*Pages 1--33 from  Microsoft Word - 41121*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of 
 Review  of  the  Emergency  Alert  System 


 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 ) 


 EB  Docket  No.  04-  296 


 NOTICE  OF  PROPOSED  RULEMAKING 
 Adopted:  August  4,  2004  Released:  August  12,  2004 
 Comment  Date:  [60  days  after  publication  in  the  Federal  Register]  Reply  Comment  Date:  [90  days  after  publication  in  the  Federal  Register] 


 By  the  Commission:  Chairman  Powell  and  Commissioners  Abernathy,  Copps,  Martin,  and  Adelstein  issuing  separate  statements. 
 I.  INTRODUCTION 
 1.  This  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking  (NPRM)  examines  the  Emergency  Alert  System  (EAS),  and  seeks  comment  on  whether  EAS  in  its  present  form  is  the  most  effective  mechanism  for 


 warning  the  American  public  of  an  emergency  and,  if  not,  on  how  EAS  can  be  improved.  This  NPRM  is  the  most  recent  in  a  series  of  proceedings  in  which  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 (Commission)  has  sought  to  contribute  to  an  efficient  and  technologically  current  public  alert  and  warning  system.  1 


 1  See  Amendment  of  Part  11  of  the  Commissions  Rules  Regarding  the  Emergency  Alert  System,  Report  and  Order, 
 17  FCC  Rcd  4055  (2002)  (2002  Report  and  Order);  Amendment  of  Part  11  of  the  Commissions  Rules  Regarding  the  Emergency  Alert  System,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  16  FCC  Rcd  7255  (2001);  Amendment  of  Part  73, 


 Subpart  G,  of  the  Commissions  Rules  Regarding  the  Emergency  Broadcast  System,  Second  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  13  FCC  Rcd  6353  (1998);  Amendment  of  Part  73,  Subpart  G,  of  the  Commissions  Rules 
 Regarding  the  Emergency  Broadcast  System,  Third  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  1273  (1998);  Amendment  of  Part  73,  Subpart  G,  of  the  Commissions  Rules  Regarding  the  Emergency  Broadcast  System,  Second  Report  and  Order, 
 12  FCC  Rcd  15503  (1997)  (Second  Report  and  Order);  Amendment  of  Part  73,  Subpart  G,  of  the  Commissions  Rules  Regarding  the  Emergency  Broadcast  System,  Report  and  Order  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking, 
 10  FCC  Rcd  1786  (1994)  (First  Report  and  Order),  reconsideration  granted  in  part,  denied  in  part,  10  FCC  Rcd  11494  (1995)  (Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order);  Amendment  of  Part  73,  Subpart  G,  of  the  Commissions  Rules 
 Regarding  the  Emergency  Broadcast  System,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  7  FCC  Rcd  6903  (1992);  Amendment  of  Part  73,  Subpart  G,  of  the  Commissions  Rules  Regarding  the 
 Emergency  Broadcast  System,  Notice  of  Inquiry  and  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  6  FCC  Rcd  6739  (1991);  Inquiry  into  Possible  Technical  Improvements  in  the  Emergency  Broadcasting  System,  Notice  of  Inquiry,  6  FCC 
 Rcd  4264  (1991). 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 2 
 2.  Since  the  tragic  events  of  September  11,  2001,  an  expanding  circle  of  interested  parties,  including  individual  citizens,  public/  private  groups,  and  our  federal,  state,  and  local  partners,  have  raised 
 issues  about  the  efficacy  of  EAS  as  a  public  warning  mechanism.  Some  of  these  issues  are  rooted  in  the  fact  that  EAS  mandates  only  delivery  of  a  Presidential  message.  2  The  Commissions  EAS  rules 
 primarily  are  concerned  with  the  implementation  of  EAS  in  this  national  role. 
 3.  Along  with  its  primary  role  as  a  national  public  warning  system,  EAS  and  other  emergency  notification  mechanisms,  are  part  of  an  overall  public  alert  and  warning  system,  over  which 


 the  Federal  Emergency  Management  Agency  (FEMA)  exercises  jurisdiction.  EAS  use  as  part  of  such  a  public  warning  system  at  the  state  and  local  levels,  while  encouraged,  is  merely  voluntary.  3  Thus, 
 although  Federal,  state,  and  local  governments,  and  the  consumer  electronics  industry  have  taken  steps  to  ensure  that  alert  and  warning  messages  are  delivered  by  a  responsive,  robust  and  redundant  system,  4  the 
 permissive  nature  of  EAS  at  the  state  and  local  level  has  resulted  in  an  inconsistent  application  of  EAS  as  an  effective  component  of  overall  public  alert  and  warning  system.  Accordingly,  we  believe  that  we 
 should  now  consider  whether  permissive  state  and  local  EAS  participation  is  appropriate  in  todays  world. 
 4.  There  are  similar  questions  about  the  technical  capabilities  of  EAS.  For  example,  since  it  relies  almost  exclusively  on  delivery  through  analog  radio  and  television  broadcast  stations  and  cable 


 systems,  is  EAS,  in  the  current  communications  universe,  outdated?  How  could  it  be  made  more  efficient?  Should  it  be  phased  out  in  favor  of  a  new  model?  If  so,  what  would  the  new  model  look  like? 
 If  a  new  model  were  to  be  adopted,  what  legal  and  practical  barriers  would  have  to  be  overcome  to  ensure  its  implementation  and  effectiveness?  Would  a  new  model  require  legislation  from  Congress  or  an 
 Executive  Order?  What  technologies  should  serve  as  the  basis  for  such  a  model?  Alternatively,  should  EAS  requirements  be  extended  to  other  services  (e.  g.  cellular  telephones)? 


 5.  It  is  our  intention  in  this  proceeding  to  seek  comment  on  these  and  an  array  of  other  questions  and  potential  rule  changes.  We  have  already  begun  and  will  continue  throughout  this 
 proceeding    to  coordinate  carefully  with  the  Department  of  Homeland  Security  (DHS),  its  component,  FEMA,  and  the  Department  of  Commerce  and  its  component,  the  National  Oceanic  and  Atmospheric 
 Administrations  (NOAAs)  National  Weather  Service  (NWS).  We  anticipate  these  federal  partners  will  be  active  participants  in  the  proceeding.  In  addition  to  seeking  comments  from  all  interested  individuals 
 and  federal  entities  on  the  issues  raised  in  this  NPRM,  we  also  specifically  seek  the  participation  of  state  and  local  emergency  planning  organizations  and  solicit  their  views.  Finally,  we  seek  input  from  all 
 telecommunications  industries  concerned  about  developing  a  more  effective  EAS. 
 II.  BACKGROUND 
 A.  History  of  EAS 
 6.  In  1951,  during  the  Korean  War,  President  Harry  S.  Truman  established  CONELRAD  (Control  of  Electromagnetic  Radiation),  the  first  national  warning  system,  to  provide  a  means  for  the 


 President  to  address  the  American  people,  to  provide  attack  warning,  and  to  supply  emergency  information.  5  Under  CONELRAD,  designated  AM  radio  stations  operated  on  640  or  1240  kHz  during  an 


 2  47  C.  F.  R.    11.44. 
 3  47  C.  F.  R.    11.1. 
 4  See,  e.  g.,  NOAA  News  Release,  Homeland  Security  Uses  NOAA  All-  Hazards  Network  For  Alerts  And  Warnings 
 (June  17,  2004);  CEA  News  Release,  CEA  Welcomes  DHS  and  NOAA  Public  Alert  Memorandum  of  Agreement  (June  17,  2004);  see  also  Pennsylvania  Emergency  Alert  System  State  EAS  Plan  (2004). 


 5  Providing  for  Emergency  Control  Over  Certain  Government  and  Non-  Government  Stations  Engaged  in  Radio 
 Communication  or  Radio  Transmission  of  Energy,  Exec.  Order  No.  10,  312,  51  Fed.  Reg.  14,  769  (1951). 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 3 
 emergency  alert  so  that  enemy  missiles  or  bombers  could  not  use  broadcast  transmissions  of  other  stations  as  a  guide  to  their  targets.  CONELRAD  had  a  simple  system  for  alerting  the  public  and  other 
 downstream  stations;  the  alerting  system  consisted  of  a  sequence  of  shutting  the  station  off  for  five  seconds,  returning  to  the  air  for  five  seconds,  again  shutting  down  for  five  seconds,  and  then  transmitting 
 a  tone  for  15  seconds. 
 7.  In  1963,  President  John  F.  Kennedy  replaced  CONELRAD  with  the  Emergency  Broadcast  System  (EBS),  a  system  that  allowed  all  broadcast  stations  to  continue  operating  on  their 


 assigned  frequencies  during  an  emergency.  6  The  EBS  was  an  analog  transmission  system  which  required  broadcasters  to  install  specified  equipment,  and  relied  upon  these  broadcasters  to  control  the  system.  7 
 Technical  requirements  for  EBS  equipment  were  developed  during  the  1960s,  and  the  Commission  did  not  amend  its  rules  to  replace  the  CONELRAD  signaling  technique  with  the  EBS  audio  signal  until  the 
 mid-  1970s. 
 8.  In  1994,  the  Commission  adopted  rules  that  replaced  EBS  with  EAS  (described  in  further  detail  below)  and,  consistent  with  a  statutory  requirement,  8  required  cable  systems  as  well  as  broadcast 


 stations  to  install  EAS  equipment  and  participate  in  national  alerts  and  required  testing.  9  In  1997,  the  Commission  extended  EAS  requirements  to  wireless  cable  systems,  with  the  qualified  support  of  that 
 industry.  10 


 6  Assigning  Emergency  Preparedness  Functions  to  the  Federal  Communications  Commission,  Exec.  Order  No. 
 11,  092,  63  Fed.  Reg.  2216  (1963).  7 
 See  Amendment  of  Section  73.  906  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Substitute  a  Two-  Tone  Attention  Signal  for  the  Carrier-  Break  and  1,000  HZ  Signal  Presently  in  Use,  Order,  49  FCC  2d  1160  (1974).  By  transmitting  the 


 frequencies  853Hz  and  960Hz  simultaneously,  the  new  EBS  equipment  produced  an  audio/  analog  two-  tone  alerting  signal  which  was  broadcast  by  stations  on  the  main  audio  channel.  This  two-  tone  signal  served  the  dual  purpose  of 
 getting  the  listeners  attention  and  activating  other  EBS  equipment  in  the  surrounding  area.  The  EBS  station  operator  then  listened  to  the  audio  message  coming  out  of  the  speaker  of  the  decoder/  receiver  to  determine  the 
 reason  the  EBS  signal  had  been  transmitted,  and  acted  accordingly.  The  EBS  initially  focused  on  the  distribution  of  national  level  emergency  information,  however,  in  1976,  the  Commission,  FEMA,  and  the  NWS  endorsed  the  use  of 
 the  two-  tone  EBS  audio  signal  during  state  and  local  emergencies.  See  State  and  Local  Emergency  Broadcasting  System  (EBS)  Memorandum  of  Understanding  Among  the  Federal  Emergency  Management  Agency  (FEMA), 
 Federal  Communications  Commission  (FCC),  and  the  National  Oceanic  and  Atmospheric  Administration  (NOAA),  (June  28,  1976). 
 8  Cable  Television  Consumer  Protection  and  Competition  Act  of  1992,  Pub.  L.  No.  102-  385,    16(  b),  106  Stat.  1460, 
 1490  (1992).  Section  624(  g)  provides  that  "each  cable  operator  shall  comply  with  such  standards  as  the  Commission  shall  prescribe  to  ensure  that  viewers  of  video  programming  on  cable  systems  are  afforded  the  same  emergency 


 information  as  is  afforded  by  the  emergency  broadcasting  system  pursuant  to  Commission  regulations  ...."  47  U.  S.  C.    544(  g). 
 9  See  First  Report  and  Order,  10  FCC  Rcd  at  1786;  see  also  Cable  Television  Consumer  Protection  and  Competition 
 Act  of  1992,  Pub.  L.  No.  102-  385,    16(  b),  106  Stat.  1460,  1490  (1992).  10 
 See  Second  Report  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  15503.  For  purposes  of  the  EAS  rules,  a  wireless  cable  system  is  a  collection  of  Multipoint  Distribution  Service,  Multichannel  Multipoint  Distribution  Service  or  Instructional 


 Television  Fixed  Service  channels  used  to  provide  video  programming  and  other  one-  way  and  two-  way  communications  services  to  subscribers.  The  channels  may  be  licensed  to  or  leased  by  wireless  cable  system 
 operators.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    11.11(  c)(  1).  Hereafter,  use  of  the  term  cable  systems  and  cable  operators  includes  wired  and  wireless  cable  systems  unless  specifically  stated  otherwise.  As  part  of  its  ongoing  efforts  to  promote  the 
 deployment  of  wireless  broadband  services,  the  Commission  recently  adopted  revisions  that  transform  the  rules  governing  MDS/  MMDS  (renamed  the  "Broadband  Radio  Service")  and  ITFS  to  provide  greater  flexibility  and  a 
 more  functional  band  plan  for  licensees.  See  Amendment  1,  21,  73,  74  and  101  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Facilitate  the  Provision  of  Fixed  and  Mobile  Broadband  Access,  Educational  and  Other  Advanced  Services  in  the 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 4 
 B.  Federal/  State  Program  Responsibility 
 9.  The  Commission,  in  conjunction  with  FEMA  and  the  NWS,  implement  EAS  at  the  federal  level.  The  respective  roles  currently  are  based  on  a  1981  Memorandum  of  Understanding  between 


 FEMA,  NWS,  and  the  Commission,  11  on  a  1984  Executive  Order,  12  and  on  a  1995  Presidential  Statement  of  Requirements.  13  In  addition,  State  Emergency  Coordination  Committees  (SECCs)  and  Local 
 Emergency  Coordination  Committees  (LECCs)  develop  state  and  local  EAS  plans. 
 10.  The  Commission.  The  Commissions  authority  to  regulate  emergency  broadcasting  emanates  primarily  from  sections  1,  4(  i)  and  (o),  303(  r),  and  706  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as 


 amended,  (Act).  14  Section  1  of  the  Act  states  that  the  Commission  was  created  for  the  purposes  of,  inter  alia,  national  defense  and  promoting  safety  of  life  and  property  through  the  use  of  wire  and  radio 
 communication.  15  In  section  4(  i),  there  is  a  general  grant  of  authority  to  perform  any  and  all  acts,  make  such  rules  and  regulations,  and  issue  such  orders,  not  inconsistent  with  the  Act,  as  may  be  necessary  in 
 the  execution  of  the  Commissions  functions.  Section  4(  o)  provides  the  Commission  with  authority  to  investigate,  study,  and  propose  best  methods  to  resolve  any  and  all  problems  preventing  the  maximum 
 effective  use  of  radio  and  wire  communications  in  connection  with  safety  of  life  and  property.  Section  303(  r)  is  a  general  grant  of  rulemaking  authority  to  the  Commission.  Section  706  grants  specific, 
 communications-  related  powers  to  the  President  in  time  of  war  or  national  emergency.  In  such  event,  the  President  may,  for  example,  take  control  of,  or  suspend  or  amend  the  rules  and  regulations  applicable  to, 
 any  or  all  cable  and  radio  and  television  broadcast  stations  within  the  Commission's  jurisdiction. 
 11.  Commission  authority  to  regulate  participation  by  cable  systems  in  the  emergency  alerting  process  stems  primarily  from  section  624(  g)  of  the  Act.  16  That  provision  requires  the 


 Commission  to  ensure  that  cable  viewers  are  afforded  the  same  access  to  emergency  communications  as 


 2150-  2162  and  2500-  2690  MHz  Bands,  WT  Docket  No.  03-  66,  Report  and  Order  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  FCC  04-  135  (rel.  July  29,  2004). 
 11  See  State  and  Local  Emergency  Broadcasting  System  (EBS)  Memorandum  of  Understanding  Among  the  Federal 
 Emergency  Management  Agency  (FEMA),  Federal  Communications  Commission  (FCC),  and  the  National  Oceanic  and  Atmospheric  Administration  (NOAA)  (Approved  by  National  Industry  Advisory  Committee  (NIAC)  on  April 


 21,  1982).  Note  that  NIAC  was  chartered  in  1963  to  advise  and  assist  the  Commission  in  executing  its  emergency  preparedness  responsibilities.  See  supra  note  6. 
 12  The  1984  Executive  Order  addressed  the  assignment  of  national  security  and  emergency  preparedness  functions 
 relating  to  telecommunications,  specifically  stating  that  the  Director  of  FEMA  shall  [  d]  evelop,  upon  request  and  to  the  extent  consistent  with  law  and  in  consonance  with  regulations  promulgated  by  and  agreement  with  the  Federal 


 Communications  Commission,  plans  and  capabilities  for,  and  provide  policy  and  management  oversight  of,  the  Emergency  Broadcast  System,  and  advise  and  assist  private  radio  licensees  of  the  Commission  in  developing 
 emergency  communications  plans,  procedures  and  capabilities.  Assignment  of  National  Security  and  Emergency  Preparedness  Telecommunications  Functions,  Exec.  Order  No.  12,  472,  49  Fed.  Reg.  13,  471  (1984). 
 13  In  a  1995  Presidential  Statement  of  Requirements,  President  William  J.  Clinton  addressed  presidential 
 communications  with  the  general  public  during  periods  of  national  emergency;  see  Presidential  Communications  with  the  General  Public  During  Periods  of  National  Emergency,  The  White  House  (September  15,  1995)(  1995 


 Presidential  Statement  of  Requirements).  14 
 47  U.  S.  C.    151,  154(  i)  and  (o),  303(  r),  606.  15 
 47  U.  S.  C.    151.  16 
 47  U.  S.  C.    544(  g). 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 5 
 broadcast  viewers  and  listeners.  Additionally,  the  Americans  with  Disabilities  Act,  17  strives  to  make  all  facets  of  our  society  fully  accessible  to  individuals  with  disabilities.  18 
 12.  In  general,  the  Commissions  rules  prescribe:  (1)  technical  standards  for  the  EAS;  (2)  procedures  for  radio  and  television  broadcast  stations  and  cable  systems  to  follow  in  the  event  EAS  is 
 activated;  and  (3)  EAS  testing  protocols.  Under  the  rules,  national  activation  of  the  EAS  for  a  Presidential  message  with  the  Emergency  Action  Notification  event  code  is  designed  to  provide  the 
 President  the  capability  to  transmit  within  ten  minutes  from  any  location  at  any  time,  and  must  take  priority  over  any  other  message  and  preempt  other  messages  in  progress.  19  As  noted,  use  of  the  EAS  by 
 state  or  local  governments  to  initiate  warnings  and  the  broadcast  and  transmission  of  other-  than-Presidential  alerts  by  broadcasters  and  cable  systems  is  voluntary.  20  The  rules  mandate  EAS  obligations 
 only  for  analog  radio  and  television  stations,  and  wired  and  wireless  cable  television  systems.  21  Other  systems,  including,  for  example,  low  earth  orbit  satellite  systems,  paging,  direct  broadcast  satellite  (DBS), 
 digital  television  (DTV),  satellite  Digital  Audio  Radio  service  (satellite  DARS),  and  In-  Band-  On-  Channel  Digital  Audio  Broadcasting  (IBOC  DAB)  currently  have  no  EAS  requirements.  22 


 13.  FEMA.  Activation  of  the  national-  level  EAS  rests  solely  with  the  President.  The  Stafford  Act  23  authorizes  the  President  to  make  provisions  for  emergency  preparedness  communications 
 and  dissemination  of  warnings  to  governmental  authorities  and  the  civilian  population  in  areas  endangered  by  disasters.  24  This  authority  has  been  delegated  to  DHS  Undersecretary  for  Emergency 
 Preparedness  and  Response  as  director  of  FEMA.  FEMA  acts  as  the  White  Houses  executive  agent  for  the  development,  operations,  and  maintenance  of  the  national  level  EAS  and  is  responsible  for 
 implementation  of  the  national  level  activation  of  EAS,  tests,  and  exercises. 
 17  Americans  with  Disabilities  Act,  (ADA),  Pub.  L.  No.  101-  336,  104  Stat.  327  (1990);  H.  R.  Rep.  No.  485,  Pt.  2, 
 101st  Cong.,  2d  Sess.  (1990)  (House  Report).  18 
 See  also  Individuals  with  Disabilities  in  Emergency  Preparedness,  Exec.  Order  No.  13,  347,  69  Fed.  Reg.  44,  573  (2004). 


 19  47  C.  F.  R.    11.44(  a). 
 20  See  47  C.  F.  R.    11.  55(  a);  see  also  2002  Report  and  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  at  4057;  First  Report  and  Order,  10  FCC 
 Rcd  at  1809.  21 
 Amateur  radio  operators  play  an  important  role  in  providing  emergency  communications,  but  are  not  subject  to  mandatory  EAS  obligations.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    97.  1(  a). 


 22  These  services  are  among  the  evolving  digital  technologies  that  bring  advanced  services  to  consumers  and  make 
 more  efficient  use  of  the  available  spectrum.  DBS  service,  including  the  Direct-  to-  Home  Fixed-  Satellite  Service  (DTH-  FSS),  provides  multi-  channel  video  programming  services  to  millions  of  households.  DTV  is  a  type  of 


 broadcasting  technology  that  allows  broadcasters  to  offer  television  with  movie-  quality  picture  and  CD-  quality  sound,  along  with  a  variety  of  other  enhancements  that  can  be  used  to  transmit  large  amounts  of  other  data  into  the 
 home,  which  may  be  accessible  by  using  a  computer  or  television  set.  DAB  technology  utilizes  new  and  efficient  audio  compression  techniques  that  reduce  the  amount  of  bandwidth  required  to  transmit  a  high-  quality  audio  signal. 
 Finally,  IBOC  systems  are  designed  to  simultaneously  broadcast  both  analog  and  digital  radio  signals  on  broadcasters'  existing  AM  and  FM  frequencies  without  disrupting  existing  analog  service.  See  FCC  Public  Release, 
 FCC  Commences  Rulemaking  To  Consider  Terrestrial  Digital  Audio  Broadcasting  (November  1,  1999).  We  note  that  on  April  20,  2004,  the  Commission  tentatively  concluded  that  IBOC  systems  are  subject  to  the  same  EAS  and 
 other  emergency  broadcast  rules  as  are  AM  radio  stations.  See  infra  para.  29.  23 
 Robert  T.  Stafford  Disaster  Relief  and  Emergency  Assistance  Act  (Stafford  Act),  as  amended,  42  U.  S.  C.    5121,  et.  seq.  As  a  result  of  the  Stafford  Act,  twenty-  seven  Federal  departments  and  agencies  signed  an  agreement 


 concerning  Federal  response  and  assistance  to  State  and  local  governments  when  a  major  disaster  or  emergency  overwhelms  their  ability  to  respond. 
 24  See  National  Operations  Warning  System  Operations  Manual,  FEMA  Manual  1550.  2  at  1-  2,  March  30,  2001, 
 <http://  www.  fema.  gov/  pdf/  library/  1550_  2.  pdf>. 
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 6 
 14.  NOAA.  As  the  originator  of  emergency  weather  information,  NOAA,  through  its  component  agency,  the  NWS,  plays  a  significant  role  in  the  implementation  of  EAS  at  the  state  and  local 
 level.  25  Through  its  All-  Hazards  Network,  NWS  originates  approximately  80  percent  of  all  EAS  alerts.  26  The  NWS  supplies  local  alerts  to  broadcast  and  cable  entry  points  designated  in  approved  EAS  state  and 
 local  plans.  27  Many  broadcast  stations  and  cable  systems  also  directly  monitor  NWS  transmissions  and  relay  the  NWS  messages  to  their  audiences  over  EAS.  28  In  order  to  ensure  that  there  is  equipment 
 interoperability  between  EAS  and  NWS  Specific  Area  Message  Encoding  (SAME)  technology  used  by  NOAA  Weather  Radios,  the  Commissions  rules  specifically  provide  that  EAS  event  codes  must  be 
 compatible  with  the  codes  used  by  the  NWS  SAME  encoder.  29 
 15.  SECCs  and  LECCs.  State  Emergency  Communications  Committees  (SECCs)  and  Local  Emergency  Communications  Committees  (LECCs),  comprised  of  emergency  management  personnel  and 


 volunteers  from  industry,  may  be  established  in  each  state  and  territory  to  prepare  coordinated  emergency  communications  systems  and  to  develop  state  and  local  emergency  communications  plans  and  procedures 
 for  EAS  and  other  Public  Alert  and  Warning  (PAW)  systems  the  state  may  use  in  combination  with  EAS.  These  committees  also  establish  an  authentication  procedure  and  establish  the  date  and  time  of  the 
 required  monthly  EAS  tests. 
 C.  EAS  Structure  and  EAS  Codes 
 16.  Primary  Entry  Points  (PEPs).  The  EAS  is  essentially  a  hierarchal,  trickle  down  distribution  system.  30  FEMA  has  designated  34  radio  broadcast  stations  as  Primary  Entry  Point  (PEP) 


 25  NWS  broadcasts  NWS  forecasts,  warnings,  watches,  and  other  non-  weather  related  hazard  information  24  hours  a 
 day.  During  an  emergency,  NWS  sends  out  a  special  tone  that  activates  any  NOAA  Weather  Radio,  a  specialized  consumer  electronic  device,  in  the  listening  area.  Using  the  Specific  Area  Message  Encoding  (SAME)  technology, 


 NOAA  Weather  Radios  can  be  programmed  to  receive  information  specific  to  a  certain  area  and,  if  equipped  with  a  special  alarm  tone  feature,  can  sound  an  alert  and  provide  immediate  information.  Working  with  other  federal 
 agencies  and  EAS,  NWS  is  an  all-  hazards  radio  network  that  broadcasts  warnings  and  post-  event  information  for  all  types  of  hazards,  including  weather,  natural,  technological,  and  national  emergencies.  See 
 <http://  www.  nws.  noaa.  gov/  nwr/  allhazard.  htm>.  On  June  17,  2004,  the  Information  Analysis  and  Infrastructure  Protection  Directorate  of  DHS  signed  an  agreement  with  NOAA  to  allow  DHS  to  send  critical  all-  hazard  alert  and 
 warnings  directly  through  the  NOAA  All-  Hazard  Network.  See  DHS  News  Release,  Homeland  Security  Leverages  NOAA  All-  Hazards  Network  for  Alerts  and  Warnings  (June  17,  2004).  Local  NWS  offices  provide  NWS  alerts  and 
 broadcast  non-  weather  related  emergency  messages  provided  to  them  directly  by  local  and  state  government  officials.  For  non-  weather  emergencies,  the  system  is  activated  by  the  NWS  at  the  request  of  local  and/  or  state 
 officials.  26 
 This  number  will  likely  increase  due  to  the  agreement  between  DHS  and  NOAA.  See  id.  27 
 NWS  also  operates  NOAA  Weather  Wire  Service  (NWWS),  a  satellite  data  collection  and  dissemination  system.  See  <http://  www.  nws.  noaa.  gov/  nwws/  description.  htm>.  The  purpose  of  NWWS  is  to  provide  state  and  federal 


 government,  commercial  users,  media,  and  private  citizens  with  timely  delivery  of  meteorological,  hydrological,  climatological,  and  geophysical  information  from  141  NWS  offices  and  the  U.  S.  Geological  Surveys  national 
 Earthquake  Information  Center.  NWWS  delivers  severe  weather  and  storm  warnings  to  users  in  10  seconds  or  less  from  the  time  they  are  issued.  NWWS  can  be  received  via  C-  band  satellite,  Ku-  band  satellite,  or  over  the  Internet. 
 All  three  options  require  a  personal  computer  and  appropriate  software.  NWWS  can  activate  the  EAS  or  provide  warning  information  for  non-  EAS  broadcast.  See  A  National  Strategy  for  Integrated  Public  Warning  Policy  and 
 Capability,  Partnership  for  Public  Warning  Report  2003-  01  at  12  (May  16,  2003)  (PPW  May  2003  Report).  28 
 The  Commission  has  encouraged  the  monitoring  of  NWS  transmissions.  See  First  Report  and  Order,  10  FCC  Rcd  at  1810-  11.  All  EAS  decoders  are  able  to  directly  monitor  and  decode  NWS  SAME  codes  with  the  addition  of 


 any  ordinary  weather  radio  receiver  and  off-  the-  shelf  connections  to  the  EAS  decoder.  29 
 47  C.  F.  R.    11.31(  c).  30 
 All  broadcast  stations  and  cable  systems  have  EAS  designations  that  describe  their  functions  within  EAS.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    11.  18. 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 7 
 stations.  At  the  request  of  the  President,  FEMA  distributes  Presidential  Level  messages  to  these  PEP  stations.  31  As  the  entry  point  for  national  level  EAS  messages,  the  PEP  stations  have  a  National  Primary 
 (NP)  EAS  designation,  and  are  monitored  in  turn  by  other  stations  in  the  hierarchical  chain. 
 17.  The  United  States  is  divided  into  approximately  550  EAS  local  areas,  each  containing  a  key  EAS  source,  called  the  Local  Primary  One  (LP-  1).  The  LP-  1  monitors  its  regional  PEP  station  for 


 Presidential  messages,  and  serves  as  the  point  of  contact  for  local  authorities  and  NWS  officials  to  activate  EAS.  Other  stations  and  cable  systems  in  the  area  monitor  their  LP-  1  station,  and  if  a 
 Presidential  message  is  sent,  they  are  required  to  air  the  message  received  from  their  LP-  1  station.  For  non-  Presidential  messages,  these  monitoring  stations  and  cable  systems  may  carry  the  message  at  their 
 discretion.  Local  Primary  sources  are  assigned  numbers  in  the  sequence  they  are  to  be  monitored  by  other  broadcast  stations  in  the  local  area  (i.  e.,  LP-  1,  2,  3,  etc.).  Broadcast  stations  and  cable  systems  are 
 required  to  monitor  at  least  two  EAS  sources  for  Presidential  alerts,  as  specified  in  their  state  EAS  plans.  32  As  we  discuss  in  paragraph  31  below,  however,  the  number  of  households  that  actually  are  watching  or 
 listening  to  these  broadcast  and  cable  outlets  at  any  point  in  time  is  often  relatively  small. 
 18.  State  and  local  emergency  operations  managers  can  request  activation  of  EAS  for  state  and  local  public  alert  and  warning.  State-  level  EAS  entry  points  are  designated  as  State  Primary  and  State 


 Relay.  33  State  Primary  Entry  Points  can  be  broadcast  stations,  state  emergency  operation  centers,  or  other  statewide  networks,  and  can  act  as  sources  of  EAS  state  messages  originating  from  the  State  Governor  or 
 a  State  Emergency  Operations  Center.  State  Relay  sources  relay  state  common  emergency  messages  into  local  areas.  34  Local  Primary  sources  are  responsible  for  coordinating  the  carriage  of  common  emergency 
 messages  from  sources  such  as  the  NWS  or  local  emergency  management  offices  as  specified  in  EAS  local  area  plans.  35 


 19.  EAS  Codes.  Initiating  an  EAS  message,  whether  at  the  national,  state,  or  local  level,  requires  the  broadcaster,  cable  operator  or  emergency  administrator  to  enter  certain  codes  into  dedicated 
 EAS  equipment.  36  EAS  equipment  also  provides  a  method  for  automatic  interruption  of  regular  programming  and  is  capable  of  providing  warnings  in  the  primary  language  that  is  used  by  the  station  or 
 cable  system.  37  The  EAS  protocol,  including  any  codes,  may  not  be  amended,  extended  or  abridged  without  Commission  authorization.  38  EAS  header  codes  identify  the  party  that  originated  the  emergency 
 message,  the  nature  of  the  event  or  emergency,  the  location  of  the  emergency,  and  the  valid  time  period  of 


 31  47  C.  F.  R.    11.14. 
 32  47  C.  F.  R.    11.  21,  11.  52(  d).  The  broadcast  stations  and  cable  systems  must  monitor  at  least  two  EAS  sources  to 
 reduce  the  likelihood  of  a  single  point  of  failure  preventing  an  EAS  message  from  propagating  through  the  system.  33 
 The  State  Relay  Network  is  composed  of  State  Relay  sources,  leased  common  carrier  communications  facilities,  or  any  other  available  communication  facilities.  In  addition  to  EAS  monitoring,  satellites,  microwave,  FM 


 subcarrier,  or  any  other  communications  technology  may  be  used  to  distribute  state  emergency  messages.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    11.  20. 
 34  47  C.  F.  R.    11.18(  d). 
 35  47  C.  F.  R.    11.18(  b). 
 36  47  C.  F.  R.    11.  31.  EAS  messages  enter  the  EAS  system  via  equipment  that  is  able  both  to  encode  and  decode 
 EAS  messages,  often  called  an  ENDEC  unit.  EAS  equipment  sends  and  receives  messages  using  a  precise  format  referred  to  as  the  EAS  digital  protocol.  An  emergency  activation  of  EAS  uses  a  four  part  message:  (1)  preamble  and 


 EAS  header  codes;  (2)  audio  attention  signal;  (3)  message;  and  (4)  preamble  and  EAS  end  of  message  codes.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    11.  31(  a). 
 37  47  C.  F.  R.    11.  33(  a)(  4),  11.  51(  k)(  1),  11.  54. 
 38  47  C.  F.  R.    11.31(  c). 
7
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 8 
 the  message.  The  national  level  EAS  activation  audio  message  is  unrestricted  in  length.  However,  for  state  and  local  implementation  of  EAS,  the  audio  portion  is  restricted  to  two  minutes.  39 
 III.  DISCUSSION 
 A.  General  Considerations 
 20.  The  main  objective  of  this  NPRM  is  to  seek  comment  on  whether  EAS  as  currently  constituted  is  the  most  effective  and  efficient  public  warning  system  that  best  takes  advantage  of 


 appropriate  technological  advances  and  best  responds  to  the  publics  need  to  obtain  timely  emergency  information.  We  also  seek  comment  on  rules  that  the  Commission  may  adopt  to  enhance  the 
 effectiveness  of  EAS.  One  of  the  central  issues  on  which  this  NPRM  seeks  comment  is  the  current  efficacy  of  EAS  in  an  age  when  the  communications  landscape  has  evolved  from  what  it  was  when  EAS 
 predecessors  and  EAS  itself  were  originally  conceived. 
 21.  We  note  initially  that  two  public/  private  partnerships  have  studied  and  addressed  this  issue  extensively.  The  Media  Security  and  Reliability  Council  (MSRC)  is  an  industry-  led  Federal 


 Advisory  Committee  created  by  the  Commission  and  comprised  of  leaders  from  the  radio,  television,  multi-  channel  video,  public  safety  and  disabled  communities.  40  The  Partnership  for  Public  Warning 
 (PPW)  was  incorporated  in  January  2002  as  a  not-  for-  profit  public-  private  partnership,  whose  goal  is  to  promote  and  enhance  effective,  integrated  dissemination  of  public  warnings  and  related  information  that 
 will  save  lives,  reduce  losses  and  speed  recovery  from  acts  of  terrorism,  accidents  and  natural  disasters.  41  Both  PPW  and  MSRC  advocate  upgrading,  not  replacing,  EAS.  42  In  particular,  PPW  asserts  that  any  new 
 public  warning  system  design  should  take  advantage  of  the  existing  EAS  infrastructure  and  should  be  able  to  accommodate  existing  EAS  equipment  in  place,  noting  that  it  would  be  difficult  to  replace  or  rebuild 
 such  a  capability  today  at  a  reasonable  cost.  43  In  responding  to  the  general  issue  of  the  EAS  systems  future  viability,  as  well  as  other  issues  raised  in  this  NPRM,  we  encourage  commenters  to  take  into 
 account  MSRCs  and  PPWs  recommendations. 
 B.  Federal/  State  Program  Responsibility 
 22.  PPW  has  recently  recommended  that  a  single  federal  entity,  specifically  DHS,  should  take  the  lead  in  creating  and  overseeing  an  effective  national  public  warning  program.  44  PPW  also  noted 


 that  DHS,  with  other  federal  agencies  and  stakeholders,  should  update  and  clearly  designate  EAS  management,  operational  and  oversight  responsibilities  among  the  appropriate  federal  agencies  and  other 


 39  47  C.  F.  R.    11.  31(  a)(  3)(  i). 
 40  MSRC  was  formed  following  the  events  of  September  11,  2001,  to  study,  develop,  and  report  on  Best  Practices 
 designed  to  ensure  the  continued  operations  and  security  of  media  facilities  in  times  of  a  national  emergency.  See  FCC  News  Release,  FCC  Announces  Creation  of  Media  Security  &  Reliability  Council;  Tribune  Company  President 


 Dennis  Fitzsimons  To  Be  Chairman,  (rel.  Mar.  28,  2002).  41 
 PPW  is  governed  by  an  elected  Board  of  Trustees  representing  local  and  state  governments,  private  industry  and  the  non-  profit  community.  Federal  agencies  participating  in  PPW  include  the  Department  of  Homeland  Security, 


 Department  of  Commerce  and  the  Federal  Communications  Commission.  See  <http://  www.  PartnershipForPublicWarning.  org>. 


 42  Partnership  for  Public  Warning,  The  Emergency  Alert  System  (EAS):  An  Assessment,  Partnership  for  Public 
 Warning,  30  (February  2004)  (PPW  2004  EAS  Assessment);  see  also  Media  Security  and  Reliability  Council  Comprehensive  Best  Practices  Recommendations,  Media  Security  and  Reliability  Council,  11-  12  (March  2004) 


 (MSRC  March  2004  Best  Practices  Recommendations).  43 
 PPW  2004  EAS  Assessment  at  28.  44 
 Id.  at  4,  30. 
8
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 9 
 authorities.  45  Additionally,  MSRC  has  recommended  that  a  single  federal  entity  should  be  responsible  for  assuring:  (1)  that  public  communications  capabilities  and  procedures  exist,  are  effective,  and  are  deployed 
 for  distribution  of  risk  communication  and  warnings  to  the  public  by  appropriate  federal,  state  and  local  government  personnel,  agencies  and  authorities;  (2)  that  lead  responsibilities  and  actions  under  various 
 circumstances  are  established  at  federal,  state  and  local  levels  within  the  overall  discipline  of  emergency  management;  and  (3)  that  a  national,  uniform,  all-  hazard  risk  communication  warning  process  is 
 implemented  from  a  public  and  private  consensus  on  what  best  meets  the  needs  of  the  public,  including  people  of  diverse  language  and/  or  with  disabilities,  including  sensory  disabilities.  46  MSRC  and  PPW  also 
 assert  that  effective  delivery  of  emergency  information  to  the  public  should  be  achieved  through  a  public/  private  partnership  that  makes  coordinated  use  of  mass  media  and  other  dissemination  systems.  47 
 We  seek  comment  on  PPWs  and  MSRCs  suggestions.  Would  legislation  be  required  to  effectuate  the  recommendations  described  in  this  paragraph? 


 23.  We  seek  comment  regarding  the  respective  roles  of  the  federal  government  departments  and  agencies  involved  with  the  implementation  of  EAS,  specifically  the  Commission,  DHS,  FEMA  and 
 NOAA.  Should  each  of  these  agencies  remain  involved?  If  not,  what  specific  changes  in  roles  should  occur?  For  changes  to  occur,  would  the  Commission  or  other  federal  entity  have  to  recommend  that 
 current  legal  authorities  be  updated  or  supplemented?  48  Should  a  new  public/  private  partnership  be  created  to  ensure  the  effective  and  efficient  delivery  of  emergency  information  to  the  public  and,  if  so, 
 how  should  this  partnership  be  structured  and  what  should  its  responsibilities  be?  What  federal  agency  should  be  its  primary  point  of  contact?  Should  a  particular  federal  agency  take  the  lead  role  for  the  future 
 EAS? 
 24.  We  also  seek  comment  about  several  aspects  of  state  and  local  EAS.  First,  we  note  that  some  parties  assert  that  voluntary  (as  opposed  to  mandatory)  participation  in  state  and  local  EAS  alerts 


 impairs  the  credibility  of  the  entire  EAS.  They  claim  that  it  makes  no  sense  to  mandate  participation  only  on  a  national  level  in  a  system  that  has  never  issued  a  Presidential  alert  and  is  instead  used  to  deliver  vital 
 information  about  life-  threatening  local,  state,  and  regional  events.  49  These  parties  believe  that  the  voluntary  nature  of  participation  in  state  and  local  EAS  alerts  also  makes  it  difficult  to  find  enough 
 dedicated  people  to  participate  with  system  implementation.  50  As  we  noted  in  the  Localism  NOI,  the  dissemination  of  emergency  information  is  a  critical  and  fundamental  component  of  broadcasters  local 
 public  service  obligations,  51  and  we  accordingly  seek  comment  on  whether  voluntary  participation  in  EAS 


 45  Id.  at  5. 
 46  MSRC  March  2004  Best  Practices  Recommendations  at  11. 
 47  Id.  at  11;  PPW  2004  EAS  Assessment  at  32. 
 48  See  supra  paras.  9-  12. 
 49  See,  e.  g.,  MSRC  EAS  Survey  Results,  MSRC  Government  Media  Subcommittee  (May  23,  2003) 
 <http://  www.  tab.  org/  eas.  php>  (MSRC  EAS  Survey);  see  also  Randy  J.  Stine,  Saving  Lives  or  Wrecking  Radio?,  Radio  World  (April  7,  2004). 


 50  MSRC  EAS  Survey  at  42. 
 51  Broadcast  Localism,  Notice  of  Inquiry,  MB  Docket  No.  04-  233,  FCC  04-  129,  para.  28  (July  1,  2004)  (Localism 
 NOI).  We  will  incorporate  comments  on  EAS  filed  in  the  Broadcast  Localism  proceeding  into  the  record  of  this  proceeding.  The  Commissions  Localism  Task  Force  has  also  discussed  EAS  and  emergency  notification  issues  in 


 its  recent  localism  hearings  in  Monterey,  California,  and  Rapid  City,  South  Dakota.  See  FCC  News  Release,  FCCs  Localism  Task  Force  Announces  Panelists  and  Final  Agenda  for  Public  Hearing  on  Broadcast  Localism  in 
 Monterey,  California,  July  21,  2004  (rel.  July  20,  2004);  FCC  News  Release,  FCCs  Localism  Task  Force  Announces  Panelists  and  Final  Agenda  for  Public  Hearing  on  Broadcast  Localism  in  Rapid  City,  South  Dakota, 
 May  26,  2004  (rel.  May  24,  2004).  For  more  information  about  the  Localism  Task  Force,  see  the  Commissions  website  at  <http://  www.  fcc.  gov/  localism/>. 
9
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 10 
 is  consistent  with  those  obligations.  We  seek  comment  on  whether  the  Commission  should  adopt  rules  to  require  broadcasters  to  make  their  facilities  available  to  local  emergency  managers?  If  so,  what  should  be 
 the  nature  and  scope  of  any  such  rules?  In  their  comments,  parties  should  address  the  issue  of  whether  there  would  be  adverse  effects  from  imposing  some  uniform  requirement  on  broadcasters  rather  than 
 allowing  them  to  continue  to  make  voluntary  arrangements  with  local  officials?  Conversely,  should  incentives  be  provided  to  encourage  the  participation  of  broadcasters  and  cable  operators?  What 
 incentives  could  be  provided?  To  avoid  what  broadcasters  and  cable  operators  might  view  as  a  burdensome  level  of  program  interruptions,  should  there  be  a  federal  rule  establishing  a  standard 
 regarding  when  state  emergency  managers  may  and  must  activate  EAS  and,  if  so,  what  should  that  standard  be?  Should  use  of  any  of  the  existing  voluntary  EAS  codes  be  mandated?  Should  the  federal 
 government  monitor  EAS  usage  to  determine  a  standard? 
 25.  We  also  seek  comment  on  whether  Commission  rules  that  require  states  with  EAS  plans  to  file  those  plans  with  the  Commission  for  approval  have  little  impact  because  Commission  rules  do  not 


 require  that  states  have  plans  in  the  first  instance.  Further,  no  current  guidelines  or  standards  exist  for  the  structure/  creation  of  state  or  local  EAS  plans.  52  We  seek  comment  on  whether  the  Commission  should 
 adopt  rules  requiring  state  and/  or  local  EAS  plans.  We  further  seek  comment  on  whether  the  Commission  should  establish  national  guidelines  and  standards  for  the  structure  of  such  plans?  Parties  filing 
 comments  should  consider  the  following  issues:  Should  there  be  a  specific  standard  of  review,  and  if  so,  what  should  it  be?  Is  the  Commission  the  appropriate  agency  to  undertake  this  task?  Is  the  SECC  and 
 LECC  structure  the  appropriate  mechanism  for  generating  such  plans?  Who  should  generate  such  plans?  Does  the  Commission  or  other  federal  entity  currently  have  legal  authority  to  require  and  oversee  the 
 development  of  such  plans?  Where  would  enforcement  action  lie  for  failure  to  develop  an  appropriate  plan?  Should  periodic  updating  and  review  of  state  and  local  plans  be  required  and,  if  so,  how  often? 
 Should  adjacent  state  and  local  jurisdictions  implement  standardized  EAS  plans  so  that  responses  to  large-scale  emergencies  that  impact  more  than  one  state  or  local  area  can  be  better  coordinated?  Should  multi-state 
 regions  be  defined  and  plans  developed  for  them?  Should  there  be  reporting  requirements  for  EAS  activations  to  facilitate  the  development  of  accurate  reports?  53 


 26.  We  also  seek  comment  on  whether  uniform  national  guidelines  are  preferred  over  the  disparate  manner  in  which  states  and  localities  implement  EAS.  For  example,  EAS  alerts  may  be 
 requested  by  FEMA  emergency  managers,  state  and  local  emergency  managers,  public  safety  officials,  and  other  individuals  identified  in  state  plans.  EAS  may  also  be  activated  at  the  state  or  local  level  by  any 
 AM,  FM,  or  TV  station  or  cable  system,  at  managements  discretion,  in  connection  with  day-  to-  day  emergency  situations  posing  a  threat  to  life  and  property.  Additionally,  broadcasters  and  cable  operators 
 can,  but  are  not  required  to,  monitor  the  NWS  and  activate  EAS  in  response  to  an  NWS  warning.  We  seek  comment  on  whether  the  Commission  should  adopt  rules  to  require  all  EAS  participants  to  monitor 
 the  NWS  where  signals  are  available.  Should  staff  at  any  broadcast  station  or  cable  system  continue  to  be  permitted  to  initiate  EAS  alerts  without  concurrence  from  local  or  state  emergency  managers  and,  if  so, 
 should  the  Commission  or  some  other  federal  entity  establish  standards  regarding  the  issuance  of  public  warning  by  these  entities? 


 C.  EAS  Structure  and  EAS  Codes 
 27.  The  primary  method  of  delivery  of  Presidential  EAS  messages  to  state  and  local  areas  is  over-  the-  air  broadcast  signals  that  follow  a  hierarchical  structure,  beginning  with  FEMAs  relay  of  the 


 message  to  the  34  PEP  stations,  which  in  turn  are  monitored  by  the  550  LP1  and  state  relay  stations, 
 52  47  C.  F.  R.    11.21.  Commission  rules  require  only  that,  once  created,  state  and  local  plans  be  reviewed  and 
 approved  by  the  Director,  Office  of  Homeland  Security,  Enforcement  Bureau,  prior  to  implementation  to  ensure  that  they  are  consistent  with  national  plans,  Commission  regulations,  and  EAS  operation.  See  id. 


 53  PPW  2004  EAS  Assessment  at  30. 
10
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 11 
 which  in  turn  are  monitored  by  over  14,000  broadcast  stations  and  10,000  cable  systems  nationwide.  However,  some  emergency  managers  and  SECC  members  say  they  lack  confidence  in  the  manner  in 
 which  this  system  is  implemented  in  their  states.  54  They  believe  stations  down  the  chain  may  miss  important  state  and  local  messages  because,  for  example,  stations  that  they  monitor  up  the  chain  chose 
 not  to  air  a  non-  Presidential  message  or  are  unattended  stations  that  have  pre-  programmed  their  EAS  equipment  to  forward  only  certain  event  codes.  Some  claim  that  this  interdependent  structure  could  be 
 problematic  even  for  a  national  level  alert.  They  believe  a  non-  PEP  station  may  be  unable  to  reliably  monitor  a  signal  due  to  problems  with  terrain,  because  it  is  located  in  a  rural  area  too  far  from  a  PEP 
 station,  or  because  the  PEP  stations  signal  cannot  cover  the  large  area  it  is  supposed  to  cover.  55  Some  assert  that,  in  any  event,  the  process  takes  too  long  to  transmit  across  an  entire  state.  56  Accordingly,  we 
 seek  comment  regarding  how  to  improve  the  distribution  of  emergency  alerts,  both  national  and  state/  local.  Should  the  originating  local  agencies  transmit  alerts  directly  to  as  many  stations  and  cable 
 systems  as  possible  without  intervening  relay  stations?  57  Should  other  technologies,  such  as  satellite  delivery  systems,  be  used  as  part  of  a  backbone  to  distribute  the  alert  to  entry  points?  Given  the  changes 
 in  technology  within  the  broadcasting  industry,  is  there  still  a  need  to  structure  EAS  with  the  PEP  system?  To  the  extent  that  any  businesses  using  such  technologies  are  small  businesses,  how  should  that  status 
 affect  our  analysis?  As  we  discussed  in  paragraph  25  above,  could  inconsistencies  in  the  manner  in  which  states  implement  EAS  be  alleviated  by  the  adoption  of  national  guidelines? 


 28.  In  the  2002  Report  and  Order,  the  Commission  amended  Part  11  of  the  Commissions  rules  by,  inter  alia,  adding  new  state  and  local  event  codes,  most  of  which  are  for  non-  weather  events 
 such  as  child  abductions  (Amber  Alerts)  and  new  location  codes.  The  Commission  did  not  mandate  the  use  of  these  codes.  Rather,  effective  May  16,  2002,  broadcast  stations  and  cable  systems  could  upgrade 
 their  existing  EAS  equipment  to  add  the  new  codes  on  a  voluntary  basis  until  the  equipment  is  replaced.  58  All  models  of  EAS  equipment  manufactured  after  August  1,  2003,  had  to  be  capable  of  receiving  and 
 transmitting  the  new  codes.  59  Broadcast  stations  and  cable  systems  that  replace  their  EAS  equipment  after  February  1,  2004,  must  install  equipment  that  is  capable  of  receiving  and  transmitting  the  new  event 
 codes.  60  We  seek  comment  regarding  whether  circumstances  have  changed  such  that  the  Commission  should  adopt  rules  that  require  broadcasters  and  cable  operators  to  upgrade  their  EAS  equipment  so  that  it 
 is  capable  of  receiving  and  transmitting  all  current  event  and  location  codes,  including  those  adopted  in  the  2002  Report  and  Order.  If  such  upgrading  of  EAS  equipment  should  be  required,  how  much  time 
 should  broadcasters  and  cable  operators  have  to  replace  their  EAS  equipment?  How  will  this  impact  small  cable  operators  and  broadcasters?  Should  the  government  fund  upgrades  for  small  systems  to 
 mitigate  the  burden? 


 54  E.  g.,  see  generally  MSRC  EAS  Survey. 
 55  Comments  can  address  methods  by  which  emergency  managers  address  particular  PEP  problems.  For  example, 
 Michigan  was  granted  a  FEMA  Hazard  Mitigation  Grant  in  2002  to  help  solve  EAS  relay  problems  and  developed  a  hybrid  Internet/  satellite  relay  system  in  2003.  See  MSRC  EAS  Survey  at  72. 


 56  Id. 
 57  In  an  article  arguing  that  this  should  be  done,  the  author  noted  that  redundant  wired  and  wireless  links  are  not  that 
 expensive  to  implement  and  maintain  between  911  centers  and  electronic  media  outlets  in  population  centers.  See  Guy  Wire,  Overhauling  EAS,  Radio  World  (February  24,  2004). 


 58  47  C.  F.  R.    11.  31(  e)-(  f). 
 59  Id. 
 60  Id. 
11
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 12 
 D.  Expanding  EAS  Requirements  to  Other  Services 
 29.  In  the  1994  First  Report  and  Order  on  EAS,  the  Commission  encouraged  -  but  did  not  require  -  EAS  participation  by  digital  broadcasters.  61  In  the  Localism  NOI,  however,  we  noted  that  digital 


 technologies  have  evolved,  and  can  allow  broadcasters  to  provide  emergency  information  in  innovative  ways.  62  For  example,  using  digital  technology,  broadcast  stations  can  pinpoint  specific  households  and 
 neighborhoods  at  risk,  with  minimal  burden  on  the  available  spectrum.  63  Accordingly,  we  seek  comment  on  how  digital  technology  can  be  used  to  enhance  warnings,  and  to  what  extent  broadcast  stations 
 currently  make  use  of  that  technology.  We  also  recently  reached  the  tentative  conclusion  that  EAS  rules  should  apply  to  all  audio  streams  broadcast  by  a  radio  station,  such  as  IBOC.  64  We  seek  comment  on 
 whether  we  should  adopt  rules  extending  EAS  obligations  to  other  digital  broadcast  media,  such  as  DBS,  DTV,  and  satellite  DARS  services.  Commenters  should  also  address  whether,  when  television  stations 
 turn  off  their  analog  signals  as  part  of  the  DTV  transition,  they  could  leave  a  market  devoid  of  an  EAS  participating  broadcaster?  Is  digital  cable  television  service  treated  in  the  same  regulatory  fashion  as  is 
 over  the  air  digital  broadcast?  If  so,  should  the  Commission  extend  EAS  obligations  to  digital  cable  television?  Does  it  continue  to  serve  the  public  interest  to  exempt  services  that  reach  increasingly  larger 
 portions  of  the  American  public  from  any  requirement  to  provide  public  warning?  What  burdens  would  extending  the  obligations  place  on  these  services,  and  do  the  benefits  outweigh  the  burdens?  For 
 example,  if  DBS  satellites  were  required  to  carry  EAS,  what  effect  would  inclement  weather  have  on  their  ability  to  send  signals.  Further,  if  an  EAS  alert  needed  to  be  sent  to  an  area  on  the  border  of  a  DMA, 
 where  a  DBS  provider  only  provided  local-  into-  local  service  in  one  DMA,  satellite  customers  in  the  unserved  DMA  would  not  receive  the  signal.  How  would  an  EAS  signal  be  fed  to  a  DBS  operator? 
 While  it  could  be  sent  over  fiber  to  their  local  receive  facility  (LRF)  where  they  offer  local-  into-  local  service,  they  would  not  have  an  LRF  where  they  don't  provide  local-  into-  local  service.  Similarly,  how 
 would  DBS  operators  conduct  testing,  particularly  on  a  national  v.  local  level?  Finally,  to  the  extent  that  software  updates  were  needed  in  set  top  boxes,  what  would  be  an  appropriate  implementation  time  frame? 
 What  about  legacy  boxes  that  have  already  been  deployed?  Satellite  DARS  serves  the  public  primarily  on  a  nation-  wide,  rather  than  regional,  basis.  Does  this  distribution  structure  affect  the  ability  of  satellite 
 DARS  licensees  to  discharge  EAS  obligations  effectively?  If  the  national  distribution  of  satellite  DARS  services  limits  the  ability  to  discharge  state  and  local  EAS  obligations,  are  such  limitations  technological 
 or  regulatory  in  nature? 
 30.  We  seek  comment  generally  on  what  is  needed  to  extend  EAS  obligations  to  digital  broadcasting,  whether  this  step  should  be  taken  regardless  of  other  alternatives,  and  the  timing  of  any 


 such  extension.  Digital  broadcast  services  such  as  DTV  and  DAB  have  the  ability  to  transmit  more  than  one  program  stream  on  their  assigned  channel  (multicasting).  Should  DTV  broadcasters  be  required  to 
 transmit  EAS  messages  on  all  program  streams?  65  Should  they  transmit  EAS  messages  only  on  one  stream  and  force-  tune  receivers  to  that  stream?  66  What  percentage  of  receivers  in  the  public  have  the 


 61  See  generally  First  Report  and  Order. 
 62  See  Localism  NOI,  FCC  04-  129  at  para.  29  (citing  Public  Interest  Obligations  of  TV  Broadcast  Licensees,  Notice 
 of  Inquiry,  14  FCC  Rcd  21633,  21642  (1999)).  63 
 Id.  64 
 See  Digital  Audio  Broadcasting  Systems  and  their  Impact  on  the  Terrestrial  Radio  Broadcast  Service,  MM  Docket  No.  99-  325,  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking  and  Notice  of  Inquiry,  19  FCC  Rcd  7505,  7519  (2004). 


 65  We  note  in  this  regard  that  the  Association  of  Public  Television  Stations  (APTS)  has  initiated  a  Datacasting 
 project  whereby  EAS  and  other  emergency  notifications  can  be  carried  on  the  digital  television  bit  stream.  See  Jeffrey  Davis  et  al.,  Public  Digital  Television:  Improving  Homeland  Security,  The  Association  of  Public  Television 


 Stations,  4,  June  2003  <  http://  www.  apts.  org/  html/  homeland/  hswhitepaper.  pdf>.  66 
 Force  tuning  technology  allows  a  cable  operator  to  switch  subscribers  from  any  programmed  channel  to  a  specific  system  channel  that  will  carry  EAS  messages. 
12
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 13 
 ability  to  be  force  tuned?  IBOC  DAB  broadcasters  typically  use  the  digital  part  of  their  signal  to  replicate  their  analog  programming.  In  that  case,  should  EAS  messages  be  carried  on  the  analog,  the  digital,  or 
 both  program  streams?  If  an  IBOC  broadcaster  chooses  to  transmit  a  different  program  on  their  digital  stream,  how  should  EAS  messages  be  carried?  Do  IBOC  receivers  have  the  ability  to  be  force  tuned? 
 The  IBOC  signal  also  has  the  ability  to  carry  text  data  to  be  displayed  by  the  receiver.  Should  a  textual  alert  be  part  of  the  EAS  message  sent  by  the  IBOC  broadcaster?  How  should  other  multicasting  services, 
 such  as  digital  cable,  be  treated  with  regards  to  EAS  messages  and  forced  tuning? 
 E.  Alternate  Public  Alert  and  Warning  Mechanisms 
 31.  In  creating  EAS,  the  Commission  sought  to  design  a  public  alert  and  warning  system  that  would  function  seamlessly  with  many  sources  of  emergency  communications.  67  The  Commission  wished 


 to  avoid  limiting  EAS  to  a  particular  transmission  system,  so  it  adopted  a  mandatory  standard  digital  protocol  with  a  flexible  architecture  that  the  Commission  believed  could  be  used  by  many  kinds  of 
 transmission  media,  encompass  new  technologies,  and  be  expanded  and  upgraded  as  new  kinds  and  generations  of  transmission  systems  became  available.  68  Despite  this  intended  technical  flexibility,  EAS, 
 as  currently  constituted,  reaches  the  very  limited  audience  listening  to  broadcast  radio  or  watching  broadcast  or  cable  television  at  the  time  the  emergency  announcement  is  made.  The  most  ubiquitous 
 outlet  for  EAS  is  radio.  69  However,  on  average,  Americans  listen  to  the  radio  for  only  about  an  hour  and  a  half  a  day,  primarily  between  6:  00  a.  m.  and  6:  00  p.  m.  70  Even  fewer  people  are  reached  by  television. 
 Although  more  than  98  percent  of  households  in  the  United  States  have  at  least  one  television,  the  average  set  is  in  use  only  31  percent  of  the  day.  71  We  seek  comment  on  whether  this  level  of  penetration  is 
 sufficient  to  comprise  an  effective  public  warning  system.  72  If  it  is  not,  what  level  of  penetration  should  we  seek  and  what  is  the  best  mechanism  for  reaching  that  goal? 


 32.  Because  EAS  relies  almost  exclusively  on  delivery  through  analog  radio  and  television  broadcast  stations  and  cable  systems,  is  EAS,  in  the  current  communications  universe,  outdated?  Instead, 
 should  there  be  a  concerted  government/  industry  effort  to  combine  EAS  with  alternative  public  alert  and  warning  systems  (APAWS)  to  form  a  comprehensive  national  public  warning  system  capable  of  reaching 
 virtually  everyone  all  the  time?  The  possibilities  are  numerous  and  varied.  Several  companies  offer  landline-  based  interactive  notification  systems  that  would  convey  national,  regional,  and  local  emergency 
 messages  via  the  public  switched  telephone  network  to  wireline  telephone  subscribers  located  in  the  specific  geographic  areas  affected  by  emergencies.  73  Other  companies  offer  systems  that  use  Internet 
 and/  or  cellular  capabilities,  including  the  cell  broadcast  feature  of  digital  cellular  networks,  to  deliver  alerts  to  mobile  handsets  of  wireless  subscribers  or  to  televisions,  cable  boxes,  clock  radios,  cars, 


 67  First  Report  and  Order,  10  FCC  Rcd  at  1796,  1799. 
 68  Id.  at  1799-  1800. 
 69  PPW  2004  EAS  Assessment  at  22  (citing  Radio  Advertising  Bureau  statistics). 
 70  Id.  at  21  (citing  Arbitron  2001  Radio  Today). 
 71  Id.  at  21  (citing  Nielsen  Media  Research,  2000  Report  on  Television). 
 72  Although  EAS  decoders  can  be  built  into  a  variety  of  electronic  devices  that  would  enable  them  to  receive  EAS 
 alerts  and  activate  devices  even  when  they  are  not  turned  on,  relatively  few  companies  are  producing  such  devices.  See  PPW  2004  EAS  Assessment  at  30.  Further,  although  NWS  signals  are  accessible  to  95  percent  of  the  American 


 population  in  the  fifty  states,  Puerto  Rico,  the  Virgin  Islands,  Guam,  and  the  Mariana  Islands,  a  recent  national  survey  of  1,  000  people  concluded  that,  depending  on  the  region  of  the  country,  only  between  eight  and  13  percent  of 
 United  States  households  have  NWS  receivers  and  less  than  half  of  those  receivers  are  portable.  See  PPW  May  2003  Report  at  14-  15  (citing  eBrain.  Consumer  Research  for  the  Consumer  Electronics  Association,  2002). 
 73  See  Dabctom  Technologies,  Inc.,  Petition  for  Rulemaking  to  Establish  Disaster  Alert  By  Telephone  System,  Order, 
 17  FCC  Rcd  11452  (2002). 
13
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 14 
 computers,  stand  alone  units  or  other  devices  after  incorporating  patented  receiver  devices.  Some  companies  offer  satellite  based  warning  and  messaging  systems  which  use  very  small  aperture  terminal 
 networking  to  provide  direct  satellite  communications.  There  are  also  emergency  message  and  warning  systems  offered  on  a  subscription  basis  that  use  computerized  calling  systems,  fax,  email,  and  digital 
 messaging  to  reach  many  different  types  of  devices.  Some  of  these  systems  are  used  currently  by  certain  states,  along  with  EAS  as  part  of  their  public  alert  and  warning  system.  How  could  a  combined  warning 
 system  that  makes  use  of  some  or  all  of  the  features  described  here  be  implemented?  Should  the  Commission  require  any  APAWS  to  participate  in  the  existing  EAS  and,  if  so,  which  ones  and  how 
 should  they  participate?  For  example,  should  all  APAWS  be  required  to  be  compatible  with  the  existing  EAS  protocol?  In  considering  these  issues,  should  our  analysis  distinguish  between  wireless  systems 
 used  primarily  for  one-  versus  two-  way  communication,  or  point-  to-  point  or  multi-  point  versus  broadcast?  Commenters  should  discuss  any  legal  or  practical  barriers  to  its  implementation  and  effectiveness,  noting 
 whether  legislation  would  be  required  from  Congress  or  by  Executive  Order. 
 33.  As  an  alternative,  would  the  appropriate  approach  be  to  integrate  EAS  into  a  PAW  system  of  systems  by  adopting  and  using  a  single,  integrated  interface  that  would  link  the  emergency 


 manager  and  all  emergency  notification  and  delivery  systems,  regardless  of  the  technology  on  which  a  particular  system  is  based?  In  this  regard,  we  note  that  the  Organization  for  the  Advancement  of 
 Structured  Information  Standards  (OASIS),  a  not-  for-  profit,  international  consortium  that  addresses  the  development,  convergence  and  adoption  of  e-  business  standards,  has  adopted  the  Common  Alerting 
 Protocol  (CAP)  as  an  OASIS  standard.  74  CAP  is  a  standardized,  non-  proprietary,  data  interchange  format  that  simultaneously  disseminates  consistent  all-  hazard  emergency  alerts  or  public  warning  messages  over 
 different  kinds  of  communications  networks  and  systems,  including  those  designed  for  multilingual  and  special  needs  populations.  The  CAP  format  is  compatible  with  emerging  and  existing  formats,  such  as 
 web  service  applications,  NWS'  SAME,  and  the  EAS  protocol  and  offers  a  number  of  enhanced  capabilities.  75  Proponents  assert  that  CAP  has  the  potential  to  increase  warning  effectiveness  and  reduce 
 costs  and  operational  complexity  by  eliminating  the  need  for  multiple  custom  software  interfaces  to  the  many  APAWS  involved  in  all  hazard  warning.  CAP  has  also  been  implemented  by  several  government 
 agencies  and  private  companies,  including  DHS,  NWS,  and  Comlabs,  Inc.  76  We  seek  comment  on  whether  the  CAP  could  act  as  an  effective  interface  through  which  an  emergency  manager  could  access 
 multiple  emergency  notification  services,  including  EAS. 
 34.  MSRCs  Future  Technologies/  Digital  Solutions  Task  Force  recommends  that  the  government  should  coordinate  development  of  a  Media  Common  Alert  Protocol  (MCAP)  which  should: 


 (1)  be  designed  to  deliver  emergency  messages  via  digital  networks;  (2)  flow  over  all  methods  of  digital  transport;  (3)  be  received  by  all  digital  receivers;  and  (4)  be  optimized  for  point-  to-  multi-  point  networks 
 and  devices  only.  MSRC  also  suggests  that  key  attributes  of  the  MCAP  should  be  addressability,  scalability,  interoperability  and  prioritizing.  MSRC  recommends  that  industry  organizations  and 
 companies  should  develop  standards  and  specifications  for  carriage  of  MCAP  on  various  media.  77  We  seek  comment  on  MSRCs  recommendation.  We  are  mindful  that  the  availability  of  particular  delivery 


 74  CAP  has  also  been  endorsed  by  organizations  such  as  the  Partnership  for  Public  Warning,  the  ComCARE 
 Alliance,  and  the  National  Emergency  Management  Associations  Preparedness  Committee.  75 
 For  example,  CAP  incorporates  geospatial  elements  based  on  Open  GIS  Consortium  recommendations  to  permit  flexible  but  precise  geographic  targeting  of  alerts;  provides  for  associating  digital  images  and  other  binary 


 information  with  alerts;  and  supports  various  mechanisms  for  ensuring  message  authenticity,  integrity  and  confidentiality  where  necessary.  See  CAP  1.0  -  Fact  Sheet  (March  1,  2004)  <http://  www.  oasis-open. 
 org/  committees/  tc_  home.  php?  wg_  abbrev=  emergency>.  76 
 For  more  information  about  CAP  see  <http://  www.  oasis-  open.  org/  committees/  download.  php/  6334/  oasis-  200402-cap-  core-  1.  0.  pdf>  and  <http://  www.  partnershipforpublicwarning.  org/  ppw/  cap.  html>. 


 77  MSRC  March  2004  Best  Practices  Recommendations  at  11. 
14
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 15 
 methods  may  differ  in  rural  and  insular  areas  from  more  urban  areas.  We  seek  comment  on  any  particular  needs  or  considerations  we  should  afford  rural  areas. 
 35.  Finally,  to  what  extent  does  an  effective  public  warning  system  depend  on  the  consumer  electronics  equipment  that  receives  the  warning?  MSRC  has  identified  as  two  primary  functionalities  of  a 
 future  warning  system  the  ability  of  a  device  (such  as  a  radio  or  television  set)  to  automatically  turn  on  and  tune  in  to  the  channel  carrying  the  warning,  and  the  capability  of  such  a  device  to  receive  a 
 geographically  addressed  message  (through  FIPS  or  GPS).  We  note  that  the  technology  exists  to  have  consumer  electronic  devices  turn  on  automatically  in  the  event  of  an  emergency.  We  note  that,  as 
 described  in  paragraph  14  above,  NOAA  Weather  Radios  currently  supply  both  these  functions.  Would  mandating  the  adoption  of  such  technology  to  other  consumer  electronic  devices  enhance  the 
 effectiveness  of  EAS  and  other  PAW  systems? 
 F.  Public  Warnings  and  Alerts  for  Individuals  with  Disabilities  and  Individuals  for  Whom  English  is  a  Second  Language 


 36.  Notifying  Persons  with  Hearing  and  Vision  Disabilities.  Any  consideration  of  best  methods  to  contact  the  public  during  an  emergency  must  address  the  needs  of  persons  with  disabilities.  It 
 is  the  policy  of  the  United  States  for  federal  agencies  to  consider  persons  with  disabilities  in  their  emergency  preparedness  planning.  78  According  to  the  Department  of  Commerce,  one  in  five  Americans 
 is  disabled  and  one  in  ten  is  severely  disabled.  79  Fifty  million  people  have  some  type  of  long  lasting  condition  or  disability,  three  million  of  whom  have  sensory  disabilities  involving  sight  or  hearing.  80 


 37.  The  Commissions  commitment  to  ensuring  that  persons  with  disabilities  have  equal  access  to  public  warnings  is  well  documented.  For  example,  in  addition  to  EAS,  the  Commission  requires 
 all  distributors  of  video  programming  (including  local  broadcasters,  cable  operators  and  satellite  television  service  providers)  that  provide  emergency  information  to  do  so  in  a  format  that  is  accessible  to 
 persons  with  hearing  and  vision  disabilities.  81  When  emergency  information  is  provided  in  the  audio  portion  of  the  programming,  critical  details  about  the  emergency  and  how  to  respond  must  be  provided  in 
 a  visual  format,  such  as  closed  captioning,  open  captions,  crawls,  or  scrolls.  82  Further,  emergency  information  provided  by  crawls,  scrolls  or  other  visual  means  should  not  block  closed  captioning,  and 
 closed  captioning  should  not  block  any  emergency  information  provided  by  crawls,  scrolls,  or  other  visual 
 78  See  Individuals  with  Disabilities  in  Emergency  Preparedness,  Exec.  Order  (ordering  that  federal  agencies  shall 
 also  encourage  State,  local,  and  tribal  governments  to  consider  persons  with  disabilities  in  emergency  preparedness  planning,  providing  technical  assistance,  as  appropriate,  and  facilitate  cooperation  among  the  branches  of 


 government  and  private  organizations  and  individuals  in  the  implementation  of  emergency  preparedness  plans  that  address  the  needs  of  persons  with  disabilities.). 
 79  1997  US  Department  of  Commerce,  CENBR  97-  5. 
 80  Id. 
 81  See  47  C.  F.  R.    73.  1250,  79.1,  79.  2,  79.  3;  see  also  Reminder  to  Video  Programming  Distributors  of  Obligation 
 to  Make  Emergency  Information  Accessible  to  Persons  with  Hearing  or  Vision  Disabilities,  Public  Notice,  DA  03-2361  (rel.  July  18,  2003).  Emergency  information  is  defined  as  any  information  that  is  intended  to  further  the 


 protection  of  life,  health,  safety,  or  property,  including  information  about  hazardous  weather  situations,  dangerous  community  situations  such  as  the  discharge  of  toxic  gases  or  civil  disorders,  evacuation  orders,  school  closings,  or 
 relief  assistance.  47  C.  F.  R.    79.  2(  a)(  2).  82 
 The  Commission  has  adopted  technical  standards  for  the  display  of  closed  captioning  on  DTV  receivers  and  rules  that  require  manufacturers  of  DTV  receivers  and  DTV  set-  top  converters  to  include  DTV  closed  captioning  display 


 functionality  in  their  DTV  devices  shipped  in  interstate  commerce  or  manufactured  in  the  United  States  on  or  after  July  1,  2002.  Closed  Captioning  Requirements  for  Digital  Television  Receivers,  Closed  Captioning  and  Video 
 Description  of  Video  Programming,  Implementation  of  Section  305  of  the  Telecommunications  Act  of  1996,  Video  Programming  Accessibility,  Report  and  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  16788,  16790  (2000). 
15
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 16 
 means.  Emergency  information  that  is  provided  in  the  video  portion  of  a  regularly  scheduled  newscast  or  a  newscast  that  interrupts  regular  programming  must  also  be  made  accessible  to  persons  who  are  blind  or 
 have  low  vision.  If  this  information  is  not  part  of  a  regularly  scheduled  newscast  or  is  part  of  programming  that  interrupts  regular  programming  (e.  g.  the  emergency  information  is  provided  through 
 crawling  or  scrolling),  then  this  information  must  be  accompanied  by  an  aural  tone.  The  same  information  must  also  be  provided  in  an  audible  manner  that  is  accessible  to  persons  who  are  blind  or 
 have  low  vision.  83  Emergency  information  provided  by  means  other  than  closed  captioning  or  video  description  should  not  block  any  closed  captioning  or  video  description  and  closed  captioning  or  video 
 description  should  not  block  any  emergency  information  provided  by  means  other  than  closed  captioning  or  video  description.  84 


 38.  We  note  that  section  79.2  of  the  Commissions  rules  specifies  particular  triggering  events  and  methods  for  emergency  transmittal  separate  from  those  required  by  EAS.  We  seek  comment  on 
 whether  there  are  disparities  in  or  conflicts  between  our  EAS  rules  and  those  contained  in  section  79.2  that  should  be  reconciled  or  combined  and  the  manner  in  which  such  disparities  or  conflicts  could  be 
 resolved  in  subsequent  rules. 
 39.  We  also  note  that  the  digital  and  alternative  technologies  discussed  in  paragraphs  29  to  30  above  may  have  particular  benefits  for  persons  with  hearing  and  vision  disabilities.  We  seek  comment  on 


 how  individuals  with  disabilities  can  be  notified  of  EAS  activation  or  other  emergency  alerts  by  such  means.  Such  comments  should  address  whether  particular  technological  and  economic  resources 
 associated  with  bringing  state  of  the  art  emergency  notification  to  the  disabled  community  are  adequate  and,  if  not,  what  additional  provisions  are  necessary.  They  should  also  address  what  the  associated 
 burdens  would  be  of  adding  such  resources. 
 40.  Emergency  Warning  for  Non-  English  Speakers.  We  should  also  consider  the  needs  of  people  with  primary  languages  other  than  English  when  considering  the  best  method  of  contacting  the 


 public  during  an  emergency.  In  order  to  ensure  that  foreign  language  audiences  are  alerted,  the  Commissions  EAS  rules  provide  that  EAS  announcements  may  be  made  in  the  same  language  as  the 
 primary  language  of  the  station.  85  We  seek  comment  of  the  efficacy  of  these  rules.  For  example,  if  a  radio  station  transmitting  in  English  is  located  in  a  predominantly  Spanish-  speaking  community,  should 
 the  station  transmit  EAS  alerts  in  both  English  and  Spanish?  Additionally,  products  can  be  developed  to  convert  the  EAS  digital  signal  to  provide  aural  and  visual  messages  in  any  language.  We  seek  comment 
 on  whether  current  methodologies  for  providing  alert  and  warning  to  non-  English  speaking  persons  are  adequate.  If  not,  what  additional  provisions  are  necessary,  and  what  would  be  the  costs  associated  with 
 implementing  such  provisions? 
 G.  Other  Issues 
 41.  Security.  We  also  seek  comment  as  to  the  security  issues  relevant  to  EAS.  Security  and  encryption  were  not  the  primary  design  criteria  when  EAS  was  developed  and  initially  implemented. 


 83  Emergency  information  that  is  provided  in  the  video  portion  of  a  regularly  scheduled  newscast  or  a  newscast  that 
 interrupts  regular  programming  must  be  made  accessible  through  the  oral  description  of  the  emergency  information  in  the  main  audio,  such  as  open  video  description.  If  the  emergency  information  is  being  provided  in  the  video 


 portion  of  programming  that  is  not  a  regularly  scheduled  newscast  or  a  newscast  that  interrupts  regular  programming  (e.  g.,  the  programmer  provides  the  emergency  information  through  crawling  or  scrolling  during  regular 
 programming),  this  information  must  be  accompanied  by  an  aural  tone.  This  tone  is  to  alert  persons  with  vision  disabilities  that  the  video  programming  distributor  is  providing  emergency  information,  and  to  alert  such  persons  to 
 tune  to  another  source,  such  as  a  radio,  for  more  information.  47  C.  F.  R.    79.  2(  b)(  1).  84 
 47  C.  F.  R.    79.2(  b)(  3).  85 
 47  C.  F.  R.    11.  54(  b)(  7),  11.  55(  c)(  4). 
16
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 17 
 Now,  however,  emergency  managers  are  becoming  more  aware  of  potential  vulnerabilities  within  the  system.  For  example,  the  complete  EAS  protocol  is  a  matter  of  public  record  and  potentially  subject  to 
 malicious  activations  or  interference.  Further,  EAS  distribution  methods  have  potential  for  security  concerns.  For  example,  Internet  Protocol-  based  systems  and  control  links  could  be  subjected  to  denial  of 
 service  attacks  aimed  at  preventing  them  from  functioning.  86  Additionally,  when  a  station  is  operating  unattended,  no  one  is  available  on-  site  to  intervene  should  an  unauthorized  seizure  occur.  87  There  is  also 
 concern  about  physical  security  and  unauthorized  use  of  the  system  at  state  and  local  EAS  activation  sites.  Although  Commission-  certified  EAS  encoders  have  the  capability  for  password  protection,  it  is  up  to 
 each  station  and  cable  system  to  implement  sufficient  security  and  there  is  no  way  of  knowing  which  stations  use  password  security.  88  Finally,  EAS  signal  could  be  subject  to  jamming.  Such  vulnerabilities 
 could  be  exploited  during  times  of  heightened  public  anxiety  and  uncertainty.  We  seek  comment  on  how  to  improve  the  security  of  EAS  distribution  methods,  information,  and  equipment  or  how  to  ensure  the 
 security  of  any  public  warning  system.  Should  the  Commission  require  password  protection  of  all  EAS  encoders?  Who  should  be  responsible  for  system  security  and  what  security  standards,  if  any,  should  be 
 implemented?  How  can  the  authenticity  of  EAS  messages  be  verified  and/  or  how  can  broadcasters  be  protected  from  liability  issues  if  they  inadvertently  rebroadcast  a  false  or  incorrect  EAS  message?  Would 
 adoption  of  any  of  MSRCs  Best  Practices  alleviate  security  concerns? 
 42.  Location  of  EAS  Equipment.  In  the  2002  Report  and  Order,  the  Commission  modified  its  rules  to  exempt  satellite/  repeater  stations  which  rebroadcast  100%  of  their  hub  station  from  the 


 requirement  to  install  EAS  equipment,  provided  the  hub  station  complies  with  existing  National  level  EAS  equipment  installation,  activation  and  testing  regulations.  89  We  acknowledge  that  this  practice 
 removes  EAS  equipment  from  the  satellite/  repeater  stations  and  thereby  precludes  their  participation  in  the  State  or  local  EAS  activations  via  the  EAS  network.  We  seek  comment  on  the  impact  this  practice 
 has  or  will  have  on  any  proposed  changes  to  EAS  or  public  warning  systems.  We  also  seek  comment  on  whether  the  Commission  should  extend  this  practice  to  any  other  EAS  providers.  In  this  regard,  such 
 comment  should  address  whether  any  centralized  placement  of  EAS  equipment,  such  as  at  the  head-  end  of  a  cable  system  or  satellite  uplink,  would  have  a  positive  or  negative  impact  on  the  efficacy  of  EAS  as  a 
 national,  state,  or  local  emergency  notification  system.  Where  is  the  best  place  to  locate  EAS  equipment  so  it  can  be  the  most  useful  and  maintainable? 


 43.  Testing.  FEMA  conducts  weekly  closed  circuit  tests  of  the  PEP  system  by  sending  signals  to  EAS  equipment  at  each  PEP  station  site.  90  However,  no  on-  air  tests  of  the  PEP  system  ever 
 have  been  conducted.  All  broadcasters  and  cable  operators  are  required  to  conduct  EAS  weekly  and  monthly  tests  to  ensure  their  EAS  equipment  is  in  operating  condition.  91  Should  comprehensive  periodic 
 testing  of  the  entire  national  EAS  system  from  the  PEP  stations  on  down  to  state  and  local  broadcast  stations  and  cable  systems  be  required?  If  so,  how  often  should  such  testing  occur?  Should  a  special 
 national  level  test  code  be  adopted  for  this  purpose,  and  should  a  post-  test  report  be  required?  Should  these  national  tests  be  in  addition  to  the  current  testing  requirement?  Would  having  too  many  tests 
 become  a  public  nuisance  leading  to  ignoring  EAS  alerts  by  the  public?  Additionally,  we  seek  comment  on  whether  the  required  monthly  tests  adequately  evaluate  the  state-  wide  distribution  of  EAS  alerts  and,  if 
 not,  what  method  of  testing  should  be  required. 


 86  See  PPW  2004  EAS  Assessment  at  26-  27. 
 87  Id. 
 88  Id. 
 89  See  generally  2002  Report  and  Order. 
 90  There  is  also  a  National  Periodic  Test  event  code  and  National  Primary  sources  must  participate  in  Periodic 
 National  Tests  as  appropriate.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    11.  31(  e),  11.61(  a)(  3).  91 
 See  47  C.  F.  R.    11.  61. 
17
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 18 
 44.  Training.  Some  broadcasters  and  cable  operators  state  that  the  EAS  system  and  equipment  are  difficult  to  learn  and  use  during  actual  emergencies  and  that  the  infrequent  use  of  the 
 equipment  results  in  staff  members  being  unable  to  remember  how  to  use  it  when  necessary.  92  Additionally,  lack  of  EAS  training  for  emergency  management  personnel  is  a  concern.  93  We  seek 
 comment  on  whether  additional  training  resources  should  be  provided  to  emergency  managers  and,  if  so,  what  these  materials  should  include.  Should  there  be  periodic  mandatory  EAS  training  of  broadcast 
 station  and  cable  system  personnel?  Should  emergency  managers  receive  mandatory  education  and  training  regarding  how  and  when  to  utilize  warning  systems?  Who  should  provide  such  education  and 
 training?  Is  there  a  need  to  educate  the  public  about  the  EAS  and  public  warning?  If  yes,  who  should  be  responsible  for  such  education?  Who  should  incur  the  costs  of  training  materials  and  employee  time? 


 45.  Small  Operators.  Many  of  the  topics  discussed  above  would  likely  require  participating  services  to  incur  additional  costs.  While  large  companies  may  have  the  resources  to  absorb  equipment 
 upgrades  and  staff,  small  business  entities  may  not.  Should  the  level  of  participation  required  be  dependent  on  the  size  of  the  participating  entity?  How  would  predicating  participation  based  on  company 
 size  affect  the  usefulness  of  EAS?  Should  assistance  be  provided  to  small  businesses?  Should  we  consider  government  or  other  funding  assistance  to  small  entities?  We  note  that  many  small  cable 
 operators  have  received  temporary  waivers  of  certain  EAS  rules  due  to  financial  hardship.  What  has  been  the  effect  of  such  waivers? 


 46.  Enforcement.  The  Commission  has  been  aggressively  enforcing  the  Commissions  EAS  rules.  In  2003,  for  example,  the  Enforcement  Bureau  took  approximately  80  EAS  enforcement  actions. 
 Nonetheless,  some  broadcasters  have  failed  to  install  or  properly  maintain  EAS  equipment.  The  base  forfeiture  amount  set  in  the  Forfeiture  Policy  Statement  94  and  section  1.80  of  the  rules  95  for  an  EAS 
 violation  is  $8,000.  We  seek  comment  on  whether  we  should  increase  the  base  amount  or  otherwise  impose  higher  forfeitures  in  this  area,  and  on  whether  there  are  additional  ways  to  better  ensure 
 compliance.  We  also  seek  comment  on  whether  we  should  seek  legislation  from  Congress  to  increase  the  maximum  forfeitures  in  this  area  from  the  current  $32,500  for  a  single  violation  or  day  of  a  continuing 
 violation  and  maximum  of  $325,  000  for  a  continuing  violation.  96 
 47.  Miscellaneous  Issues.  We  request  comments  on  any  other  matters  or  issues,  in  addition  to  those  discussed  above,  that  may  be  pertinent  to  establishing  the  most  effective  and  efficient  public 


 warning  system  in  the  United  States  and  its  territories. 
 IV.  CONCLUSION 
 48.  We  initiate  this  proceeding  to  establish  a  record  on  how  the  Commission  can  best  facilitate  the  implementation  of  EAS  as  part  of  an  effective  public  alert  and  warning  system.  After  review 


 of  the  record  we  will  determine  what  rules  or  other  next  steps  are  appropriate.  We  may  adopt  new  rules  or  revise  certain  of  our  current  EAS  rules,  or  we  may  combine  an  order  adopting  rules  with  a  report 


 92  MSRC  EAS  Survey  at  20. 
 93  Id.  at  10. 
 94  The  Commissions  Forfeiture  Policy  Statement  and  Amendment  of  Section  1.80  of  the  Rules  to  Incorporate  the 
 Forfeiture  Guidelines,  CI  Docket  No.  95-  6,  Report  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  17087  (1997),  recon.  denied,  15  FCC  Rcd  303  (1999)  (Forfeiture  Policy  Statement). 


 95  47  C.  F.  R.    1.80. 
 96  See  Amendment  of  Section  1.80(  b)  of  the  Rules,  Order,  FCC  04-  139  (rel.  June  18,  2004)  (increasing  the  statutory 
 forfeiture  maximum  to  reflect  inflation,  effective  September  7,  2004). 
 . 
18
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 20 
 facilitate  our  internal  review  process.  Comments  and  reply  comments  must  otherwise  comply  with  section  1.48  and  all  other  applicable  sections  of  the  Commissions  rules.  98 
 53.  To  request  materials  in  accessible  formats  (such  as  Braille,  large  print,  electronic  files,  or  audio  format),  send  an  e-  mail  to  fcc504@  fcc.  gov  or  call  the  Consumer  &  Governmental  Affairs  Bureau  at 
 (202)  418-  0531  (voice)  or  (202)  418-  7365  (TTY).  This  Public  Notice  can  also  be  downloaded  in  Word  and  Portable  Document  Format  at  <http://  www.  fcc.  gov/  cgb.  dro>. 


 54.  Ex  Parte  Rules.  These  matters  shall  be  treated  as  a  permit-  but-  disclose  proceeding  in  accordance  with  the  Commissions  ex  parte  rules.  99  Persons  making  oral  ex  parte  presentations  are 
 reminded  that  memoranda  summarizing  the  presentations  must  contain  summaries  of  the  substance  of  the  presentations  and  not  merely  a  listing  of  the  subjects  discussed.  More  than  a  one  or  two  sentence 
 description  of  the  views  and  arguments  presented  is  generally  required.  100  Other  requirements  pertaining  to  oral  and  written  presentations  are  set  forth  in  section  1.1206(  b)  of  the  Commissions  rules. 


 55.  Initial  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis.  With  respect  to  this  NPRM,  an  Initial  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis  (IRFA)  is  contained  in  Appendix  A.  As  required  by  section  603  of  the  Regulatory 
 Flexibility  Act,  the  Commission  has  prepared  an  IRFA  of  the  expected  impact  on  small  entities  of  the  proposals  contained  in  the  NPRM.  Written  public  comments  are  requested  on  the  IRFA.  Comments 
 must  be  identified  as  responses  to  the  IRFA  and  must  be  filed  by  the  deadlines  for  comments  on  the  NPRM  specified  in  paragraph  49  above.  The  Commission  will  send  a  copy  of  the  NPRM,  including  the 
 IRFA,  to  the  Chief  Counsel  for  Advocacy  of  the  Small  Business  Administration.  101 
 56.  Initial  Paperwork  Reduction  Act  of  1995  Analysis.  This  document  contains  proposed  or  modified  information  collection  requirements.  The  Commission,  as  part  of  its  continuing  effort  to  reduce 


 paperwork  burdens,  invites  the  general  public  and  the  Office  of  Management  and  Budget  (OMB)  to  comment  on  the  information  collection  requirements  contained  in  this  document,  as  required  by  the 
 Paperwork  Reduction  Act  of  1995,  Public  Law  104-  13.  Public  and  agency  comments  are  due  60  days  after  date  of  publication  of  this  Notice  in  the  Federal  Register.  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;  and  (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),  we  seek  specific  comment  on  how  we  might  further  reduce  the  information  collection  burden  for  small  business  concerns  with  fewer  than  25  employees. 


 VI.  ORDERING  CLAUSE 
 57.  IT  IS  ORDERED,  that  pursuant  to  in  sections  1,  4(  i)  and  (o),  303(  r),  403,  624(  g)  and  706  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    151,  154(  i)  and  (o),  303(  r),  403,  554(  g), 


 and  606,  this  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking  is  hereby  ADOPTED. 


 98  See  47  C.  F.  R.    1.48. 
 99  47  C.  F.  R.    1.200,  et  seq. 
 100  See  47  C.  F.  R.    1.1206(  b)(  2). 
 101  See  5  U.  S.  C.    603(  a).  In  addition,  the  NPRM  and  IRFA  (or  summaries  thereof)  will  be  published  in  the  Federal 
 Register. 
20
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 21 
 58.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  the  Commission's  Consumer  and  Governmental  Affairs  Bureau,  Reference  Information  Center,  SHALL  SEND  a  copy  of  this  Notice  of  Proposed 
 Rulemaking,  including  the  Initial  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis,  to  the  Chief  Counsel  for  Advocacy  of  the  Small  Business  Administration. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 Marlene  H.  Dortch  Secretary 
21
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 A-  1 
 APPENDIX  A 
 Initial  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis 
 1.  As  required  by  the  Regulatory  Flexibility  Act  of  1980,  as  amended  (RFA),  1  the  Commission  has  prepared  this  present  Initial  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis  (IRFA)  of  the  possible 
 significant  economic  impact  on  a  substantial  number  of  small  entities  by  the  policies  and  rules  proposed  in  this  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking  (NPRM).  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  on  the  NPRM  provided  above  in  paragraph  49  of  the  item.  The 
 Commission  will  send  a  copy  of  the  NPRM,  including  this  IRFA,  to  the  Chief  Counsel  for  Advocacy  of  the  Small  Business  Administration  (SBA).  2  In  addition,  the  NPRM  and  IRFA  (or 
 summaries  thereof)  will  be  published  in  the  Federal  Register.  3 
 A.  Need  for,  and  Objectives  of,  the  Proposed  Rules 
 2.  In  this  NPRM,  the  Commission  solicits  comment  on  whether  EAS  in  its  present  form  is  the  most  effective  mechanism  for  warning  the  American  public  of  an  emergency  and,  if  not, 


 on  how  EAS  can  be  improved. 
 B.  Legal  Basis 
 3.  Authority  for  the  actions  proposed  in  this  NPRM  may  be  found  in  sections  1,  4(  i)  4(  j),  and  4(  o),  303(  r),  624(  g)  and  706  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C. 


   151,  154(  i),  154(  j),  and  154(  o),  303(  r),  544(  g)  and  606. 
 C.  Description  and  Estimate  of  the  Number  of  Small  Entities  to  which  the  Proposed  Rules  Will  Apply 


 4.  The  RFA  directs  agencies  to  provide  a  description  of  and,  where  feasible,  an  estimate  of  the  number  of  small  entities  that  will  be  affected  by  the  proposed  rules.  4  The  RFA 
 generally  defines  the  term  small  entity  as  having  the  same  meaning  as  the  terms  small  business,  small  organization,  and  small  governmental  jurisdiction.  5  In  addition,  the  term  small 
 business  has  the  same  meaning  as  the  term  small  business  concern  under  the  Small  Business  Act.  6  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).  7  A  small  organization  is  generally  any  not-  for-  profit  enterprise 


 1  See  5  U.  S.  C.    603.  The  RFA,  see  5  U.  S.  C.    601    612,  has  been  amended  by  the  Small  Business  Regulatory 
 Enforcement  Fairness  Act  of  1996  (SBREFA),  Pub.  L.  No.  104-  121,  Title  II,  110  Stat.  857  (1996).  2 
 See  5  U.  S.  C.    603(  a).  3 
 Id.  4 
 5  U.  S.  C.    603(  b)(  3),  604(  a)(  3).  5 
 Id.    601(  6).  6 
 Id.    601(  3)  (incorporating  by  reference  the  definition  of  small  business  concern  in  15  U.  S.  C.    632).  Pursuant  to  the  RFA,  the  statutory  definition  of  a  small  business  applies  unless  an  agency,  after  consultation  with  the  Office 


 of  Advocacy  of  the  Small  Business  Administration  and  after  opportunity  for  public  comment,  establishes  one  or  more  definitions  of  such  term  which  are  appropriate  to  the  activities  of  the  agency  and  publishes  such  definition(  s) 
 in  the  Federal  Register.  5  U.  S.  C.    601(  3).  7 
 Small  Business  Act,  15  U.  S.  C.    632  (1996). 
22
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 A-  2 
 which  is  independently  owned  and  operated  and  is  not  dominant  in  its  field.  8  The  arts,  entertainment,  and  recreations  sector  had  96,497  small  firms.  9 
 5.  Television  Broadcasting.  The  SBA  has  developed  a  small  business  sized  standard  for  television  broadcasting,  which  consists  of  all  such  firms  having  $12  million  or  less  in  annual 
 receipts.  10  Business  concerns  included  in  this  industry  are  those  primarily  engaged  in  broadcasting  images  together  with  sound.  11  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.  We  note, 
 however,  that,  in  assessing  whether  a  business  concern  qualifies  as  small  under  the  above  definition,  business  (control)  affiliations  12  must  be  included.  13  Our  estimate,  therefore,  likely 
 overstates  the  number  of  small  entities  that  might  be  affected  by  our  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).  14  Given  the  nature  of  this  service,  we  will  presume  that  all  LPTV  licensees  qualify  as  small  entities  under  the  SBA  size  standard. 


 6.  Radio  Stations.  The  SBA  has  developed  a  small  business  size  standard  for  Radio  Stations,  which  consists  of  all  such  firms  having  $6  million  or  less  in  annual  receipts.  15  Business 
 concerns  included  in  this  industry  are  those  primarily  engaged  in  broadcasting  aural  programs  by  radio  to  the  public.  16  According  to  Commission  staff  review  of  BIA  Publications,  Inc.,  Master 
 Access  Radio  Analyzer  Database,  as  of  May  16,  2003,  about  10,427  of  the  10,945  commercial  radio  stations  in  the  United  States  had  revenue  of  $6  million  or  less.  We  note,  however,  that  many 
 radio  stations  are  affiliated  with  much  larger  corporations  with  much  higher  revenue,  and,  that  in  assessing  whether  a  business  concern  qualifies  as  small  under  the  above  definition,  such  business 
 (control)  affiliations  17  are  included.  18  Our  estimate,  therefore,  likely  overstates  the  number  of  small  businesses  that  might  be  affected  by  our  action. 


 8  5  U.  S.  C.    601(  4). 
 9  Id. 
 10  13  C.  F.  R.    121.  201,  NAICS  code  515120. 
 11  OMB,  North  American  Industry  Classification  System:  United  States,  1997,  at  509  (1997).  This  category 
 description  continues,  These  establishments  operate  television  broadcasting  studios  and  facilities  for  the  programming  and  transmission  of  programs  to  the  public.  These  establishments  also  produce  or  transmit  visual 


 programming  to  affiliated  broadcast  television  stations,  which  in  turn  broadcast  the  programs  to  the  public  on  a  predetermined  schedule.  Programming  may  originate  in  their  own  studios,  from  an  affiliated  network,  or  from 
 external  sources.  Separate  census  categories  pertain  to  businesses  primarily  engaged  in  producing  programming.  See  id.  at  502-  05,  North  American  Industry  Classification  System  (NAICS)  code  512120,  Motion  Picture  and  Video 
 Production;  code  512120,  Motion  Picture  and  Video  Distribution;  code  512191,  Teleproduction  and  Other  Post-Production  Services;  and  code  512199,  Other  Motion  Picture  and  Video  Industries. 
 12  Concerns  are  affiliates  of  each  other  when  one  concern  controls  or  has  the  power  to  control  the  other  or  a  third 
 party  or  parties  controls  or  has  to  power  to  control  both.  13  C.  F.  R.    121.  103(  a)(  1).  13 
 SBA  counts  the  receipts  or  employees  of  the  concern  whose  size  is  at  issue  and  those  of  all  its  domestic  concerns  size.  13  C.  F.  R.    121.103(  a)(  4). 


 14  FCC  News  Release,  Broadcast  Station  Totals  as  of  September  30,  2002  (Nov.  6,  2002). 
 15  13  C.  F.  R.    121.  201,  NAICS  code  515112. 
 16  Id. 
 17  Concerns  are  affiliates  of  each  other  when  one  concern  controls  or  has  the  power  to  control  the  other,  or  a  third 
 party  or  parties  controls  or  has  the  power  to  control  both.  13  C.  F.  R.    121.  103(  a)(  1). 
23
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 A-  3 
 7.  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.  19  According  to  Census  Bureau  data  for  1997,  in  this  category  there  was  a  total  of  1,311  firms  that  operated  for  the  entire  year.  20  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.  21  Thus,  under  this  size  standard,  the  majority  of  firms  can  be  considered 
 small. 
 8.  Multipoint  Distribution  Systems.  The  proposed  rules  would  apply  to  Multipoint  Distribution  Systems  operated  as  part  of  a  wireless  cable  system.  The  Commission  has  defined 


 small  entity  for  purposes  of  the  auction  of  MDS  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.  22  This  definition  of  small  entity  in  the  context  of  MDS  auctions  has  been  approved  by  the  SBA.  23  The  Commission  completed  its  MDS  auction  in  March  1996  for 
 authorizations  in  493  basic  trading  areas.  Of  67  winning  bidders,  61  qualified  as  small  entities.  At  this  time,  we  estimate  that  of  the  61  small  business  MDS  auction  winners,  48  remain  small  business 
 licensees. 
 9.  MDS  also  includes  licensees  of  stations  authorized  prior  to  the  auction.  As  noted,  the  SBA  has  developed  a  definition  of  small  entities  for  pay  television  services,  Cable  and  Other 


 Subscription  Programming,  which  includes  all  such  companies  generating  $12.5  million  or  less  in  annual  receipts.  24  This  definition  includes  MDS  and  thus  applies  to  MDS  licensees  that  did  not 
 participate  in  the  MDS  auction.  Information  available  to  us  indicates  that  there  are  approximately  392  incumbent  MDS  licensees  that  do  not  generate  revenue  in  excess  of  $11  million  annually. 
 Therefore,  we  find  that  there  are  approximately  440  (392  pre-  auction  plus  48  auction  licensees)  small  MDS  providers  as  defined  by  the  SBA  and  the  Commissions  auction  rules  which  may  be 
 affected  by  the  rules  proposed  herein. 
 10.  Instructional  Television  Fixed  Service.  The  proposed  rules  would  also  apply  to  Instructional  Television  Fixed  Service  facilities  operated  as  part  of  a  wireless  cable  system.  The 


 SBA  definition  of  small  entities  for  pay  television  services  also  appears  to  apply  to  ITFS.  25  There  are  presently  2,032  ITFS  licensees.  All  but  100  of  these  licenses  are  held  by  educational 


 18  SBA  counts  the  receipts  or  employees  of  the  concern  whose  size  is  at  issue  and  those  of  all  its  domestic  and 
 foreign  affiliates,  regardless  of  whether  the  affiliates  are  organized  for  profit,  in  determining  the  concerns  size.  13  C.  F.  R.    121.103(  a)(  4). 


 19  13  C.  F.  R.    121.201,  NAICS  code  513220. 
 20  U.  S.  Census  Bureau,  1997  Economic  Census,  Subject  Series:  Information,  Establishment  and  Firm  Size 
 (Including  Legal  Form  of  Organization),  Table  4,  NAICS  code  513220  (issued  Oct.  2000). 


 21  Id. 


 22  47  C.  F.  R.    21.961(  b)(  1). 
 23  See  Amendment  of  Parts  21  and  74  of  the  Commissions  Rules  With  Regard  to  Filing  Procedures  in  the  Multipoint 
 Distribution  Service  and  in  the  Instructional  Television  Fixed  Service  and  Implementation  of  Section  309(  j)  of  the  Communications  Act    Competitive  Bidding,  MM  Docket  No.  94-  131  and  PP  Docket  No.  93-  253,  Report  and  Order, 


 10  FCC  Rcd  9589  (1995).  24 
 13  C.  F.  R.    121.  201,  NAICS  Code  515210.  25 
 Id. 
24
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 A-  4 
 institutions.  Educational  institutions  are  included  in  the  definition  of  a  small  business.  26  However,  we  do  not  collect  annual  revenue  data  for  ITFS  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,  we  tentatively  conclude  that  at  least  1,932  ITFS  are  small  businesses  and  may  be  affected  by  the 
 proposed  rules. 
 11.  Wireless  Service  Providers.  The  SBA  has  developed  a  small  business  size  standard  for  wireless  small  businesses  within  the  two  separate  categories  of  Paging  27  and  Cellular  and  Other 


 Wireless  Telecommunications.  28  Under  both  SBA  categories,  a  wireless  business  is  small  if  it  has  1,500  or  fewer  employees.  According  to  the  Commissions  most  recent  data,  29  1,761  companies 
 reported  that  they  were  engaged  in  the  provision  of  wireless  service.  Of  these  1,761  companies,  an  estimated  1,175  have  1,500  or  fewer  employees  and  586  have  more  than  1,500  employees.  This 
 SBA  size  standard  also  applies  to  wireless  telephony.  Wireless  telephony  includes  cellular,  personal  communications  services,  and  specialized  mobile  radio  telephony  carriers.  According  to 
 the  most  recent  Trends  in  Telephone  Service  data,  719  carriers  reported  that  they  were  engaged  in  the  provision  of  wireless  telephony.  30  We  have  estimated  that  294  of  these  are  small  under  the  SBA 
 small  business  size  standard. 
 12.  Broadband  Personal  Communications  Service.  The  broadband  personal  communications  services  (PCS)  spectrum  is  divided  into  six  frequency  blocks  designated  A  through 


 F,  and  the  Commission  has  held  auctions  for  each  block.  The  Commission  has  created  a  small  business  size  standard  for  Blocks  C  and  F  as  an  entity  that  has  average  gross  revenues  of  less  than 
 $40  million  in  the  three  previous  calendar  years.  31  For  Block  F,  an  additional  small  business  size  standard  for  very  small  business  was  added  and  is  defined  as  an  entity  that,  together  with  its 
 affiliates,  has  average  gross  revenues  of  not  more  than  $15  million  for  the  preceding  three  calendar  years.  32  These  small  business  size  standards,  in  the  context  of  broadband  PCS  auctions,  have  been 
 approved  by  the  SBA.  33  No  small  businesses  within  the  SBA-  approved  small  business  size  standards  bid  successfully  for  licenses  in  Blocks  A  and  B.  There  were  90  winning  bidders  that 
 qualified  as  small  entities  in  the  Block  C  auctions.  A  total  of  93  small  and  very  small  business  bidders  won  approximately  40  percent  of  the  1,479  licenses  for  Blocks  D,  E,  and  F.  34  On  March 
 23,  1999,  the  Commission  reauctioned  155  C,  D,  E,  and  F  Block  licenses;  there  were  113  small  business  winning  bidders.  35  On  January  26,  2001,  the  Commission  completed  the  auction  of  422  C 


 26  5  U.  S.  C.    601(  3). 
 27  13  CFR    121.201,  NAICS  code  517211. 
 28  13  CFR    121.201,  NAICS  code  517212. 
 29  FCC,  Wireline  Competition  Bureau,  Industry  Analysis  and  Technology  Division,  Trends  in  Telephone  Service, 
 Table  5.3,  (May  2002).  30 
 FCC,  Wireline  Competition  Bureau,  Industry  Analysis  and  Technology  Division,  Trends  in  Telephone  Service  at  Table  5.3,  page  5-  5  (August  2003).  This  source  uses  data  that  are  current  as  of  December  31,  2001. 


 31  See  Amendment  of  Parts  20  and  24  of  the  Commissions  Rules    Broadband  PCS  Competitive  Bidding  and  the 
 Commercial  Mobile  Radio  Service  Spectrum  Cap,  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  7824,  7850-  7852,  paras.  57-  60  (1996);  see  also  47  C.  F.  R.    24.  720(  b). 


 32  See  Amendment  of  Parts  20  and  24  of  the  Commissions  Rules    Broadband  PCS  Competitive  Bidding  and  the 
 Commercial  Mobile  Radio  Service  Spectrum  Cap,  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  7824,  7852,  para.  60.  33 
 See  Letter  to  Amy  Zoslov,  Chief,  Auctions  and  Industry  Analysis  Division,  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau,  Federal  Communications  Commission,  from  Aida  Alvarez,  Administrator,  Small  Business  Administration, 


 dated  December  2,  1998.  34 
 FCC  News,  Broadband  PCS,  D,  E  and  F  Block  Auction  Closes,  No.  71744  (released  January  14,  1997).  35 
 See  C,  D,  E,  and  F  Block  Broadband  PCS  Auction  Closes,  Public  Notice,  14  FCC  Rcd  6688  (WTB  1999). 
25
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 A-  5 
 and  F  Broadband  PCS  licenses  in  Auction  No.  35.  Of  the  35  winning  bidders  in  this  auction,  29  qualified  as  small  or  very  small  businesses.  36  Subsequent  events,  concerning  Auction  35, 
 including  judicial  and  agency  determinations,  resulted  in  a  total  of  163  C  and  F  Block  licenses  being  available  for  grant. 


 13.  Incumbent  Local  Exchange  Carriers  (Incumbent  LECs).  We  have  included  small  incumbent  local  exchange  carriers  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.  37  The  SBAs  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.  38  We  have  therefore  included  small  incumbent  local  exchange  carriers  in  this  RFA  analysis,  although  we  emphasize  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.  39  According  to  Commission  data,  40  1,337  carriers  have  reported  that  they  are  engaged  in  the  provision  of  incumbent  local  exchange  services.  Of  these  1,337  carriers,  an 
 estimated  1,032  have  1,500  or  fewer  employees  and  305  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  our  proposed  rules. 
 14.  Competitive  Local  Exchange  Carriers  (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.  41  According  to  Commission  data,  42  609  carriers  have  reported  that  they  are 
 engaged  in  the  provision  of  either  competitive  access  provider  services  or  competitive  local  exchange  carrier  services.  Of  these  609  carriers,  an  estimated  458  have  1,500  or  fewer  employees 
 and  151  have  more  than  1,500  employees.  In  addition,  16  carriers  have  reported  that  they  are  Shared-  Tenant  Service  Providers,  and  all  16  are  estimated  to  have  1.500  or  fewer  employees.  In 
 addition,  35  carriers  have  reported  that  they  are  Other  Local  Service  Providers.  Of  the  35,  an  estimated  34  have  1,500  or  fewer  employees  and  one  has  more  than  1,500  employees. 


 36  See  C  and  F  Block  Broadband  PCS  Auction  Closes;  Winning  Bidders  Announced,  Public  Notice,  16  FCC  Rcd 
 2339  (2001).  37 
 Id.    632.  38 
 Letter  from  Jere  W.  Glover,  Chief  Counsel  for  Advocacy,  SBA,  to  William  E.  Kennard,  Chairman,  FCC  (May  27,  1999).  The  Small  Business  Act  contains  a  definition  of  small-  business  concern,  which  the  RFA  incorporates  into 


 its  own  definition  of  small  business.  See  15  U.  S.  C.    632(  a)  (Small  Business  Act);  5  U.  S.  C.    601(  3)  (RFA).  SBA  regulations  interpret  small  business  concern  to  include  the  concept  of  dominance  on  a  national  basis.  See  13 
 C.  F.  R.    121.102(  b).  39 
 13  C.  F.  R.    121.  201,  NAICS  code  517110.  40 
 FCC,  Wireline  Competition  Bureau,  Industry  Analysis  and  Technology  Division,  Trends  in  Telephone  Service  at  Table  5.3,  Page  5-  5  (Aug.  2003)  (hereinafter  Trends  in  Telephone  Service).  This  source  uses  data  that  are 


 current  as  of  December  31,  2001.  41 
 13  C.  F.  R.    121.  201,  NAICS  code  517110.  42 
 Trends  in  Telephone  Service  at  Table  5.3. 
26
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 A-  6 
 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  our  proposed  rules. 
 15.  Satellite  Telecommunications  and  Other  Telecommunications.  The  Commission  has  not  developed  a  small  business  size  standard  specifically  for  providers  of  international  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  or  less  in  average  annual  receipts.  43  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.  44  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. 
 16.  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.  45  According  to 
 Census  Bureau  data  for  1997,  there  were  439  firms  in  this  category  that  operated  for  the  entire  year.  46  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 
 17.  There  are  potential  reporting  or  recordkeeping  requirements  proposed  in  this  NPRM,  particularly  with  regard  to  state  and  local  EAS  participation  and  participation  by  digital 
 broadcasters.  The  proposals  set  forth  in  the  NPRM  are  intended  to  enhance  the  performance  of  the  EAS  while  reducing  regulatory  burdens  wherever  possible. 


 E.  Steps  Taken  to  Minimize  Significant  Economic  Impact  on  Small  Entities,  and  Significant  Alternatives  Considered 
 18.  The  RFA  requires  an  agency  to  describe  any  significant  alternatives  that  it  has  considered  in  reaching  its  proposed  approach,  which  may  include  the  following  four  alternatives: 
 (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)  an  exemption  from  coverage  of  the  rule,  or 
 any  part  thereof,  for  small  entities. 


 43  13  C.  F.  R.    121.201,  NAICS  codes  517410  and  517910. 
 44  U.  S.  Census  Bureau,  1997  Economic  Census,  Subject  Series:  Information,  "Establishment  and  Firm  Size 
 (Including  Legal  Form  of  Organization),"  Table  4,  NAICS  code  513340  (issued  Oct.  2000).  45 
 Office  of  Management  and  Budget,  North  American  Industry  Classification  System,  page  513  (1997)  (NAICS  code  513390,  changed  to  517910  in  Oct.  2002). 


 46  U.  S.  Census  Bureau,  1997  Economic  Census,  Subject  Series:  Information,  "Establishment  and  Firm  Size 
 (Including  Legal  Form  of  Organization),"  Table  4,  NAICS  code  513390  (issued  Oct.  2000). 
27
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 A-  7 
 19.  In  setting  forth  the  proposals  contained  in  this  NPRM,  we  have  attempted  to  minimize  the  burdens  on  all  entities.  47  We  seek  comment  on  the  impact  of  our  proposals  on  small 
 entities  and  on  any  possible  alternatives  that  would  minimize  the  impact  on  small  entities. 
 F.  Federal  Rules  that  Duplicate,  Overlap,  or  Conflict  with  the  Proposed  Rules 
 20.  None. 


 47  See  supra  para.  45. 
28
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 STATEMENT  OF  CHAIRMAN  MICHAEL  K.  POWELL 
 Re:  Review  of  the  Emergency  Alert  System,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking 
 For  over  a  half  century,  the  United  States  has  had  in  place  a  national  warning  system  utilizing,  in  part,  our  Nations  broadcast  outlets.  From  the  CONELRAD,  established  in  1951  by  President  Truman 
 during  the  Korean  War  to  its  replacement,  the  Emergency  Broadcast  System,  established  in  1963  by  President  Kennedy  to  the  modern  day  Emergency  Alert  System  (EAS),  our  government  has  sought  to 
 employ  our  countrys  media  outlets  as  a  mechanism  for  warning  the  American  public  of  an  emergency. 
 A  lot  has  changed  since  1951.  As  the  primary  role  of  EAS  remains  a  national  public  warning  system,  increasingly  state  and  local  jurisdictions  have  used  its  capabilities  to  notify  their  citizens  of  local 
 emergencies,  including  natural  weather  disasters  and  in  saving  the  lives  of  many  abducted  children  through  the  Amber  Alert.  In  addition,  EAS  has  grown  from  its  predecessors  birth  on  AM  radio  to  FM 
 radio,  broadcast  television  and  wireline  and  wireless  cable  systems.  Of  course,  the  threats  to  our  homeland  have  also  changed  dramatically  over  the  last  fifty  years.  As  the  world  around  us  has  changed, 
 however,  the  import  of  the  EAS  as  a  tool  for  reaching  our  citizenry  during  time  of  need  remains  high. 
 We  are  proud  to  adopt  this  Notice  today,  as  a  result,  in  part,  of  the  recommendations  of  the  Media  Security  and  Reliability  Council  and  the  Partnership  for  Public  Warning  and  in  coordination  with  our 
 partners  at  the  Department  of  Homeland  Security  and  its  component,  FEMA  and  the  Department  of  Commerce  and  its  component,  the  National  Oceanic  and  Atmospheric  Administrations  National  Weather 
 Service. 
 This  proceeding  will  provide  one  of  many  vehicles  by  which  we  collectively  explore  the  most  effective  mechanism  for  warning  the  American  public  of  an  emergency  and  the  role  of  EAS  as  we  move 
 further  into  our  digital  future.  I  commend  my  colleagues  here  at  the  Commission  and  our  partners  at  DHS,  FEMA,  DoC  and  NOAA  for  their  dedication  to  making  our  homeland  a  safer  place  for  our  citizens. 
29
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  KATHLEEN  Q.  ABERNATHY 
 Re:  Review  of  the  Emergency  Alert  System,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking 
 It  is  essential  that  the  American  public  has  access  to  emergency  information  in  times  of  crisis.  The  Emergency  Alert  System  (  EAS)  provides  a  means  for  the  President  and  national,  state  and  local 
 authorities  to  directly  relay  emergency  information  to  the  public  regarding  such  matters  as  national  security  and  preparedness,  natural  disasters,  and  missing  children  alerts.  As  new  communications 
 technologies  develop  and  become  integrated  into  our  society,  it  is  important  that  we  adapt  our  rules  to  ensure  that  the  purposes  of  the  EAS  are  being  fulfilled.  Today,  we  take  an  important  step  toward 
 improving  this  critical  public  safety  tool  by  seeking  comment  on  how  we  can  keep  up  with  the  changing  times,  technologies,  and  security  issues. 


 Additionally,  I  am  very  pleased  that  this  NPRM  recognizes  the  Commissions  continued  commitment  to  ensuring  that  persons  with  disabilities  and  speakers  of  other  languages  have  equal  access 
 to  public  warnings.  It  is  critical  that  we  keep  these  communities  in  mind,  and  recognize  the  particular  benefits  that  digital  and  other  technologies  may  provide,  as  we  move  forward  to  improve  our  emergency 
 alert  system. 
 I  look  forward  to  working  with  DHS,  FEMA,  NOAA,  and  NWS  to  create  a  system  that  effectively  and  efficiently  utilizes  modern  technology  to  successfully  keep  the  American  public  apprised 
 of  vital  safety  information. 
30
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  MICHAEL  J.  COPPS 
 Re:  Review  of  the  Emergency  Alert  System,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking 
 September  11  and  events  in  this  country  since  have  highlighted  the  need  for  a  warning  system  which  affords  national  as  well  as  state  and  local  authorities  the  capability  to  provide  emergency 
 communications  and  information  to  the  American  public.  The  EAS  serves  as  our  primary  alert  system  today  for  everything  from  weather  emergencies  to  Amber  alerts  to  save  abducted  children. 


 The  Commission  asked  its  Media  Security  and  Reliability  Council  to  examine  the  best  means  to  reach  the  broadest  possible  population  with  emergency  and  public  safety  information.  We  also  benefited 
 in  our  deliberations  from  the  analysis  and  recommendations  of  the  Partnership  for  Public  Warning,  a  public-  private  partnership  whose  goal  is  to  increase  emergency  preparedness.  These  groups  addressed 
 shortcomings  in  the  current  EAS,  including,  among  others,  the  need  to  upgrade  the  system  and  enhance  its  use  for  providing  state  and  local,  as  well  as  national,  emergency  information.  They  considered  the 
 important  goal  of  finding  ways  to  integrate  diverse  technologies  so  people  can  receive  information  in  myriad  ways.  And  these  expert  committees  concluded  that  while  improvements  to  the  EAS  are  needed,  it 
 remains  integral  to  our  national  warning  system. 
 I  appreciate  my  colleagues  willingness  to  accelerate  action  on  these  recommendations  through  an  NPRM  rather  than  a  start-  from-  scratch  Notice  of  Inquiry.  The  issues  on  which  we  seek  comment,  in 
 addition  to  the  ones  Ive  already  mentioned,  include  bringing  our  warning  system  into  the  digital  era,  ensuring  the  security  of  the  EAS,  and  addressing  how  best  to  provide  emergency  information  to  all 
 segments  of  our  population,  including  those  with  disabilities  and  those  whose  primary  language  is  not  English.  We  unfortunately  do  not  have  the  luxury  of  time  in  these  efforts.  I  vote  for  this  item  with  the 
 understanding  that  we  will  work  aggressively  in  partnership  with  other  government  agencies,  industry,  and  all  stakeholders  to  promote  a  comprehensive  national  public  warning  capability. 
31
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  KEVIN  J.  MARTIN 
 Re:  Review  of  the  Emergency  Alert  System,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking 
 The  importance  of  our  ability  to  quickly  and  effectively  inform  the  public  of  an  emergency  cannot  be  understated.  Whether  the  issue  is  a  terrorist  attack  or  impending  weather  disaster,  our  success 
 in  this  endeavor  can  mean  the  difference  between  life  and  death.  Currently,  we  rely  almost  exclusively  on  the  Emergency  Alert  System  to  disseminate  warnings  to  the  public.  EAS  therefore  serves  a  critical 
 purpose,  yet  it  applies  only  to  analog  broadcast  and  cable  television  and  its  use  is,  in  many  instances,  merely  voluntary.  We  need  either  to  update  this  system  or  to  replace  it  with  a  more  comprehensive  and 
 effective  digital  warning  mechanism. 
 I  strongly  support  initiation  of  this  rulemaking  to  determine  the  best  solution  to  ensure  that  all  Americans  can  receive  emergency  information.  I  am  pleased  at  the  coordination  that  has  taken  place  to 


 date  with  the  Department  of  Homeland  Security  and  the  Department  of  Commerce,  and  I  look  forward  to  working  with  these  partners  as  well  as  our  colleagues  at  the  state  and  local  level  to  develop  the  best 
 system  to  protect  the  American  people. 
32
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  189 
 STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  JONATHAN  S.  ADELSTEIN 
 Re:  Review  of  the  Emergency  Alert  System,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking 
 I  am  pleased  we  launch  this  review  of  our  nations  increasingly  outdated  Emergency  Alert  System.  We  must  move  quickly  to  act  on  this  rulemaking  and  further  protect  the  lives  of  all  Americans. 


 Our  task  is  not  easy,  but  we  cannot  afford  to  wait.  The  public  warning  capability  of  communications  technologies  should  be  among  the  highest  priorities  of  this  agency.  This  will  take  hard 
 work  and  continued  coordination  with  the  Department  of  Homeland  Security  and  our  other  partners. 
 The  Cold-  War  era  EAS  system  is  an  imperfect  system  for  our  modern  society,  but  for  the  near  term  it  remains  one  of  the  best  options  we  have  to  deliver  emergency  messages  to  as  many  people  as 
 possible  as  quickly  as  possible.  The  Media  Security  and  Reliability  Council  and  the  Partnership  for  Public  Warning  have  suggested  ways  to  improve  EAS.  The  Commission  must  now  buckle  down  and  do 
 what  it  is  we  are  asking  state  and  local  officials  to  do    assess  vulnerabilities,  create  a  plan  for  better  service,  and  review  and  update  that  plan  as  communications  technologies  evolve. 


 The  American  public  expects  broadcasters  to  deliver  timely  local  and  national  emergency  and  public  safety  information.  For  example,  the  FCCs  broadcast  localism  hearing  in  Rapid  City,  South 
 Dakota,  proved  how  vitally  important  disaster  warnings  are  for  rural  areas  of  the  country.  The  Countys  Emergency  Management  Director  testified  about  the  cooperation  and  collaboration  among  public  safety 
 officials  and  all  local  broadcasters  that  resulted  from  a  devastating  flood  and  led  to  a  voluntary  initiative  to  improve  public  safety  warnings  in  the  county.  But  not  all  broadcasters  and  state  and  local  governments 
 have  taken  this  step. 
 We  should  use  our  oversight  of  the  broadcast  and  other  communications  industries  to  ensure  more  consistency  at  the  state  and  local  level.  With  the  transition  of  television  and  radio  to  digital  broadcasting, 
 we  have  an  opportunity  to  improve  upon  the  EAS  system  to  communicate  emergency  and  public  safety  information  in  even  more  targeted  and  innovative  ways.  We  can  design  a  system  to  better  serve  all 
 stakeholders,  including  the  disability  community  and  the  nations  many  non-  English  speakers. 
 But  we  must  act  quickly.  In  conjunction  with  our  other  federal  partners,  the  American  public  counts  on  us  to  ensure  a  public  warning  system  second  to  none.  It  is  imperative  that  we  quickly  put  ideas 
 into  action  and  lead  our  country  to  an  even  higher  level  of  security. 
33