks comment on whether its proposals are
the most cost-effective methods to accomplish the goal of ensuring that
the EAS is sufficiently robust to perform its life saving task, or
whether there are more effective means available. By aggregating the
three cost components discussed above, the Commission estimates that
the total cost of the Commission's proposed rules would at most be
$13.6 million. One measure against which this cost can be balanced is
the Department of Transportation model, which estimates the value of
risk reduction, measured in terms of an expected life saved, to be $9.1
million. Under this yardstick, even two lives saved could more than
offset the costs of the system upgrades imposed by the Commission's
proposals. The Commission seeks comment on whether the DOT statistic is
the most appropriate yardstick to measure the benefits the Commission's
proposals. The Commission seeks comment on whether there is a better
measure for the Commission's NPT and ETRS proposals, and if so,
commenters should specify what specific measure should be used. The
Commission does note, however, that none of the commenters responding
to the EAS Operational Issues Public Notice objected on the grounds
that the cost of the Commission's proposed rules would be prohibitive,
or even burdensome. The Commission encourages EAS Participants and
equipment manufacturers to include with their comments any data
relevant to the Commission's analysis of the costs and timing involved
with the implementation of its proposals.
G. Other Issues
44. The EAS Nationwide Test Report indicated that EAS equipment
manufacturers had made inconsistent assumptions about whether the
requirement in the EAS rules that the
[[Page 41169]]
EAS header code must not be amended, extended or abridged without FCC
authorization pertained to an EAN, and whether the ``time of release''
element in the header code had any impact on the requirement in the
rules that an EAN be transmitted immediately upon receipt. In the EAS
Operational Issues Public Notice, the Bureau sought comment on whether
the unique nature of the EAN as a mandatory nationwide live alert code
somehow obviated the above stated requirements. As the Commission
discusses in more detail below, it finds no basis to propose rule
revisions nor does it seek comment on these issues, as the rules are
clear on their face and it sees no reason for changing them.
1. Acknowledgement of All EAS Header Codes
45. Section 11.31 of the Commission's EAS rules establishes the EAS
protocol, a four-part message that contains the header code elements of
an EAS alert. Header codes contain basic identifying information about
the alert, including the identity of the message originator, the event
code, the location code, the valid time period for the message, the
Time of Release code, and the identification of the entity transmitting
or retransmitting the message. Section 11.31(c) states that ``[t]he EAS
protocol, including any codes, must not be amended, extended or
abridged without FCC authorization.'' There is no exception for EANs,
and, indeed, the definition of ``Emergency Action Notification (EAN)''
clearly envisions that EANs can be formatted in the EAS protocol as
defined in Sec. 11.31.
46. Despite this rule, some EAS manufacturers apparently programmed
their EAS equipment to ignore some of the header codes by processing
those codes as ``wildcards.'' This action resulted in a lack of
uniformity in EAS message dissemination across the nation. In the EAS
Operational Issues Public Notice, the Bureau sought comment on this
practice, asking whether the unique nature of the EAN as a mandatory,
nationwide, live alert obviated the need for EAS equipment to
acknowledge header code elements such as the location code.
47. Based on its review, the Commission finds that Sec. 11.31
prohibits any amendment, extension or abridgement of any part of the
EAS protocol, except in cases where the FCC has authorized such action.
As wildcards and other shortcuts serve to ``abridge'' the EAS protocol,
they are prohibited by the FCC rules. While the Commission recognizes
that these shortcuts may have been taken to address gaps associated
with the EAN (e.g., lack of a national location code), there is nothing
in the rules that allows for a different result in the case of an EAN
or any other type of EAS alert. Indeed, use of such programming
shortcuts, in the absence of FCC authorization, undermines the
effectiveness of the EAS. As several commenters note, the presence of
EAS header codes enhances the reliability of the EAS ecosystem and is
necessary for header validity checking, and duplicate detection.
According to commenters, even in equipment that uses wildcards, if any
header code element is missing from an alert, equipment currently
deployed in the field will discard otherwise valid messages. Finally,
the use of wildcards and other programming shortcuts also undermines
EAS testing in that such actions can preclude the Commission, FEMA and
other stakeholders from gaining an accurate picture of whether the EAS
works in the manner contemplated by FCC rules and other standards.
2. Retransmission of EAN Immediately Upon Receipt
48. The Commission's rules require that an EAN must be broadcast
``immediately'' upon receipt. As the Bureau noted in its report,
although FEMA initiated the alert at 2:00 p.m. EST, some EAS equipment
apparently held the test alert for release until 2:03 EST, apparently
because FEMA erroneously included a Time of Release code indicating
2:03 p.m. EST, three minutes after the scheduled start time of the
test. As the EAS Nationwide Test Report indicated, this caused further
delay to EAS message propagation.
49. Several of the Commission's rules make clear that the EAN must
be transmitted upon receipt. No rule provides for the transmission
based on the Time of Release. Simply put, under the Commission's rules,
EAS equipment must transmit the EAN immediately upon receipt,
regardless of the Time of Release provided by the alert originator. The
Commission notes that most EAS manufacturers understand this reading of
the rule. Indeed, one commenter notes that equipment manufacturers have
integrated the ``transmission upon immediate release'' requirement into
current EAS technical standards which apply to broadcast as well as
CAP-based EAS.
50. Requiring transmission of EANs immediately upon receipt is
consistent with the Commission's goal of ensuring that the public has
access to timely and accurate EAS alerts. As some commenters argue, any
delay in processing an EAN undermines its value as a tool for the
President of the United States to communicate with the American people
in an emergency. Moreover, retransmitting an EAN alert immediately upon
receipt is the only possible method to transmit alerts uniformly and
consistently within an EAS ecosystem that is not time synchronized. Any
divergence from the immediate release would have a ripple effect
throughout the system that could affect the receipt of the EAN by other
EAS Participants and the public.
H. Procedural Matters
1. Ex Parte Rules
51. The proceeding initiated by this NPRM shall be treated as
``permit-but-disclose'' proceedings in accordance with the Commission's
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentation must: (1) List all persons attending or
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made; and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with rule Sec. 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed
by rule Sec. 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and
memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format
(e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this
proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte
rules.
[[Page 41170]]
2. Comment Filing Procedures
52. Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and
reply comments in response to this NPRM on or before the dates
indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed
using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121
(1998).
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
[ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties that choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
1. All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the
Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
2. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
3. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must
be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
3. Accessible Formats
53. To request materials in accessible formats for people with
disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
4. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
54. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5
U.S.C. 604, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this document.
The IRFA is set forth in Appendix A. Written public comments are
requested in the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with
the same filing deadlines as comments filed in response to this NPRM as
set forth on the first page of this document, and have a separate and
distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.
5. Paperwork Reduction Analysis
55. This NPRM contains proposed new or modified information
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and OMB
to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this
document, as required by PRA. In addition, pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the Commission seeks specific
comment on how it might ``further reduce the information collection
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
Ordering Clauses
56. Accordingly, it is ordered that pursuant to sections 1, 2,
4(i), 4(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 624(g),706, and
715 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152,
154(i), 154(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 544(g), 606,
and 615, this NPRM IS adopted.
57. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a
copy of this NPRM including the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of subjects in 47 CFR part 11
Emergency alerting, Radio, Television.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 11 to read as
follows:
PART 11--EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM (EAS)
0
1. The authority citation for 47 CFR part 11 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154 (i) and (o), 303(r), 544(g) and
606.
0
2. Amend Sec. 11.21 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 11.21 State and local area plans and FCC Mapbook.
* * * * *
(a) The State EAS Plan contains procedures for State emergency
management and other State officials, the NWS, and EAS Participants'
personnel to transmit emergency information to the public during a
State emergency using the EAS. EAS State Plans should include a data
table, in computer readable form, clearly showing monitoring
assignments and the specific primary and backup path for emergency
action notification (``EAN'') messages that are formatted in the EAS
Protocol (specified in Sec. 11.31), from the PEP to each station in
the plan. If a state's emergency alert system is capable of initiating
EAS messages formatted in the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP), its EAS
State Plan must include specific and detailed information describing
how such messages will be aggregated and distributed to EAS
Participants within the state, including the monitoring requirements
associated with distributing such messages. Consistent with the
requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(iv) Sec. 11.61of this part, EAS
Participants shall provide the identifying information required by Form
One of the EAS Test Reporting System (ETRS) no later than 60 days after
the effective date of this Subsection, and shall renew the Form One
information on a yearly basis or as required by any revision of the EAS
Participant's State EAS Plan filed pursuant to Sec. 11.21.
* * * * *
(c) The FCC Mapbook is based on the consolidation of the data table
required in each State EAS plan with the identifying data contained in
Form One of the ETRS. The Mapbook organizes all EAS Participants
according to their State, EAS Local Area, and EAS designation.
0
3. Amend Sec. 11.31 by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 11.31 EAS protocol.
* * * * *
(f) The State, Territory and Offshore (Marine Area) ANSI number
codes (SS) are as follows. County ANSI numbers (CCC) are contained in
the State EAS Mapbook.
[[Page 41171]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All U.S.............................................. 00
State:
AL............................................... 01
AK............................................... 02
AZ............................................... 04
AR............................................... 05
CA............................................... 06
CO............................................... 08
CT............................................... 09
DE............................................... 10
DC............................................... 11
FL............................................... 12
GA............................................... 13
HI............................................... 15
ID............................................... 16
IL............................................... 17
IN............................................... 18
IA............................................... 19
KS............................................... 20
KY............................................... 21
LA............................................... 22
ME............................................... 23
MD............................................... 24
MA............................................... 25
MI............................................... 26
MN............................................... 27
MS............................................... 28
MO............................................... 29
MT............................................... 30
NE............................................... 31
NV............................................... 32
NH............................................... 33
NJ............................................... 34
NM............................................... 35
NY............................................... 36
NC............................................... 37
ND............................................... 38
OH............................................... 39
OK............................................... 40
OR............................................... 41
PA............................................... 42
RI............................................... 44
SC............................................... 45
SD............................................... 46
TN............................................... 47
TX............................................... 48
UT............................................... 49
VT............................................... 50
VA............................................... 51
WA............................................... 53
WV............................................... 54
WI............................................... 55
WY............................................... 56
Terr.:
AS............................................... 60
FM............................................... 64
GU............................................... 66
MH............................................... 68
MH............................................... 68
PR............................................... 72
PW............................................... 70
UM............................................... 74
VI............................................... 78
Offshore Marine Areas \1\:
Eastern North Pacific Ocean, and along U.S. West 57
Coast from Canadian border to Mexican border....
North Pacific Ocean near Alaska, and along Alaska 58
coastline, including the Bering Sea and the Gulf
of Alaska.......................................
Central Pacific Ocean, including Hawaiian waters. 59
South Central Pacific Ocean, including American 61
Samoa waters....................................
Western Pacific Ocean, including Mariana Island 65
waters..........................................
Western North Atlantic Ocean, and along U.S. East 73
Coast, from Canadian border south to Currituck
Beach Light, N.C................................
Western North Atlantic Ocean, and along U.S. East 75
Coast, south of Currituck Beach Light, N.C.,
following the coastline into Gulf of Mexico to
Bonita Beach, FL., including the Caribbean......
Gulf of Mexico, and along the U.S. Gulf Coast 77
from the Mexican border to Bonita Beach, FL.....
Lake Superior.................................... 91
[[Page 41172]]
Lake Michigan.................................... 92
Lake Huron....................................... 93
Lake St. Clair................................... 94
Lake Erie........................................ 96
Lake Ontario..................................... 97
St. Lawrence River above St. Regis............... 98
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Effective May 16, 2002, analog radio and television broadcast
stations, analog cable systems and wireless cable systems may upgrade
their existing EAS equipment to add these marine area location codes
on a voluntary basis until the equipment is replaced. All models of
EAS equipment manufactured after August 1, 2003, must be capable of
receiving and transmitting these marine area location codes. EAS
Participants that install or replace their EAS equipment after
February 1, 2004, must install equipment that is capable of receiving
and transmitting these location codes.
0
4. Amend Sec. 11.51 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 11.51 EAS code and attention signal transmission requirements.
* * * * *
(d) Analog and digital television broadcast stations shall transmit
a visual message containing the Originator, Event, Location and the
valid time period of an EAS message. Effective June 30, 2012, visual
messages derived from CAP-formatted EAS messages shall contain the
Originator, Event, Location and the valid time period of the message
and shall be constructed in accordance with section 3.6 of the ``ECIG
Recommendations for a CAP EAS Implementation Guide, Version 1.0'' (May
17, 2010), except that if the EAS Participant has deployed an
Intermediary Device to meet its CAP-related obligations, this
requirement shall be effective June 30, 2015, and until such date shall
be subject to the general requirement to transmit a visual message
containing the Originator, Event, Location and the valid time period of
the EAS message. If the message is a video crawl, it shall be
displayed:
(1) At the top of the television screen or where it will not
interfere with other visual messages or otherwise block other important
visual content on the screen,
(2) At a speed that can be read by viewers,
(3) Continuously throughout the duration of any EAS activation,
(4) In a font sized appropriately for legibility,
(5) In a manner where lines of any video crawl not overlap with one
another, and are adequately positioned so they do not run off the edge
of the video screen.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec. 11.61 by revising paragraph (a)(3)(iv) to read as
follows:
Sec. 11.61 Tests of EAS procedures.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) Test results as required by the Commission shall be logged by
all EAS Participants into the EAS Test Reporting System (ETRS) as
follows.
(A) EAS Participants shall provide the identifying information
required by Form One initially no later than 60 days after the
effective date of this Subsection, and shall renew the Form One
information on a yearly basis or as required by any revision of the EAS
Participant's State EAS Plan filed pursuant to Sec. 11.21.
(B) ``Day of test'' data as required by Form Two shall be filed in
the ETRS within 24 hours of any nationwide test or as otherwise
required by the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.
(C) Detailed post-test data as required by Form Three shall be
filed in the ETRS within forty five (45) days following any nationwide
test or as otherwise required by the Public Safety and Homeland
Security Bureau.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-16417 Filed 7-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P