Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matters of
Review of the Emergency Alert System; 
Independent Spanish Broadcasters 
Association, the Office of Communication of 
the United Church of Christ, Inc., and the 
Minority Media and Telecommunications 
Council, Petition for Immediate Relief
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
EB Docket No. 04-296
SECOND REPORT AND ORDER
AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Adopted:  May 31, 2007 Released: July 12, 2007
Comment Date:        [30 days after publication in the Federal Register]
Reply Comment Date: [45 days after publication in the Federal Register]
By the Commission: Chairman Martin, and Commissioners Copps, Adelstein, Tate, and 
McDowell issuing separate statements.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraph
I. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................1
II. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY........................................................................................2
III. DISCUSSION..........................................................................................................................15
A. Next Generation EAS ........................................................................................................15
1. Maintaining Existing EAS...........................................................................................17
2. Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) for EAS................................................................20
3. Authentication and Security ........................................................................................27
4. Next Generation Distribution Systems ........................................................................29
B. CAP and Next Generation EAS: Better Serving the Needs of Persons with 
Disabilities and Non-English Speakers .............................................................................33
1. Background..................................................................................................................33
2. Discussion....................................................................................................................36
C. Expanding the Base of EAS Participants ..........................................................................43
1. Wireline Video Participation in EAS ..........................................................................43
a. Background............................................................................................................43
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
2
b. Comments..............................................................................................................44
c. Discussion..............................................................................................................46
2. Wireless Participation in EAS .....................................................................................51
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
a. Background............................................................................................................51
b. Discussion..............................................................................................................52
D. State-Level and Geographically Targeted EAS Alerts ......................................................53
1. Background..................................................................................................................53
2. Discussion....................................................................................................................55
a. Receipt of State-Level Messages...........................................................................55
b. Geographically Targeted Alerts at Less than State-Level......................................64
E. Coordination with State and Local Governments..............................................................65
1. Background..................................................................................................................65
2. Discussion....................................................................................................................66
F. Assessing EAS Operation..................................................................................................70
IV. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING ........................................................72
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS...................................................................................................76
A. Ex Parte Presentations.......................................................................................................76
B. Comment Filing Procedures ..............................................................................................77
C. Accessible Formats............................................................................................................78
D. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis .........................................................................................79
E. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis...................................................................................81
F. Congressional Review Act ................................................................................................82
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES..........................................................................................................83
APPENDIX A: List Of Commenters
APPENDIX B: Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
APPENDIX C: Final Rules
APPENDIX D: Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Second Report and Order (Order), we revise the Commissions Part 11 
Emergency Alert System (EAS) rules as part of our continuing effort to provide the American 
public a state-of-the-art, next-generation national EAS (Next Generation EAS).1 We also take 
steps today to fulfill the Commissions responsibilities under the Presidents Public Alert and 
Warning System Executive Order.2 Specifically, in order to ensure the efficient, rapid, and 
  
1 See 47 C.F.R. Part 11.  In 2005, the Commission sought comment on expediting the development of a Next 
Generation EAS network. See Review of the Emergency Alert System, EB Docket No. 04-296, First Report and 
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 18625 (2005) (First Report and Order and 
Further Notice).  Appendix A provides a list of commenters to the Further Notice and abbreviated names.  See also 
Review of the Emergency Alert System, EB Docket No. 04-296, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 
15775 (2004) (2004 NPRM).  XM Radio, Inc. filed a petition for reconsideration of the requirement adopted in the 
First Report and Order for Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS) to conduct weekly and monthly tests on 
every channel.  Separately, PanAmSat, SES Americom, and Intelsat jointly petitioned for reconsideration, arguing 
that EAS requirements adopted in the First Report and Order should not apply to fixed satellite service (FSS) 
operators on Ku-band frequencies selling or leasing satellite capacity to direct-to-home (DTH) distributors.  The 
Commission will address these petitions, and related filings, in a subsequent order(s).  
2 Public Alert and Warning System, Exec. Order No. 13407, 71 Fed. Reg. 36975 (June 26, 2006) (Executive Order). 
Section 3(b)(iii) of the Executive Order directs the Commission to adopt rules to ensure that communications 
(continued.)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
4
secure transmission of EAS alerts in a variety of formats (including text, audio, and video) and 
via different means (broadcast, cable, satellite, and other networks), we adopt a requirement for 
various entities required to participate in EAS pursuant to this Order and prior Commission 
orders (EAS Participants) to accept a message using a common EAS messaging protocol, 
Common Alerting Protocol v1.1 (CAP),3 no later than 180 days after FEMA publicly publishes 
its adoption of such standard.  Second, we require EAS Participants to adopt Next Generation 
EAS delivery systems no later than 180 days after FEMA publicly releases standards for those 
systems.  Third, we preserve the current EAS network but enhance its effectiveness, scope, and 
redundancy by enabling EAS delivery system upgrades and by including wireline common 
carriers providing video programming (Wireline Video Providers) in EAS.  Fourth, we require 
EAS Participants to transmit state and local EAS alerts that are originated by governors or their 
designees no later than 180 days after FEMA publishes its adoption of the CAP standard,4
provided that the state has a Commission-approved EAS state plan that provides for delivery of 
such alerts.5 Fifth, we concurrently adopt a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to explore 
further certain EAS-related issues.  In sum, the actions that we take today will increase the 
reliability, security, and efficacy of the nations EAS network and will enable the President, the 
National Weather Service (NWS),6 and state officials to rapidly communicate with citizens in 
times of crisis, over multiple communications platforms.
II. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY
2. Further Notice.  In the November 2005 Further Notice, the Commission sought 
comment on how to improve EAS.  It stated that a reliable wide-reaching public alert and 
warning system is critical to public safety and that the EAS network should permit officials at 
the national, state and local levels to reach affected citizens in the most effective and efficient 
manner possible.7 The Commission requested comment on a wide range of issues, including: 
enhancing the EAS network architecture and message distribution,8 adopting a common EAS 
messaging protocol,9 the feasibility of satellite television and radio service providers delivering
(Continued from previous page)    
systems have the capacity to transmit alerts and warnings to the public as part of the public alert and warning 
system.
3 Cap v1.1 was developed by the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS), a 
non-profit, international consortium that develops standards.  See http://www.oasis-open.org/home/index.php.  
4 The Mayor of the District of Columbia, as well as the Governors of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam also will have 
this capability.  47 U.S.C.  153(40) (the term state includes the District of Columbia and the Territories and 
possessions).  
5 See 47 C.F.R.  11.21, and discussion at  14, 53-64 infra.
6 The National Weather Service is the primary source of weather data, forecasts and warnings for the United States.  
See http://www.nws.noaa.gov/.  It is an organization within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA).
7 Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 18651,  62.
8 Id. at 18652,  66.
9 Id. at 18652,  67.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
5
state and local emergency messages,10 whether to require Wireline Video Providers to transmit 
EAS alerts,11 and the provision of EAS alerts to persons with sight and hearing disabilities.12 The 
Commission also sought comment on providing EAS alerts to non-English speakers,13 and on 
certain related issues raised in a Petition for Immediate Relief, which was jointly filed by the 
Independent Spanish Broadcasters Association, the Office of Communication of the United 
Church of Christ, Inc., and the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council on September 
22, 2005.14 Numerous parties filed detailed comments and made presentations to FCC staff in 
response to the Further Notice, resulting in a well-developed record.15
3. Congress established the Commission for the purpose of the national defense, 
[and] for the purpose of promoting the safety of life and property through the use of wire and 
radio communication networks.16 For nearly fifty years, the Commission has implemented this 
mandate, in part, by affording the American public an effective national alert and warning 
system.  During most of its existence, this system was known as the Emergency Broadcast 
System (EBS).17 Its name was changed to the Emergency Alert System in 1994, however, when 
it was upgraded and automated.18
4. As explained in more detail below, it is well established that the Commission has 
authority to regulate participation in EAS under Sections 1, 4(i) and (o), 303(r), and 706 of the 
Communications Act.19 The Commission, in conjunction with FEMA and NWS, implements
EAS at the federal level.  Their respective roles are based on a 1981 Memorandum of 
Understanding between FEMA, NWS, and the Commission,20 a 1984 Executive Order,21 and a 
  
10 Id. at 18652-53,  68.
11 Id. at 18653,  69, 70.
12 Id. at 18654-57,  74-80.
13 Id. at 18657-58,  81.
14 Id.
15 The record is available on the Commissions Electronic Comment Filing System, at 
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/comsrch_v2.cgi.
16 47 U.S.C  151.
17 A more detailed history of EAS is set forth in the first Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this docket.  See 2004 
NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 15776-77,  6-8.
18 See Amendment of Part 73, Subpart G, of the Commissions Rules Regarding the Emergency Broadcast System, 
FO Docket Nos. 91-301, 91-171, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 1786 
(1994) (1994 Report and Order) (subsequent history omitted).
19 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i) and (o), 303(r), 606.
20 See 1981 State and Local Emergency Broadcasting System (EBS) Memorandum of Understanding Among the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Industry Advisory Committee (NIAC) 
reprinted as Appendix K to Partnership for Public Warning Report 2004-1, The Emergency Alert System (EAS): An 
Assessment.
21 See Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications Functions, Exec. Order 
No. 12472, 49 Fed. Reg. 13471 (1984).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
6
1995 Presidential Statement of EAS Requirements.22 In addition, State Emergency Coordination 
Committees (SECCs) and Local Emergency Coordination Committees (LECCs) develop 
state and local EAS plans.  FEMA, NWS, and the Commission work closely with EAS 
participants as well as state, local, and tribal governments to ensure the integrity and utility of 
EAS.
5. Executive Order.  On June 26, 2006, pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended,23 and the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as 
amended,24 President George W. Bush issued a Public Alert and Warning System Executive 
Order.  The Executive Order provides, in relevant part, that:
It is the policy of the United States to have an effective, reliable, integrated, 
flexible, and comprehensive system to alert and warn the American people in 
situations of war, terrorist attack, natural disaster, or other hazards to public safety 
and well-being (public alert and warning system), taking appropriate account of 
the functions, capabilities, and needs of the private sector and of all levels of 
government in our Federal system, and to ensure that under all conditions the 
President can communicate with the American people.25
6. The Executive Order requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to administer
the Emergency Alert System (EAS) as a critical component of the [national] public alert and 
warning system, including a requirement to establish, or adopt, as appropriate, common 
alerting and warning protocols, standards, terminology, and operating procedures for the public 
alert and warning system.26 Under the Executive Order, the Secretary must submit a plan to the 
President for implementation of the order,27 and issue guidance that addresses the subject matter 
of the 1995 Presidential Statement.28 Upon issuance of such guidance, the 1995 Presidential 
Statement will be revoked.
7. Section 3(b)(iii) of the Executive Order directs the Commission to adopt rules to 
ensure that communications systems have the capacity to transmit alerts and warnings to the 
public as part of the [national] public alert and warning system.29 The Commission is 
  
22 FEMA acts as Executive Agent for the development, operation, and maintenance of the national-level EAS.  See 
Memorandum, Presidential Communications with the General Public During Periods of National Emergency, The 
White House (Sept. 15, 1995) (1995 Presidential Statement).
23 42 U.S.C.  5121 et seq.
24 6 U.S.C.  101 et seq.   The Homeland Security Act of 2002 authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security, acting 
through the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response, to develop a comprehensive national 
incident management system with Federal, State, and local government personnel, agencies, and authorities, in 
order to respond to terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies.  6 U.S.C  312(5).
25 Executive Order, section 1.
26 Id., sections 2(a)(ii).
27 Id., section 4.
28 Id., section 5(b).
29 Id., section 3(b)(iii).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
7
committed to working with the Secretary, FEMA, and other governmental entities to ensure the 
effective implementation of the Executive Order.  
8. WARN Act.  On October 13, 2006, the President signed the Security and 
Accountability For Every Port Act (Safe Port Act) into law.  Title VI of the SAFE Port Act  the 
Warning, Alert and Response Network Act (WARN Act)  establishes a framework for 
commercial mobile service (CMS) providers to voluntarily elect to transmit emergency alerts.30  
As the statute required, the Commission established a Commercial Mobile Service Alert 
Advisory Committee that is developing recommendations for technical standards and protocols 
to facilitate the voluntary transmission of emergency alerts by CMS providers.31 The Committee
must submit its recommendations to the Commission within one year of the enactment of the 
statute.32 Following the submission of the Committees recommendations, the Commission will
initiate a rulemaking to develop technical standards and other requirements to facilitate CMS 
providers transmission of emergency alerts.33 Accordingly, in light of the passage of the WARN 
Act, we do not address commercial wireless carrier participation in EAS in this Order.
9. Independent Panel.  In January 2006, Chairman Kevin J. Martin established a 
Federal Advisory Committee to study the impact of Hurricane Katrina on communications 
infrastructure,34 which submitted a comprehensive report to the Commission on June 12, 2006.  
The Commission, in turn, issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on June 19, 2006, to address 
the panel's recommendations, including what actions it could take to improve communication of 
emergency information to the public.35 The Independent Panel recommended that the 
Commission improve and facilitate the use of the EAS network during disasters, educate state 
and local officials and the public about EAS, and ensure that the disabled and non-English 
  
30 Security and Accountability For Every Port Act, Pub. L. No. 109-347, 120 Stat. 1936-1943 (2006).
31 WARN Act  603(a).  The Commission announced the members of the Committee on December 5, 2006.  Notice 
of Appointment of Members to the Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee; Agenda for December 
12, 2006 Meeting, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 14175 (2006).
32 WARN Act  603(c).
33 WARN Act  603(a) and (b).
34 See 71 Fed. Reg. 933 (Jan. 6, 2006). The panel was known as the Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of 
Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks (Independent Panel).
35 See Recommendations of the Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications 
Networks, EB Docket. No. 06-119, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 21 FCC Rcd 7320 (2006) (Hurricane Katrina 
NPRM).  The Notice also sought comment in three other broad areas: (1) pre-positioning the communications 
industry and the government for disasters in order to achieve greater network reliability and resiliency; (2) improving 
recovery coordination to address existing shortcomings and to maximize the use of existing resources; and (3) 
improving the operability and interoperability of public safety and 911 communications during crises.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
8
speaking communities have ready access to EAS warnings.36 The panel also noted that wireless 
technology offers the potential for enhancing the existing EAS network.37  
10. Accordingly, we take key steps today necessary to ensure the development of a 
next-generation EAS network, steps which are grounded in the Commissions November 2005 
Further Notice and related record.  We also seek to implement the Commissions responsibilities 
under the Presidents Executive Order and to address certain of the EAS-related 
recommendations of the Hurricane Katrina Independent Panel.
11. Current EAS Participants and Message Distribution.  EAS equipment is in place 
in television, radio, and cable facilities nationwide and has been used effectively for state and 
local emergencies for decades.  The EAS currently is comprised of analog and digital radio 
broadcast stations, including AM, FM, and low-power FM stations; analog and digital television 
(DTV) broadcast stations, including Class A television and low-power TV stations; analog,
digital, and wireless cable systems; Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) systems, Satellite Digital 
Audio Radio Systems (SDARS); and other entities and industries operating on an organized basis 
during emergencies at the national, state, and local levels.38  EAS messages currently are 
distributed via a multi-level distribution system.39 The current EAS network includes numerous 
message entry and distribution points:
 National Primary (NP) stations are the primary entry point for Presidential messages
delivered by FEMA.40 These stations are responsible for broadcasting a Presidential 
alert to the public and to State Primary stations within their broadcast range.41
 State Primary (SP) stations are the entry point for State messages, which can 
originate from the Governor or a designated representative. Messages may then be 
sent via the State Relay Network.42
 State Relay (SR) stations are part of the State Relay Network and relay National and 
State emergency messages into Local Areas.43
  
36 Hurricane Katrina NPRM, 21 FCC Rcd at 7326-27,  18 (noting that EAS was not used by state and local officials 
to provide emergency evacuation information).  Id. at Appendix B, Report and Recommendations to the Federal 
Communications Commission, p. 28.
37 Id. As we discuss herein, because the WARN Act makes EAS participation voluntary for commercial mobile 
service providers and mandates that the Commission initiate a rulemaking regarding such participation at a later date, 
todays Order does not address wireless EAS participation.  
38 See 47 C.F.R.  11.11. SDARS and DBS were required to participate in the existing EAS by December 31, 2006 
and May 31, 2007, respectively.  First Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 18641-43.
39 A system in which stations relay emergency messages from one to others is also known as a daisy-chain.  See 1994 
Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 1790-91,  10 n.9.
40 47 C.F.R.  11.18(a).
41 47 C.F.R.  11.14.  
42 47 C.F.R.  11.18(c).
43 47 C.F.R.  11.18(d).  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, 
(continued.)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
9
 Local Primary (LP) stations provide EAS Local Area messages.  An LP source is 
responsible for coordinating the carriage of emergency messages from sources such as 
the NWS or local emergency management offices as specified in its EAS Local Area 
Plan. LP stations receive Presidential and State EAS messages from SP and SR 
stations.  
 Participating National (PN) stations transmit EAS National, State, or Local Area 
messages directly to the public.
 Non-participating National (NN) sources have elected not to participate in the 
National level EAS and hold an authorization letter to that effect.  They may transmit 
EAS State or Local Area messages.44
12. EAS Protocol.  All EAS message originators (whether FEMA, NWS, or a state or 
local authority) currently must transmit messages using the EAS protocol and codes specified in 
section 11.31 of the Commissions rules.45 Dedicated equipment currently is required to initiate, 
receive, and retransmit EAS alerts, and must be installed by every EAS Participant.  Sections
11.32 and 11.33 of the Commissions rules set forth minimum requirements for EAS encoders 
and decoders, respectively,46 the functions of which can be combined into a single unit referred to 
as an Encoder/Decoder (ENDEC).47 In this Order, once FEMA adopts the CAP protocol, we 
require existing EAS Participants to receive alert messages formatted to CAP, a standard alert 
message format that specifies data fields to facilitate data sharing across different distribution 
systems.48  As explained below, timely adoption of CAP by all EAS Participants is an essential 
component of and prerequisite for the development of Next Generation EAS.
13. New EAS Participants.  The Commission enhanced the EAS network in the 1990s 
to include cable television systems49 and wireless cable systems.50 The Commission further 
(Continued from previous page)    
microwave, FM subcarrier, or any other communications technology may be used to distribute state emergency 
messages.  47 C.F.R.  11.20.
44  47 C.F.R.  11.18(d).  Upon activation of the national level EAS, NN sources are required to broadcast the EAS 
codes, Attention Signal, and the sign-off announcement in the EAS Operating Handbook, and then stop operating.  
All NN sources are required to comply with 47 C.F.R  11.51, 11.52 and 11.61.
45 47 C.F.R.  11.31.  Under this protocol, an EAS alert uses a four-part message: (1) preamble and EAS header 
codes (these codes contain information regarding the identity of the sender, the type of emergency, its location and 
valid time period of the alert); (2) audio attention signal; (3) message; and (4) preamble and EAS end of message 
codes.  47 C.F.R.  11.31(a).
46 47 C.F.R.  11.32, 11.33.
47 47 C.F.R.  11.34(c).  EAS equipment also provides a means to automatically interrupt regular programming and 
is capable of providing warnings in the primary language that is used by the station or cable system. See 47 C.F.R. 
 11.33(a)(4), 11.51(k)(1), 11.54.
48 A CAP-formatted alert may include fields for message type, scope, event information, event certainty, sender, 
geographic scope, and expiration, among others.  CAP-formatted messages also can include links to data, audio and 
video files, and can be validated and authenticated through the use of digital signatures and encryption.
49 EAS 1994 Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 1786.
50 Amendment of Part 73, Subpart G, of the Commissions Rules Regarding the Emergency Broadcast System, FO 
Docket Nos. 91-301, 91-171, Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 15503 (1997).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
10
enhanced the EAS network in 2005 to include providers of DTV,51 digital audio broadcasts 
(DAB), digital cable television, DBS, and SDARS.52  In order to increase the reliability and
efficacy of the nations EAS network, and for other reasons stated below, we augment the EAS 
distribution network to include Wireline Video Providers.  
14. State EAS Alerts.  The EAS network originally was conceived to provide the 
President with the ability to rapidly communicate via radio and TV broadcast networks with the 
American public during a national crisis, such as a nuclear attack.53  The system also has been 
used for the provision of state and local emergency alerts to the public since it was opened to 
state and local participation in 1963. Several thousand state and local EAS messages are 
transmitted annually.  More than 70 percent of all state and local EAS messages are vital 
weather-related alerts (such as flash flood, hurricane, and tornado warnings), which are 
originated by the NWS via the NOAA Weather Radio (NWR) network.54  NWR includes more 
than 940 transmitters covering all 50 states and the District of Columbia, adjacent coastal waters, 
Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the U.S. Pacific Territories.55 NWR uses an EAS 
compatible digital protocol,56 which supplies local EAS encoded alerts to broadcast and cable 
EAS entry points pursuant to EAS state and local plans.57  Under the Commissions current EAS 
rules, EAS Participants may voluntarily transmit NWS, state, and local EAS messages to the 
  
51 DTV is any digital technology used to provide advanced television services such as high definition television 
programming, multiple standard definition programming streams, and other advanced features and services.  See 
Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, MM Docket No. 
87-268, Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 10968, 10970 n.1 (1996).
52 See First Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 18632-650,  19-58.
53 The Commissions EAS rules are intended to ensure that national activation of EAS would enable the President to 
communicate with the American public within ten minutes from any location at any time.  These messages must take 
priority over any other messages and preempt other messages in progress.  First Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 
18628,  8; 47 C.F.R.  11.44(a).
54 See The Emergency Alert System (EAS): An Assessment, Partnership for Public Warning Report 2004-1, at 7 and 
Appendix E (EAS Activation Statistics); see also CEA Comments at 3-4 (stating that EAS alerts most often are 
originated on a local, regional, or state level using NWR facilities and then broadcast simultaneously directly to the 
public and to EAS Participants), Radio Shack Comments at 6 (stating that NWR is, or should be, the backbone of 
EAS).  NOAA describes NWR as an "All Hazards" radio networka single source for comprehensive weather and 
emergency information.  See http://www.nws.noaa.gov/nwr/ (August 30, 2006).  
55 See http://www.nws.noaa.gov/nwr/ (March 6, 2007).  According to CEA, NWR covers 97 percent of the country.  
See CEA Comments at 4.  NWR requires a special radio receiver (that can be programmed to respond to messages 
by the type of event and location) or scanner capable of receiving the signal in the 162 MHz (VHF) public service 
band on one of seven frequencies.  See http://www.nws.noaa.gov/nwr/ (March 6, 2007).  The seven NWR 
frequencies (MHz) are: 162.400, 162.425, 162.450, 162.475, 162.500, 162.525, and 162.550.  Id.  
56 The digital protocol is known as Specific Area Message Encoding (SAME).  See The Emergency Alert System 
(EAS): An Assessment, Partnership for Public Warning Report 2004-1, at 18.  
57 See id. at 7.  In some localities, emergency managers can originate EAS alerts through NWS, through a 
broadcaster or cable operator, or through their own equipment if they have made prior arrangements that are 
documented in EAS plans.  Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
11
public.58 If they do, they must follow the Commissions Part 11 EAS rules.  In this Order, we 
find that the public interest will be served by continuing to allow these entities to voluntarily 
participate in the delivery of NWS and certain state and local messages via the existing EAS. As 
explained more fully below, however, we will enable state governors (or their designees) to 
deliver CAP-formatted EAS messages to EAS Participants on both existing and Next Generation 
EAS.  EAS Participants must then issue message-based alerts based on the information received.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Next Generation EAS 
15. In this Order, we reaffirm the obligations of todays EAS Participants to maintain 
existing EAS and establish the framework for the nations Next Generation EAS.  This Next 
Generation EAS will include new and innovative technologies and distribution systems that will 
provide increased redundancy and resiliency for the delivery of emergency alerts. We also take 
steps to ensure that the upgraded EAS will meet the needs of all Americans, including persons 
with hearing and vision disabilities and those who do not speak English.  Finally, we will 
continue to harness the benefits of existing EAS while the Next Generation EAS is developed 
and deployed.  The combination of the existing and Next Generation EAS systems will ensure 
the continuity of EAS while the Next Generation EAS is being implemented, and ensure that 
EAS alerts reach the largest number of affected people by multiple communications paths as 
quickly as possible.
16. Below, we describe the four cornerstones of the Next Generation EAS:  1) 
maintaining the existing EAS network; 2) utilizing a common messaging protocol, CAP, to be 
implemented by all EAS Participants following its adoption by FEMA; 3) incorporating new 
authentication and security requirements; and 4) fostering the deployment of new, redundant 
EAS delivery systems, including satellite, Internet, and wireline networks.
1. Maintaining Existing EAS
17. Although a Presidential alert has never been sent over the EAS, the current EAS 
network has been used for state, local, and weatherrelated emergencies.  We recognize that in 
certain emergency situations, battery-powered AM or FM receivers may be the primary source of 
emergency information for the general public.  Broadcast and cable personnel are familiar with 
current EAS equipment and are trained in its use.  In addition, it would be inadvisable to require 
immediate use of a new system until that system is fully in place and its reliability tested.  We 
therefore do not agree with those commenters who argue that the existing EAS should be wholly 
abandoned or replaced at this time.59
18. Instead, we conclude that broadcast, cable and other current EAS Participants
should maintain the existing EAS, particularly since alternative delivery mechanisms, although 
  
58 47 C.F.R.  11.55(a); see also Amendment of Part 11 of the Commissions Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert 
System, EB Docket No. 01-66, Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 4055, 4056-57,  3 (2002) (2002 Report and Order); 
1994 Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 1809,  66.
59 See, e.g., SBE Comments at 10; WTOP 10/29/04 Comments at 8.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
12
potentially more robust, have yet to be deployed.60  We recognize, however, that EAS currently 
uses a station-relay message dissemination process that lacks the flexibility and redundancy of 
certain evolving digital communications systems.61  Consequently, we also require these current 
EAS Participants to upgrade their networks to the Next Generation EAS, as discussed below, 
while maintaining existing EAS.  
19. NOAA Weather Radio.  In addition, we disagree with those commenters who 
suggest that NWR should replace the existing EAS.  We believe, however, that the NWR system 
should continue to be closely integrated with EAS.  NWR is one of the principal sources of alert 
information,62 and is likely to continue to be the primary originator of weather-based alerts.  We 
also recognize that voluntary efforts, including CEAs Public Alert Certification and Logo 
Program launched in April 2004, further enhance the value and potential of this proven 
emergency-alert delivery system.63  The record demonstrates that redundant alert-delivery 
systems will enhance the overall reach, efficacy, and reliability of the EAS as a whole.  NWR 
provides an alternative source of emergency alerts, and we expect that it will continue to be an 
important component of EAS and the overall national public alert and warning system.  We 
nevertheless caution EAS Participants that retransmit NWR alerts to ensure that such 
retransmission is consistent with our EAS rules and associated protocols.  
2. Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) for EAS 
20. In the Further Notice, the Commission sought comment on the widespread 
assertion in the record that a common messaging protocol should be adopted to permit a 
digitally-based alert or warning to be distributed simultaneously over multiple platforms.64 The 
Commission noted that the Partnership for Public Warning had endorsed the OASIS Common 
  
60 We note that (1) analog radio broadcast stations, including AM, FM, and low-power FM (LPFM) stations, 
(2) analog television broadcast stations, including Class A television (CA) and low-power TV (LPTV) stations, 
(3) analog cable systems, (4) wireless cable systems, which may consist of Broadband Radio Service (BRS), or 
Educational Broadband Service (EBS) stations, (5) direct broadcast satellite (DBS) service providers, and (6) 
SDARS service providers currently are subject to the existing EAS. 
61 See, e.g., PPW 10/27/04 Comments at 3.
62 See, e.g., EEWN Comments at 2.
63 See CEA Comments at 6-10.  CEA states that its Public Alert Technology Alliance, comprised of product 
manufacturers and government representatives working in a voluntary cooperative venture, adopted voluntary 
uniform requirements for consumer receivers that display the Public Alert logo and trigger alerts by decoding the 
entire digital data string (rather than 1050 Hz analog tones) transmitted over NWR broadcasts.  Id. at 6.  CEA states 
that this type of voluntary activity and flexible standard is more conducive than rigid FCC mandates and rules to 
maintaining state-of-the-art emergency systems at a time of significant technological change. Id. at 7, 11 n.10 (citing 
Receiver Performance Specification for Public Alert Receivers (CEA-2009), approved December 2003) (latest 
update, CEA-2009-A, was approved and published in March 2005).  According to Putkovich, Public Alert 
certified receivers currently are available from three major manufacturers, several others plan to market them, and 
plans are in progress to incorporate the AlertGuard television technology developed by Thomson (RCA) into HDTV 
systems for sale in 2007.  See Putkovich Comments at 8.  Merrell states that all Public Alert devices incorporate 
SAME, which allows the device to respond only when an alert matches the specific area(s) the user has chosen for 
alert coverage, and also provide automatic translation for all alerts into multiple language text.  See Merrell 
Comments at 2-5.    
64 Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 18652,  67.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
13
Alerting Protocol (CAP) for this purpose and that many public and private organizations 
responsible for alerts believed that CAP offered the most practical means of quickly creating an 
effective interface between emergency managers and multiple emergency alert distribution 
platforms.65 Accordingly, the Commission asked whether CAP should be adopted as the 
common messaging protocol for any future digital alert system, and particularly for EAS alerts.66
The Commission also asked whether CAP would allow simultaneous distribution to radio, 
television, and wireless media such as mobile telephones and personal digital assistants (PDAs), 
and how it would ensure uniformity of alerts across multiple platforms.67 Currently, the EAS and 
the NWS utilize the SAME68 protocol, which introduces special digital codes at the beginning 
and end of messages.  SAME provides information concerning the originator of the alert, the 
event type, the areas affected, the duration of the alert, the time the alert was issued, and the 
stations call sign.  SAME originally was developed to be transmitted over a radio medium with 
relatively simple devices receiving the message.  For the most part, it performs well for the 
existing EAS and NWR but does not fully utilize the capabilities inherent in digital 
transmission.69  
21. The need for a more robust and flexible protocol that can take full advantage of 
digital technology has long been recognized.  In 2000, the U.S. National Science and Technology 
Council issued its report, Effective Disaster Warnings, concluding that a standard method 
should be developed to collect and relay instantaneously and automatically all types of hazard 
warnings and reports locally, regionally, and nationally for input into a wide variety of 
dissemination systems.70 In 2001, more than 130 emergency managers and technologists 
initiated development of a common alert message standard.71 In 2003, this work became a part of 
the OASIS standards process72 of the Emergency Management Technical Committee.73 A year 
  
65 Id.
66 Id.
67 Id.
68 NOAA Weather Radio SAME Info, http://www.nws.noaa.gov/nwr/nwrsame.htm; Specific Area Message Encoding 
(SAME), National Weather Service Instruction 10-1712 (Feb. 12, 2007) 
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/directives/010/pd01017012b.pdf.
69 Use of a more robust and flexible digital protocol should enable EAS Participants to address this concern.
70 National Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction, Effective Disaster Warnings, p. 
25 (2000), http://www.sdr.gov/NDIS_rev_Oct27.pdf.
71 Common Alerting Protocol, v .1.0, oasis-200402-cap-core-1.0, p.3.  OASIS is a not-for-profit, international 
consortium that drives the development, convergence, and adoption of e-business standards.  OASIS  Who We Are, 
http://www.oasis-open.org/who/.
72 Common Alerting Protocol, v .1.0, oasis-200402-cap-core-1.0, p.3. 
73 The OASIS Emergency Management Technical Committee works on answering requirements for data exchange 
among emergency management, public safety, homeland security and related applications and systems.  OASIS 
Emergency Management TC, http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/emergency/charter.php.  Its membership 
currently includes DHS and the Department of Interior.  OASIS Emergency Management TC, http://www.oasis-
open.org/committees/membership.php?wg_abbrev=emergency.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
14
later, the Emergency Management Technical Committee released CAP version 1.0, which was 
revised in 2005 as CAP v. 1.1.74
22. CAP is an open, interoperable standard that incorporates a language developed 
and widely used for web documents.75  Its standardized alert message format  based on the 
World Wide Web Consortiums (W3Cs) Extensible Markup Language (XML)76  is a text-
based format that facilitates data sharing across different distribution systems.  As noted by 
various commenters, the agreed-upon XML format of CAP can be accepted by a wide variety of 
devices or systems.77  The format also permits links to voice, audio or data files, images, and 
multilingual translations of the alert, and to links providing further information.  
23. The CAP standard specifies what fields an alert message can contain and what 
information can be included in the particular fields.  A CAP alert provides fields such as message 
type, scope, incident, event information, event certainty, sender, geographic scope,78 and the time 
when an alert becomes effective and expires.79  Because CAP has standardized alert elements, 
commenters assert it will facilitate accurate and meaningful message creation80 and decrease the 
  
74 OASIS, Common Alerting Protocol v. 1.1, OASIS Standard CAP-V1.1 Section 1.2 History (October 2005),
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/15135/emergency-CAPv1.1-Corrected_DOM.pdf.
75 See Roadmap for Open ICT Ecosystems, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School, p. 6 
(2005); http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/epolicy/roadmap.pdf (defining an "open standard" as one which cannot be 
controlled by any one entity, evolves in a transparent process, is platform independent, is openly published, is 
available royalty free or at a minimal cost, and is approved through an open process); Definition of Open Standards, 
Denmark Ministry of Science, National IT and Telecom Agency  (June 2004), 
http://www.oio.dk/files/040622_Definition_of_open_standards.pdf;  NASCIO Comments at 3-4 (noting advantages 
of open standards); Harris 10/28/04 Comments at 4-5 (noting that non-proprietary standards avoid intellectual 
property issues).
76 W3C is the international consortium that develops World Wide Web standards.  See About W3C 
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/. Extensible Markup Language (XML) refers to the extensible markup language that 
commonly is used for web documents.  XML is a simple, very flexible, text format derived from SGML (ISO 8879), 
and created and maintained by W3C.  http://www.w3.org/XML/.  XML 1.0 was released in 1998; its predecessor 
dates back to 1986 (ISO 8879:1986).  There is extensive experience and expertise with XML, which has led to 
multiple other successful XML standards, including RSS, Atom, GML, and AJAX.  
77 CAP is not an Internet Protocol standard.  It is a standard that, by design, will work over any feasible transmission 
medium.  See Contra Costa 10/29/04 Comments at 10.
78 CAP also incorporates geospatial elements to permit precise geographic targeting of alerts.  For example, if a CAP 
message is used to provide an alert for an approaching, severe thunderstorm, the message could include the Federal 
Information Processing Standards (FIPS) Codes that correspond to the counties and independent cities expected to 
be affected by the storm.  EAS Participants receiving the CAP message would then be able to provide warnings to 
their customers located within those counties and cities who have customer equipment capable of receiving CAP-
formatted transmissions.  
79 CAP Standard, Sec. 3.2.  See also Filtering and Routing of Alert Messages using Common Alerting Protocol 
(CAP), Eliot Christian, USGS Slide 14 (Feb. 2005) http://www.search.gov/cap/routing.ppt.
80 TFT Comments at 3-10.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
15
potential for operator error.81  CAP also facilitates interoperability between devices, an attribute 
essential to establishing an EAS that can operate over multiple platforms.82  
24. Commenters who addressed the issue generally support the use of CAP as a 
means for standardizing emergency messages; and no parties indicated that CAP-based messages
could not be readily accepted and processed by all EAS Participants.83 The USGS notes its own 
experience using CAP, and argues that CAP is an effective content standard that can be applied 
at interfaces between senders, transmitters, and receivers of alerts covering many of the common 
natural and man-made hazard situations.84 USGS concludes that CAP should be mandatory for 
the EAS.85 NASCIO also recognizes the flexibility of CAP, noting that any EAS initiator can 
take information from a CAP-based message and translate it into any other standard for 
distribution over a particular channel, network, or technology.86 CAP also is supported by 
individuals with hearing and sight disabilities, because it enables equivalent, multiple text and 
audio messages to be sent concerning the same event to a variety of devices that are accessible to
such individuals.87
25. We note that CAP also supports capabilities for a digital signature to authenticate 
the sender and validate the integrity of the text,88 and an encryption field that enables the 
encryption of the CAP message.  An EAS initiator may encrypt, address, and otherwise secure a 
CAP alert, thus in part addressing security concerns that arise due to CAPs open text format. 89  
Further, CAP uniquely identifies each specific alert.  Finally, CAP has been implemented by 
  
81 PPW 10/25/04 Comments at 21.
82 PPW 10/25/04 Comments at 21-22.
83 See, e.g., Airit2me Comments at 4; Entergy Comments at 3 (the Federal government should adopt the CAP 
standard for use by manufacturers of devices capable of receiving digital signals); FEMA Comments at 3 (FEMA is 
aware of states concerns who have invested in their own alert and warning systems, IPAWS is intended to be fully 
interoperable with those systems using common alerting protocols); NAB Comments at 15-16; Putkovich Comments 
at 9-10; TDI Comments at 2; TIA Comments at 3; TFT Comments at 10; USGS Comments at 4-5; Wireless RERC 
Comments at 4; MSTV Reply Comments at 2; NAB Reply Comments at 1; Cellular Emergency Alert Service 
Association (CEASA) 10/20/04 Comments at 5; Contra Costa County Community Warning System (Contra 
Costa) 10/29/04 Comments at 2; National Association of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO) 10/29/04 
Comments at 3-4; PPW 10/25/04 Comments at 21; SWN 10/29/04 Comments at 2; Timm (Wisconsin SECC) 
10/28/04 Comments at 7 (the current updating of the EAS should keep in mind the incorporation of an alerting 
protocol such as CAP, which will allow the inclusion of cellular telephone and paging systems into the EAS 
network).
84 USGS Comments at 4-5.
85 Id. at 5.
86 NASCIO 10/29/04 Comments at 3-4 
87 TDI Comments at 2; Wireless RERC Comments at 4.
88 CAP v. 1.1, Sec. 3.3.2.1.
89 See http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/15135/emergency-CAPv1.1-Corrected_DOM.pdf (CAP 
1.1 Standards document, line 15).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
16
several government agencies including the USGS,90 NOAA NWS,91 and the Oregon Amber Alert 
Program.92 CAP also has been implemented in the Disaster Management Interoperability 
Services.93 Several governmental agencies, including FEMA94 and NOAA HAZCOLLECT,95 are 
testing CAP,96 and other agencies, such as the Center for Disease Control97 and the Virginia 
Department of Transportation,98 have endorsed it.  We note that the U.S. Department of Defense 
and the U.S. Department of the Interior both voted for the adoption of CAP-V1.1.99
26. We conclude that all EAS Participants will be required to accept alerts and 
warnings in the CAP format should that protocol be adopted by FEMA.100 This requirement 
  
90 USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/catalogs/; USGS Volcano 
Hazards Program, http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/; USGS Landslide Hazards Program: Advisories,  
http://landslides.usgs.gov/advisories/.  
91 NOAA National Weather Service, http://www.weather.gov/alerts/.
92 Oregon Amber Alert Program Alert Web Portal FAQs (It uses the new Department of Justice XML standards and 
the new Common Alert Protocol.) http://www.oregon.gov/OSP/AMBERALERT/FAQ.shtml.
93 DMI-Services  Training: Course 6: Lesson 2: Alerts, http://www.dmi-
services.org/includes/PhoenixTraining/06_ToolsCourse/06_02_22ToolsCAPAlert_files/frame.htm; DMI-Services: 
Documentation https://interop.cmiservices.org/documentation.jsp.  See also Presidential Initiatives: Disaster 
Management http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/egov/c-2-2-disaster.html.  (The White House website on Presidential 
Initiatives: Disaster Management states that the Disaster Management Interoperability Services was upgraded to 
incorporate CAP.  As of August 4, 2005, 1400 CAP messages had been transmitted through DMIS. The White 
House lists as a next step:  assist agencies in deploying the DMIS toolset and in implementing the capability to send 
and receive alert messages using the CAP standard.).
94 Statement of Reynold N. Hoover on Public Alert and Warning, Director, Office of National Security Coordination, 
FEMA, DHS, Before the Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention and Prediction, Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation  (July 27, 2005), http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/hoover.pdf (With that in mind, IPAWS is 
intended to be fully interoperable with those systems using common alerting protocols.).  See also FEMA Tests 
Digital Alert System, FCW (April 11, 2005) http://www.fcw.com/article88522-04-11-05-Print (FEMA test used 
CAP); Testimony of John M. Lawson, President and CEO, Association of Public Television Stations, Before the 
Senate Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention and Prediction, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
(July 27, 2005) http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/lawson.pdf (describing an APTS and FEMA Digital Emergency 
Alert System Pilot Project that employed CAP).
95 NOAA HAZCOLLECT, HazCollect:  Speeding Emergency Messages to the Public, (Sept. 30, 2005), 
http://www.weather.gov/os/hazcollect/resources/HazCollect_Intro_v2005-0930v.2.ppt.
96 See also US Department of Justice, Information Technology Initiatives, Global Justice XML Data Model 3.0.3, 
http://it.ojp.gov/jxdm/3.0.3/ (referencing CAP).
97 PHIN Preparedness: Partner Communications and Alerting Functional Requirements, Center for Disease 
Control, Version 1.0 (Apr. 2005), http://www.cdc.gov/phin/preparedness/PCA%20_RSv1.0.pdf (Partners must be 
able to send cascade communications and alerts using the PHIN specification of the Common Alerting Protocol).
98 Id.
99 See http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ballot.php?id=839.
100 See Executive Order, sections 2(a)(ii), 3(b)(iii); supra  5-7.  By adopting a requirement to accept CAP messages 
sent by FEMA, we do not intend to conclude or assume that FEMA will adopt the CAP protocol; however, should 
FEMA adopt the CAP protocol, we find that there is ample evidence in the record to support the CAP requirements 
set forth herein.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
17
applies to an EAS Participant regardless of whether the participant is utilizing existing EAS or 
the Next Generation EAS established in this Order.  Although this requirement requires action 
by FEMA, we find that adopting it now furthers the prompt development of a state-of-the-art, 
next-generation national EAS.  Significantly, many EAS Participants currently are implementing 
other revisions to their EAS systems, and they can incorporate CAP into these revisions.  
Specifically, should FEMA adopt CAP as the common alerting protocol for EAS alerts, EAS 
Participants must accept CAP-based alerts 180 days after the date that FEMA publishes the 
applicable technical standards for such CAP alerts.101  Because most commenters urge the 
Commission to adopt the CAP format, we find that EAS Participants are already aware that CAP 
will likely be adopted, and we believe that 180 days will give them adequate time to prepare to 
receive CAP alerts.  EAS Participants have been on notice since November 10, 2005, when the 
FNPRM was issued, that the EAS delivery standards might change. Thus, we find that 180 days 
will give EAS participants a reasonable period of time in which to implement changes that they 
should have been expecting for over 18 months since the FNPRM was issued. We further find 
that 180 days is reasonable in light of the significant public interest, to protect life and 
property, in implementing next generation EAS systems as soon as possible.  We also note that 
EAS Participants will have the time period between the release of this Order and FEMA action
for preparation.
  
101 See 47 C.F.R.  11.11(a).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
18
3. Authentication and Security
27. In the 2004 NPRM, the Commission noted that security and encryption were not 
the primary design criteria when EAS was developed and initially implemented, and that 
emergency managers were becoming more aware of potential vulnerabilities within the system.102
The Commission expressed concern that the EAS may be subject to unauthorized access, and 
that a legitimate EAS signal could be subject to hacking or jamming.103  Although ENDECs 
currently have the capability for password protection, it is up to each EAS Participant to 
implement the safeguard, and there is no means to monitor the extent to which EAS Participants
employ passwords.104  Additionally, when facilities are operating unattended, no one is available 
on-site to intervene should unauthorized use occur.105  Accordingly, the Commission sought 
comment on how to improve the security of EAS distribution methods, information, and 
equipment and how to ensure the security of any public warning system.106  It also sought 
comment on the authentication and verification of EAS alerts.107  Cox agrees with the FCC that 
there are legitimate concerns regarding the security of the EAS, and contends that any attacks on 
EAS or unauthorized use could be devastating.  As such, Cox urges the adoption of methods to 
keep the system secure from intentionally false control or sabotage.108  Radio stations 
WTOP(AM), WTOP-FM, and WXTR(AM) (WTOP) contend the security of EAS distribution 
channels is crucial to the system working properly.  WTOP suggests that the security of 
emergency and test messages can be improved by switching to a system which encrypts messages 
and guarantees secure delivery with password protection and confirmation of delivery.109  NAB 
urges the FCC to coordinate with FEMA and equipment manufacturers to look for technical 
solutions for ensuring the security of EAS.110  Contra Costa states that digital technology, 
particularly the use of the CAP protocol, can protect and verify the security of public warning 
communication links, and can enable the consistent and comprehensive monitoring of all kinds 
and levels of warning activity nationwide.  Contra Costa states just as the Internet Protocols 
enable various kinds of computers to work together, CAP can provide the basis for a secure 
warning internet that can leverage all our warning assets to achieve more than any single 
system can alone.111
28. We agree with commenters that all EAS Participants should authenticate the 
source of, and validate the contents of, EAS alerts.  As discussed above, CAP has the capability 
  
102 See 2004 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 15790-91,  41.
103 Id.
104 Id.  
105 Id.  
106 Id. at 15791,  41.
107 Id.
108 Cox Comments at 8. 
109 WTOP Comments at 11.
110 NAB Comments at 14-15.
111 Contra Costa 10/29/04 Comments at 10.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
19
to allow those who initiate and retransmit EAS alerts to encrypt, authenticate, and validate EAS 
alerts.  We believe that EAS Participants that configure their networks to receive CAP-formatted 
messages will be able to satisfactorily authenticate and validate EAS alerts in consultation with 
FEMA.  Accordingly, should FEMA adopt CAP as the common alerting protocol for EAS alerts, 
all EAS Participants must configure their systems to incorporate CAP security functions within 
180 days after FEMA publishes the standards for authentication and validation of CAP-formatted 
alerts.112  We expect EAS Participants to cooperate with FEMA in its efforts to develop policies, 
plans, and procedures that meet FEMAs requirements for the new delivery systems and CAP 
protocol adopted by FEMA.
4. Next Generation Distribution Systems
29. Recent experience demonstrates that natural disasters and terrorist incidents can 
adversely impact terrestrial telecommunications infrastructure.  To achieve the Commissions 
goals of enhancing the redundancy, reliability and security of EAS, we enable the use of diverse 
EAS distribution platforms.  Our actions today also will ensure that the Secretary of Homeland 
Security can implement the Presidents directive to provide as many communications pathways 
as practicable to reach the American people during crises.113
30. The development of alternative distribution systems is already underway.  For 
example, we note that the Association of Public Television Stations (APTS) has proposed a
hybrid, satellite/DTV broadcast system that was an integral part of FEMAs Digital Emergency 
Alert System (DEAS) National Capital Region Pilot.114 On July 12, 2006, FEMA and APTS 
  
112 See 47 C.F.R.  11.11(a).
113 See Executive Order, Section 2(a)(iii).  Section 3(b)(iii) of the Executive Order directs the Commission to adopt 
rules to ensure that communications systems have the capacity to transmit alerts and warnings to the public as part of 
the public alert and warning system.
114 Id. To implement the DEAS, FEMA signed a cooperative agreement with APTS to conduct a Digital Emergency 
Alert System National Capital Region Pilot Program (DEAS-NCR) to demonstrate how public televisions satellite 
infrastructure can act as a wireless datacasting network to relay alerts to cell phones, the Internet, pagers, and 
bulletin-board systems.  The purpose of the DEAS-NCR was to show that the DTV broadcast stream was sufficiently 
congestion-free that its bandwidth could support public alert systems as well as closed networks to enable public 
safety and emergency management agencies to transmit securely critical time-sensitive information.  In the pilot, data 
originating from FEMA was embedded within the PBS broadcast stream and sent over the PBS satellite system to 
the PBS stations nationwide (as well as to any radio stations, such as Primary Entry Points (PEPs), and other 
facilities set up to receive the down link).  The PBS station, in turn, then would carry the alert within its digital TV 
signal to personal computers or local area networks equipped with an inexpensive DTV tuner card and a small 
antenna, that would allow the EAS Participant to decode the alert and then send it to the public.  Local broadcasters 
and cable providers could program their ENDECs to receive a datacast alert, and thus bypass potential points of 
failure in the existing EAS by interconnecting at a more local level.  Although national in scope, the system is 
scalable to work locally, thereby enabling potentially life-saving, critical information to be disseminated to both rural 
and urban communities.  
In Phase I of the pilot project, DEAS text, voice, and video were broadcast by public television stations, and CAP 
messages were successfully relayed to cell phones, the Internet, pagers, and electronic bulletin boards.  Due to the 
success of Phase I, DHS extended the pilot program (Phase II) in order to lay the foundation for a national roll-out of 
a digitally based federal public-safety-alert system. As developed during Phase II, this national deployment is 
planned to include construction and timeline estimates, technical risk determinations, and other implementation 
(continued.)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
20
announced the successful completion of Phase II of the DEAS pilot, and that the new DEAS 
would be operational in the Gulf Coast and Atlantic regions by the end of 2006, and will be 
deployed nationally by the end of 2007.115
31. We agree with commenters that satellite-based alert distribution could be a 
valuable complement to the existing EAS station-relay distribution method.116  The vast coverage 
area of satellite signal footprints would allow immediate alerting of substantial portions of the 
country with appropriate equipment.  Satellite systems also are generally immune from natural 
disasters and therefore may provide critical redundancy in the event that terrestrial wireline or 
wireless infrastructure is compromised.  We also agree with commenters that Internet-based 
systems may enhance the resiliency of the EAS distribution network.117 The Internet is a robust, 
packet-switched network with intelligent routing,118 and is designed to provide alternative routes 
to reach almost all users.119  Moreover, the Internet is ubiquitous and can enhance the geographic 
reach of EAS.  The open design of the Internet also means that EAS applications can be designed 
to meet the specific needs of EAS without limitation by the network.
32. We conclude that the distribution architecture of the existing EAS should be 
enhanced.  The record underscores that EAS could be improved by authorizing the delivery of 
alerts through the existing EAS coupled with new redundant, distribution systems for EAS.120  
We conclude, however, that FEMA is best positioned to determine the types of additional EAS 
systems that should be accommodated by EAS Participants.121 We expect that EAS Participants
(Continued from previous page)    
options.  This system will integrate with the existing national-level EAS system, and according to APTS it could 
supplement the digital broadcast EAS as a national alert system once fully constructed.  
115 See http://www.apts.org/news/dhs_71206.cfm.  However, according to a recent project status update, the DHS 
revised the Gulf Coast and Atlantic region completion to be by the end of summer 2007, and completion of the 
Pacific and Midwest regions by the end of December 2007.  
116 See, e.g., Cox Comments at 3; APTS Comments at 4-5; State Associations Comments at 10.
117 SBE Comments at 11.  TFT notes that outlying areas, too far from high-power broadcast facilities and on the 
fringes of satellite footprints, can still avail themselves of the ubiquitous nature of the Internet to originate and 
receive EAS messages.  TFT Comments at 6-7
118 Definitions of the Internet:  47 U.S.C.  231(e); Federal Networking Council:  Definition of the Internet (1995) 
http://www.nitrd./gov/fncInternet_res.html.
119 The Internet is designed to detect obstructions to the network (i.e., congestion, destruction, or other failures), 
determine alternative routes, and deliver data with a high degree of success.
120 See, e.g., Sage Alerting Systems ENDEC Developers 10/28/04 Comments at 3 (compatibility with the existing 
EAS/WRSAME standards should be maintained and dissemination should be broadened beyond radio, TV and cable 
channels to include cell phones, satellite TV, digital radio, DARS, HDTV channels, and any medium which can 
reach the public); FEMA Comments at 2 (delivery of EAS messages should expand beyond the current universe of 
analog radio, TV, and cable); The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children 10/29/04 Comments at 1 
(supports enhancing the EAS to deliver urgent messages to all possible information pathways during crises so that 
damage to property is limited and lives are saved); Maine State Emergency Communications Committee 10/29/04 
Comments at 2 (recent technological advances, microwave, satellite, and other alternative delivery methods, can 
make the EAS system more effective); North Carolina State Emergency Communications Committee 10/29/04 
Comments at 1, 4-5 (emergency managers should extend delivery into other mediums in parallel to the current 
system).
121 See Executive Order, sections 2(a)(ii), 3(b)(iii); supra  5-7.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
21
will collaborate closely with FEMA and other governmental entities to fully implement such 
requirements.  Accordingly, should FEMA announce technical standards for any Next Generation
EAS alert delivery system, EAS Participants must configure their networks to receive CAP-
formatted alerts delivered pursuant to such delivery system, whether wireline, Internet, satellite 
or other, within 180 days after the date that FEMA announces the technical standards for such 
Next Generation EAS alert delivery.122  
  
122 See 47 C.F.R.  11.11(a).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
22
B. CAP and Next Generation EAS: Better Serving the Needs of Persons with 
Disabilities and Non-English Speakers
1. Background
33. Serving the needs of persons with disabilities.  The Commissions EAS rules 
currently require that EAS provide visual and aural messages.123 Under the rules, a visual EAS 
alert does not have to be an exact transcription of an audio alert, but must be any method of 
visual presentation which results in a legible message conveying the essential emergency 
information.124 In the Further Notice, the Commission sought comment on how it could make 
EAS alerts more accessible to persons with disabilities.125 The Commission sought comment on 
whether to require all video programming distributors subject to Part 11 to provide the same 
information in both the visual and audio versions of EAS messages, instead of only the header 
code information that EAS Participants now provide visually.126
34. A number of commenters suggest that the audio and visual formats are equally 
important and should contain the same information, especially for persons with disabilities.127  
Service providers, however, request that the Commission not require video programming 
distributors to provide the same information for visual and aural versions of emergency 
messages, unless the digital message received by the station includes sufficient information to 
generate an aural and visual message automatically.128 These commenters argue that it would be 
technically and economically infeasible for a broadcaster or other EAS Participant to provide an 
accurate simultaneous transcription of an audio EAS alert.129  A number of commenters noted 
that CAP-formatted alerts could provide the same alert in text, aural, and video formats, and 
multiple languages, thus providing broad access to the public.130
35. Serving the non-English speaking community.  In the Further Notice, the 
Commission sought comment on the issues raised in a September 20, 2005 Petition for 
  
123 47 C.F.R.  11.51.  The rules require that the national message crawl be displayed at the top of the television 
screen, where it will not interfere with other messages.  47 C.F.R.  11.51(d).
124 47 C.F.R.  73.1250(h).
125 Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 18654,  74.
126 In many cases, descriptive information will be contained in the voice message, but the text-crawl contains only 
basic facts.
127 See, e.g., AFB Comments at 3; MSTV Comments at 10-11; SBE Comments at 23-25; TDI Comments at 6-7; 
WGBH Comments at 8-9; MSTV Reply Comments at 7; TDI Reply Comments at 7; Maine SECC 10/29/04 
Comments at 2; Timm 10/28/04 Comments at 6.
128 CBA Comments at 3; NAB Comments at 10-11.
129 See, e.g., CBA Comments at 3 (very few stations have the resources to transcribe accurately and in real time); 
NAB Comments at 7-13.
130 Airit2me Comments at 5; AFB Comments at 2-3; SBE Comments at 25; TIA 10/29/04 Comments at 3; TFT 
Comments at 8-11; WBGH Comments at 9-10.  RadioShack observes that it and many other manufacturers make 
products that include connections to activate flashing lights and bed shaking devices for persons with hearing 
disabilities and voice activation for the blind. RadioShack Comments at 9; see also Putkovich Comments at 21.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
23
Immediate Interim Relief filed by the Independent Spanish Broadcasters Association, et al.131  
The Petitioners requested that the Commission significantly revise our EAS rules by expanding 
the system to provide for multilingual EAS messages.132
2. Discussion
36. Serving the needs of persons with disabilities.  President Bushs Executive Order 
mandates that the Secretary of Homeland Security include in the public alert and warning 
system the capability to alert and warn all Americans, including those with disabilities and those 
without an understanding of the English language.133 We believe that CAP could provide an 
important tool for helping to accomplish this goal.
37. CAP should facilitate the provision of functionally equivalent EAS alerts and 
warnings to persons with disabilities.134 Using CAP, the original format of warning messages 
could be converted into various formats, including text, video, and audio.135 Critical information 
graphically portrayed, scrolled, or crawled on the screen also could be accompanied by an audio 
  
131 Petition for Immediate Interim Relief, filed Sept. 20, 2005 by the Independent Spanish Broadcasters 
Association, the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ, Inc., and the Minority Media and 
Telecommunications Council.  On October 14, 2005, NAB filed an opposition to the petition.
132 The Petitioners requested the following: 
 Revise section 11.14 to provide that all NP stations air Presidential messages in both English and 
Spanish.  LP-1 stations monitoring the NP stations, and local stations monitoring the LP-1 stations 
would also air the message in English and Spanish.
 Revise section 11.18(b) to include a Local Primary Spanish (LP-S) designation, and have an LP-S 
station in each area where an LP-1 station has been designated, in each radio market with a Latino 
population of 50,000 or 5 percent of the total market population.  The LP-S station would monitor and 
rebroadcast Presidential messages and serve as the entry point for state and local authorities and the 
NWS to distribute emergency information in Spanish.
 Revise section 11.18(b) to include a Local Primary Multilingual (LP-M) designation in areas with a 
population of a language minority (not Spanish) of either 50,000 or 5 percent of the total market 
population.
 Revise section 11.52(d) to provide that at least one broadcast station in each market would monitor and 
rebroadcast emergency information carried by LP-S and LP-M stations.
 Revise section 11.52(d) to provide that if during an emergency a local LP-S or LP-M station loses its 
transmission capability, stations remaining on the air should broadcast emergency information in the 
specified language or languages (in at least part of their broadcasts) until the affected LP-S or LP-M 
station is on the air.
 The Commission should encourage all broadcasters to assist the LP-S or LP-M stations damaged 
during an emergency to return to the air as soon as possible.
133 Executive Order, section 2(a)(iv).
134 See TIA 10/29/04 Comments at 3; SBE Comments at 13, 21-22; TDI Reply Comments at 5; LogicaCMG 
10/29/04 Comments at 16; WGBH Comments at 9; Wireless RERC Comments at 4.
135 RadioShack observes that it and many other manufacturers make products that include connections to activate 
flashing lights and bed shaking devices for persons with hearing disabilities and voice activation for the blind. 
RadioShack Comments at 9; see also Putkovich Comments at 21; NAB Comments at 6; WGBH Comments at 9-10.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
24
description.136 Persons with hearing disabilities would be able to read the entire emergency 
message instead of a brief summary.  Audio and visual formats are both important and could 
contain the same information.137 Moreover, a CAP-formatted message could be converted to 
synthesized speech, as is done by NWS weather alerts, for visually impaired persons.138  
Accordingly, in this Order, we promote the delivery of audio, video, and text messages to 
persons with disabilities by requiring EAS Participants to accept CAP-formatted alerts and 
warnings, should CAP be adopted by FEMA.
38. While CAP is promising, however, it may not be the whole answer for making 
EAS alerts accessible to persons with disabilities, and it does not address the broader question of 
making emergency and public safety information available to persons with disabilities.  For 
example, Section 79.2 of the Commissions rules requires video programming distributors139 to 
make the audio portion of emergency information accessible to persons with hearing disabilities 
using closed captioning or other methods of visual presentation.140 Video programming 
distributors also must ensure that emergency information provided in the video portion of a 
regularly scheduled newscast, or a newscast that interrupts regular programming, is accessible to 
persons with visual disabilities through aural description in the main audio, such as open video 
description.141 Emergency information is defined as information about a current emergency that 
  
136 AFB Comments at 2-3; SBE Comments at 22-25.
137 SBE Comments at 25; TDI Comments at 6; WGBH Comments at 9-10; MSTV Reply Comments at 7; TDI Reply 
Comments at 7.
138 SBE Comments at 22; Dodds Comments at 2; WGBH Comments at 11.
139 See 47 C.F.R.  79.1(a)(2) (defining video programming distributors, as [a]ny television broadcast station 
licensed by the Commission and any multichannel video programming distributor as defined in  76.1000(e) of this 
chapter, and any other distributor of video programming for residential reception that delivers such programming 
directly to the home and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission); see also 47 C.F.R.  76.1000(e) (defining 
multichannel video programming distributor as an entity engaged in the business of making available for 
purchase, by subscribers or customers, multiple channels of video programming.  Such entities include, but are not 
limited to, a cable operator, a multichannel multipoint distribution service, a direct broadcast satellite service, a 
television receive-only satellite program distributor, and a satellite master antenna television system operator, as well 
as buying groups or agents of all such entities).
140 47 C.F.R.  79.2(b)(1)(i); see also 47 C.F.R.  79.1(a)(4) (defining closed captioning as the visual display of the 
audio portion of video programming); Obligation of Video Programming Distributors To Make Emergency 
Information Accessible To Persons with Hearing Disabilities Using Closed Captioning, Public Notice, DA 06-2627 
(Dec. 29, 2006) (addressing obligations of video programming distributors to make emergency information 
accessible in light of the 100% closed captioning requirement).  
141 47 C.F.R.  79.2(b)(1)(ii).  Section 713 of the Act defines video description as the insertion of audio narrated 
descriptions of a television programs key visual elements into natural pauses between the programs dialogue. 47
U.S.C.  613(g).  Video programming distributors may use this definition as guidance in meeting the requirements of 
section 79.2(b)(1)(ii).  See 47 C.F.R.  79.2(b)(1)(ii).  For example, if a map is displayed on the screen, the video 
programming distributor must provide an aural description of the geographic location encompassed by the map and 
any areas highlighted on the map in order to make the information accessible to persons with visual disabilities.  In 
addition, emergency information provided in the video portion of programming that is not a regularly scheduled 
newscast, or a newscast that interrupts regular programming, such as a crawl or scroll, must be accompanied by 
an aural tone to alert persons with vision disabilities that they should tune to another source, such as a radio, for more 
information.  See 47 C.F.R.  79.2(b)(1)(iii).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
25
is intended to further the protection of life, health, safety, and property, i.e. critical details 
regarding the emergency and how to respond to the emergency.142
39. We are issuing a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to re-examine the best 
way to make EAS and other emergency information accessible to persons with disabilities.  We 
will invite comment on: (1) presentation of the audio feed in text format, and vice-versa; (2) 
making emergency information available to various devices commonly used by persons with 
disabilities; and (3) providing emergency messages in multiple formats to meet the needs of 
persons with disabilities.
40. Serving non-English Speakers.  We also affirm our commitment that non-English 
speakers should have access to EAS alerts as soon as the simultaneous transmission of 
multilingual messages is practicable.143  We believe that the first step toward more effectively
serving non-English speakers, consistent with the Secretary of Homeland Securitys 
responsibility to enable alerting of those without an understanding of the English language144 is 
to require the use of CAP, conditional on its adoption by FEMA.  Requiring EAS Participants to 
be able to receive CAP-formatted alerts will facilitate more accurate and detailed multilingual 
alerts. At the same time, we also expect that EAS participants will simultaneously transmit
multilingual CAP-formatted messages by EAS Participants as soon as such transmission is 
practicable. For example, this could happen either as a result of the development of 
comprehensive, nation-wide Next Generation EAS under FEMAs auspices, or pursuant to the 
earlier development of CAP-based transmission systems at the state level per coordination 
between state planners and FEMA.  This requirement will ensure that the initiator of any EAS 
alert has the technological capability to deliver simultaneously messages in English and any other 
language determined to be appropriate for a given alert.  
41. The Rules we adopt today provide the groundwork for transmission of 
multilingual EAS alerts and warnings.  CAP, however, may not be a complete answer for making 
EAS alerts available to non-English speakers, and is not a comprehensive solution for making 
general emergency and public safety information available to non-English speakers.  Indeed, we 
believe that Petitioners request is broader than the formal EAS structure and raises important 
questions about the availability of emergency information to the non-English speaking audience. 
We initiate today a Further Notice to seek additional comment on these proposals.  Although we 
hope that the stakeholders will work together, under our auspices, to reach a resolution prior to 
  
142 Emergency situations in which the broadcasting of information is considered as furthering the safety of life and 
property include, but are not limited to, the following:  tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, tidal waves, earthquakes, icing 
conditions, heavy snows, widespread fires, discharge of toxic gasses, widespread power failures, industrial 
explosions, civil disorders, school closings and changes in school bus schedules resulting from such conditions, and 
warnings and watches of impending changes in weather.  See 47 C.F.R.  73.1250(a), 79.2(a)(2).   
143 Commenters recognize that EAS alerts must be available to non-English speaking people as well as people with 
visual or hearing disabilities.  See, e.g., AFB Comments at 3-4; State Associations Comments at 15-17; T-Mobile 
Comments at 17-18; Maine SECC 10/29/04 Comments at 2; SWN 10/29/04 Comments at 2; TDI 10/24/04 
Comments at 4.
144 Executive Order, section 2(a)(iv).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
26
the conclusion of our proceeding on these issues, we are prepared to issue an order addressing 
these issues within six months.145
42. In order to begin focusing on these issues quickly, we direct the Public Safety and 
Homeland Security Bureau to convene a discussion (or a series of discussions) at the 
Commission among stakeholders as soon as possible, and to place a report describing the results 
in the public docket within 30 days of release of this Order.
C. Expanding the Base of EAS Participants
1. Wireline Video Participation in EAS
a. Background 
43. Under the Commissions current EAS rules, wireline common carriers are not 
required to participate in EAS.  In the Further Notice, the Commission noted that some 
traditional telephone companies have indicated that they intend to compete with cable television 
service and DBS providers in bringing multichannel video programming service to customers 
homes through fiber optic connections.146 The Commission sought comment on whether 
Wireline Video Providers should have public alert and warning responsibilities similar to those 
of other providers subject to the EAS rules, if there are particular attributes of wireline 
technology that would make it easier (or more difficult) to deliver alerts and warnings to the 
public, and whether there are policy considerations the Commission should consider regarding 
requiring Wireline Video Providers to provide alerts and warnings.147  
b. Comments
44. Most commenters, including Wireline Video Providers, agree that Wireline Video 
Providers should be subject to the same EAS obligations as other multichannel video 
programming distributors (MVPDs).148 These commenters agree that it will be important to 
ensure that all consumers receive the benefits and protections of EAS, regardless of the 
technology used to deliver the video services. They also argue that because many consumers will 
likely use television programming services offered by Wireline Video Providers, the Commission 
should require such offers to be EAS-compliant to ensure that the greatest possible number of 
consumers is alerted in the case of an emergency.
45. Verizon states that its FiOS service already complies with the EAS obligations 
that apply to cable operators.149 AT&T asserts that it will participate in the EAS whether or not 
  
145 See also, infra, n. 230.
146 Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 18653,  70.
147 Id.
148 Verizon Comments at 2 (EAS should apply to any broadcast video services carried over FTTP and other 
advanced broadband networks); Letter to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, from Glenn Reynolds, Vice President-
Regulatory, BellSouth, at 2 (filed April 20, 2006) (BellSouth is fully supportive of applying equivalent EAS 
obligations on all multi-channel video providers, regardless of the platform used.); BellSouth Reply Comments at 
4); NCTA Comments at 8-11 (telephone companies providing video services should be subject to the EAS rules 
applicable to cable operators); TDI Reply Comments at 6 (telco-delivered video and multi-channel video service 
providers should have the same EAS obligations).
149 Verizon Comments at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
27
Commission rules mandate it.150 AT&T argues, however, that only a limited set of EAS system 
receivers provide alert information in an IP format and that video vendors are not technically 
capable of routing EAS messages to the correct end user.  AT&T states that it is developing an 
IPTV-specific EAS solution for non-broadcast channels, and is working on an interface between 
EAS equipment and IPTV middleware.151  Thus, it requests that no deadlines for non-cable-
operator EAS compliance be set before June 30, 2008, and that rules do not unduly restrict 
how IP service providers distribute and display information.152
c. Discussion
46. We agree with commenters that Wireline Video Providers should be considered 
Participants under our EAS rules.  The EAS plays a critical role in providing vital public safety 
information.  The long-term resilience of the EAS could be significantly increased by careful 
implementation that could better accommodate, and even harness, the innate flexibility of IP-
based networks that can route around damaged nodes.  Moreover, a viewers reasonable 
expectation regarding the availability of alerts over television programming is identical, whether 
the programming is over-the-air broadcasting, cable, DBS, or a new wireline video service.  By 
adopting a technologically neutral EAS obligation today, the Commission is enabling these 
emerging service providers to integrate EAS at an early developmental stage.
47. Under section 624(g) of the Act and the Commissions EAS regulations, providers 
of cable systems must participate in EAS.153 Section 624(g) of the Act 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 in subpart 
G of part 73, title 47, Code of Federal Regulations.154 The Commission imposed EAS 
regulations on cable operators pursuant to this mandate in 1994, concluding that cable is 
invaluable in the dissemination of information during emergencies.155 The term cable 
operator means a person who provides cable service over a cable system,156 including a 
facility of a common carrier which is subject, in whole or in part, to the provisions of title II of 
this Act  to the extent such facility is used in the transmission of video programming directly 
to subscribers, unless the extent of such use is solely to provide interactive on-demand 
  
150 AT&T Comments at 2-4.
151 Id. at 5-6.  For local broadcasts, AT&T states that it will pass through all EAS alerts (local and national) 
provided by local broadcast channel feeds.  AT&T also states it would pass through national alerts transmitted by 
cable services, but argues that layering EAS alerts on top of local broadcast feeds likely would obscure or interfere 
with the information being provided.  
152 Id. at 6; Letter to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, from Thomas J. Hughes, Vice President-Federal 
Regulatory, AT&T Services Inc. (filed April 6, 2007) (AT&T April 6, 2007 Letter).
153 47 U.S.C.  544(g).
154 Id.
155 1994 Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 1806,  57.
156 47 U.S.C.  522(5); see id. at  522(6) (defining a cable service as the one-way transmission to subscribers of 
 video programming  and subscriber interaction, if any, which is required for the selection or use of such video 
programming ), 522(7) (defining a cable system as a facility  designed to provide cable service).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
28
services.157 Thus, section 624(g) expressly authorizes the imposition of EAS requirements on 
Wireline Video Providers to the extent that they qualify as cable operators under the Act.
48. To the extent that Wireline Video Providers do not qualify as cable operators 
under the Act, we require that they participate in EAS pursuant to our Title I ancillary jurisdiction
and in connection with our specific responsibilities under sections 624(g) and 706.158  As a general 
matter, the Commission has discretion to use ancillary jurisdiction when the Commission has Title I 
subject matter jurisdiction over the service and the assertion of jurisdiction is reasonably ancillary to the 
effective performance of [its] various responsibilities.159  Wireline Video Providers fall within the 
scope of the Commissions jurisdiction because they provide interstate . . . communication by 
wire.160  At least some of their services involve transmission across state lines, meeting the 
definition of interstate communication,161 and they are wire communication, which is 
transmission of . . . pictures . . . and sounds . . . by aid of wire, cable, or other like 
connection.162 Thus, the Commission has subject matter jurisdiction over these services.  We 
also find that imposing an EAS requirement is reasonably ancillary to the effective performance 
of our responsibilities.163  Wireline Video Providers participation in the EAS will advance the 
animating purpose of section 624(g) by ensuring that their video subscribers have access to the 
same emergency information as broadcast and cable television viewers.164 Indeed, we believe 
that their EAS participation is necessary to preserve and advance the goals of section 624(g), as 
Wireline Video Providers offer competitive alternatives to the video programming available 
through broadcast and cable television, and are likely to reach increasingly large portions of the 
American public as they deploy their services.165 Moreover, requiring Wireline Video Providers
to participate in EAS also will further our core public safety mission under Title I, which requires 
us to take steps to promot[e] safety of life and property,166 and section 706, and is consistent 
with prior Commission actions.  Accordingly, we conclude that we have ancillary jurisdiction to 
require even those Wireline Video Providers that may not be cable operators under the Act to 
participate in EAS.
  
157 Id. at  522(7)(C); see id. at  153(10) (defining common carrier).
158 47 U.S.C.  151, 152(a), 154(i), 154(o), 544(g), 606. 
159 See United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157, 178 (1968); IP-Enabled Services, First Report and 
Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 10245, 10261, 27 & n.87 (2005) (VoIP 911 Order) (citing 
additional precedent and authority).
160 47 U.S.C.  152(a).  
161 47 U.S.C.  153(22).
162 47 U.S.C.  153(52).
163 See VoIP 911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10262,  29.
164 See 47 U.S.C.  544(g); U.S. v. Midwest Video Corp., 406 U.S. 649, 667-68 (1972) (cable regulation was 
reasonably ancillary to the Commissions statutory responsibilities where it would further the achievement of long-
established regulatory goals in the field of television broadcasting).
165 See 1994 Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 1806,  57 (imposing EAS obligations on cable systems because 
cable had become an invaluable link in the dissemination of information during emergencies in light of their high 
penetration levels).
166 47 U.S.C.  151.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
29
49. As a policy matter, we believe that the reasonable expectations of viewers should 
guide our efforts to encourage the development of a more comprehensive EAS system.  We 
reaffirm that our long-term goal is to incorporate as many communications technologies as 
possible into a comprehensive, flexible, and redundant system to deliver EAS alerts quickly to 
the largest number of consumers.
50. Wireline Video Providers should be subject to the same EAS requirements as 
providers of Digital Cable Systems.167 We therefore amend our EAS rules to specifically include 
Wireline Video Providers. Wireline Video Providers are EAS Participants, however, only to the 
extent they provide video services; our EAS rules do not impose mandatory EAS obligations on 
wireline telephone companies providing traditional landline telephone services at this time.168
2. Wireless Participation in EAS
a. Background
51. In the Further Notice, the Commission noted that wireless devices are used to 
reach the American public quickly and efficiently.169 The Commission specifically noted the 
participation of the wireless industry in FEMAs DEAS pilot projects and asked what further 
steps it should take to facilitate wireless provision of EAS alerts, including whether to require 
wireless carriers to provide emergency alerts.170  It also noted that commenters to the 2004 NPRM
had identified technologies that would enable wireless handsets to receive EAS alerts and 
requested comment on these and other approaches to wireless alert and warning.171 The 
Commission directed commenters to address the extent to which each approach would permit the 
use of a common messaging protocol and whether handsets would have to be replaced.  
Numerous parties responded to these and related questions specified in the Further Notice, 
resulting in a well-developed record.  
b. Discussion
52. As discussed in paragraph 8 above, on October 13, 2006, the President signed the 
WARN Act into law.  Because the WARN Act directs the Commission to initiate a rulemaking 
regarding the establishment of an alerting system for commercial mobile service (CMS) 
providers that voluntarily elect to transmit emergency alerts, and the schedule set by the WARN 
  
167 47 C.F.R.  11.51(p)(1)-(3).
168 The current wireline voice networks are not suited for EAS.  Verizon Comments at 3 (Data and voice services 
are point-to-point or circuit-switched services that, by their very nature, are not well situated for broadcasting 
emergency notifications on a wide scale.); see also Letter to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC,  from Paul 
Brigner, Executive Director, Verizon Regulatory, Attachment at 4 (filed Aug. 9, 2006) (PSTN is engineered to 
facilitate a [c]ommunication path  between specific nodes,  to include concentration, but avoid blockage, and 
to handle typical peaks in traffic (e.g., Mothers Day), and is [s]ubject to overload and failure under extreme 
calling volumes.).
169 Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 18653,  69.  
170 Id.
171 Id.  Participating wireless industry organizations included Cingular, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless, 
CTIA, and USA Mobility, among others.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
30
Act precludes initiation of such rulemaking until a later date, we do not address commercial 
wireless carrier participation in EAS in this Order.
D. State-Level and Geographically Targeted EAS Alerts
1. Background
53. EAS Participants currently have the discretion whether to receive and retransmit 
alerts from state and local EAS entities,172 and we applaud the numerous entities that have chosen 
to serve the public by voluntarily participating in state and local EAS activations.173  In the 
Further Notice, the Commission acknowledged the essential role that state and local 
governments play in providing emergency information to the public,174 and specifically noted the 
close nexus between state and local alerting and federal efforts to provide disaster relief.  The 
Commission observed that the public interest may be served by affording state governors the 
ability to disseminate emergency information via EAS facilities, and sought comment on whether 
EAS Participants should be required to transmit EAS messages delivered by the governor of any 
state in which they provide service.175
54. As many commenters have noted, nearly all emergencies affect regional, state or 
smaller areas.176 Although EAS is frequently used to provide the public vital localized weather-
related announcements (such as tornado warnings), it generally has not been used by states to 
formally provide the public state-wide EAS alerts regarding emergencies such as natural disasters 
or terrorism incidents.  For example, during Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma, and Rita, broadcasters 
provided localized emergency information to the public, while none of the affected state 
governors formally activated EAS to provide the public evacuation, shelter or other critical 
information.177 We believe that, consistent with the Commissions fundamental mandate to 
promote the safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications,178 we 
should go further to encourage and facilitate state use of the EAS network.
2. Discussion
a. Receipt of State-Level Messages
55. We believe that voluntary participation by cable and broadcast EAS Participants 
in accommodating state and local level alerting in the existing EAS has been generally 
successful.  Nevertheless, we conclude there are compelling policy reasons to order EAS 
Participants to receive CAP-formatted EAS alerts activated by state governors or their designees. 
  
172 See 47 C.F.R.  11.41(b)(2).
173 If any entity chooses to participate in state and local EAS activations, it must comply with the Commission's Part 
11 EAS rules.
174 Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 18654,  73.
175 Id. The Commission also asked whether, if it were to require carriage of state-level alerts, it should adopt an 
additional originator code for state governors in section 11.31(d) of the Commissions rules.  Id.
176 To date, the EAS has not been used to deliver a Presidential message to the American public.
177 Hurricane Katrina NPRM at Appendix B, Report and Recommendations to the Federal Communications 
Commission, p. 28.
178 47 U.S.C.  151.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
31
First, we again note that EAS use to date has been overwhelmingly related to weather and state 
and local alerts.179 We also believe that states will be more inclined to deploy the necessary 
resources to upgrade to Next Generation EAS, including the ability to simultaneously transmit 
multiple and differentiated CAP-formatted messages, if the states have a particular  and FCC-
enforceable  stake in the EAS during state and local emergencies. We conclude, therefore, that 
all EAS Participants within a state180 are required to be prepared to receive state-level messages 
delivered to the participant by the states governor (or the governors designee) within 180 days 
from the date FEMA adopts CAP, so long as such delivery is explicitly described in a state EAS 
plan that is submitted to and approved by the Commission.   In addition, we believe that other 
public officials may, in appropriate circumstances, activate EAS alerts.  We seek comment in the 
attached Further Notice about which officials should be permitted to activate EAS alerts and 
under what circumstances.
56. We recognize that requiring EAS Participants to receive emergency alerts directly 
from state political subdivisions, such as counties and cities, could be unduly complex and costly 
and would create the potential for some alerts to reach those who may not be affected by a 
particular emergency.  Accordingly, we will only require EAS Participants to receive CAP-
formatted EAS messages delivered to them by a state governor (or the governors designee), or 
by FEMA (or its designee) on behalf of a state.181 We find that requiring EAS Participants to 
receive CAP-formatted EAS messages delivered by a state governor of any state in which they 
provide service falls within the scope of our Title I subject matter jurisdiction as well as our 
public interest authority to grant licenses for radio communication under Title III of the Act.  
[P]romoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication is a 
core mission of the FCC under Title I,182 Title III authorizes the FCC to grant radio licenses in the 
public interest,183 and the Commission is authorized to make such rules and regulations . . . as 
may be necessary in the execution of its functions, and to [m]ake such rules and regulations . . . 
not inconsistent with law, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act . . . 184  
Developing and maintaining an effective, reliable, integrated, flexible, and comprehensive EAS 
system is a fundamental and longstanding FCC mission under the Communications Act.  
57. Requiring EAS Participants to receive state-level alerts delivered pursuant to, and 
upon adoption by FEMA of CAP advances the Commissions policy objectives and serves the 
public interest by ensuring the ability of state governors to disseminate emergency information 
  
179  See supra  14 n. 58. 
180 As explained below, this requirement does not apply to SDARs and DBS providers.
181 The Mayor of the District of Columbia, as well as the Governors of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam will also have 
this capability.  Accord 47 U.S.C.  153(40) (the term state includes the District of Columbia and the Territories 
and possessions).   
182 47 U.S.C.  151.
183 Id. at  301, 307(a), 309(a).
184 Id. at  154(i), 303(r).  See also id. at  154(o) (requiring the Commission, [f]or the purpose of obtaining 
maximum effectiveness from the use of radio and wire communications in connection with safety of life and 
property, to study methods of obtaining the cooperation and coordination of these systems.).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
32
via EAS facilities.  State governments play an essential role in providing emergency information 
to the public.  The Commissions EAS regulations always have accounted for the importance of 
state-level alerts, but we now conclude that mandating receipt of state-level EAS messages will 
further our core public safety mission.  
58. Exercising ancillary jurisdiction to require EAS participants to receive messages
delivered to them by a state governor also furthers other statutory goals.  Section 615 requires the 
Commission to encourage and support efforts by States to deploy comprehensive end-to-end 
emergency communications infrastructure and programs,185 while 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. Commission authority to regulate participation by cable systems in 
the emergency alerting process stems primarily from section 624(g) of the Act.186 That provision 
requires the Commission to ensure that cable viewers are afforded the same access to emergency 
communications as broadcast viewers and listeners.  Additionally, the Americans with 
Disabilities Act strives to make all facets of our society fully accessible to individuals with 
disabilities.187 Finally, in light of the Presidents 2006 Executive Order, which directs the 
Commission to adopt rules to ensure that communications systems have the capacity to transmit 
alerts and warnings to the public as part of the public alert and warning system, we note that our 
action today is consistent with that Presidential directive as well as with emergency preparedness 
goals expressed by Congress in other statutes.188
59. Accordingly, we reject as without merit NABs argument that the Commission 
lacks authority to mandate participation in state-level EAS alerts.  NAB points out that section 
706 concerns Presidential communications, and the executive orders delegating authority to the 
FCC pursuant to section 706 largely concern the development of a national-level 
communications capability to serve Presidential needs, rather than state or local needs.189 Section 
706 is not the only source of FCC authority to impose EAS requirements, however.  The 
Commissions core public safety mission under Title I is not limited to national emergencies,190
  
185 47 U.S.C.  615 (support for universal emergency telephone number).  While generally supporting our subject 
matter jurisdiction in this area, we acknowledge that nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize or 
require the Commission to impose obligations or costs on any person.  Id.  
186 47 U.S.C.  544(g).   
187 See also Individuals with Disabilities in Emergency Preparedness, Exec. Order No. 13347, 69 Fed. Reg. 44,573 
(2004).  
188 The Congress recognizes that the organizational structure established jointly by the Federal Government and the 
States and their political subdivisions for emergency preparedness purposes can be effectively utilized to provide 
relief and assistance to people in areas of the United States struck by a hazard. The Federal Government shall 
provide necessary direction, coordination, and guidance, and shall provide necessary assistance, as authorized in this 
subchapter so that a comprehensive emergency preparedness system exists for all hazards.  42 USCA  5195 
(Declaration of Policy).  
189 See Joint Comments of the National Association of Broadcasters and the Association for Maximum Television 
Service, Inc. in EB Docket No. 04-296 at 25-27 (filed Oct. 29, 2004) (NAB Comments).
190 See 47 U.S.C.  152(a) (establishing the Commission to regulate interstate and foreign communications for the 
purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
33
nor is our Title III authority to grant radio licenses in the public interest so limited.191 Indeed, the 
Executive Order broadly affirms that [i]t is the policy of the United States to have an effective, 
reliable, integrated, flexible, and comprehensive system to alert and warn the American people  
, taking appropriate account of  all levels of government in our Federal system 192 We 
could not ensure a comprehensive system without taking state governments into account.  The 
FCCs past reliance on voluntary state-level EAS participation reflects a policy judgment, rather 
than a lack of authority, as NAB suggests.  
60. NAB also argues that the Commission cannot rely on section 1 because requiring 
state-level EAS participation implicates programming content.  The only support that NAB offers 
for this argument is the D.C. Circuits statement in Motion Picture Assn of America, Inc. v. FCC
that [o]ne of the reasons why  1 has not been construed to allow the FCC to regulate 
programming content is because such regulations invariably raise First Amendment issues.193  
NABs reliance on this statement is misplaced.  In the MPAA decision, the Commission was 
relying on Title I alone to regulate programming content in the face of a statutory provision 
regarding video descriptions that the court interpreted as limiting FCC authority.194 Here, in 
contrast, we rely on Title III as well as Title I to mandate the carriage of emergency information.  
Requiring the carriage of emergency information also is a longstanding function of the 
Commission.  NAB fails to explain how requiring state-level EAS participation implicates 
programming content in a manner different from the longstanding requirement of national-level 
EAS participation, which NAB does not challenge.
61. In addition to the source of our legal authority to require participation in state-
level EAS, we also must consider the facilities and architecture of the various EAS Participants 
in determining how best to implement a state-level EAS requirement.  We note that the existing 
EAS network architecture is based on a broadcast model of localized receipt and distribution by 
radio, television, and cable service providers using ENDEC units situated throughout their 
service areas.  We recognize that certain other EAS Participants may have organized their service 
infrastructure on a national, not regional, basis.  For example, the Commission recognized in the 
First Report and Order that SDARS is by nature a national service and that as a result the 
development of methods to ensure receipt of state and local alerts by SDARS licensees is likely 
to be challenging.195 Requiring these carriers to establish monitoring capability in every state 
  
191 Id. at  301, 307(a), 309(a).
192 Executive Order, section 1 (emphasis added).  
193 Motion Picture Assn of America, Inc.  v. FCC, 309 F.3d 796, 805 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (MPAA).  NAB erroneously 
attributes this quote to the Supreme Court in Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 651 (1994).  
See NAB Comments at 30.
194 See MPAA, 309 F.3d at 804 (Section 1 does not address the content of the programs with which accessibility is 
to be ensured.).  NABs contention that mandating state-level EAS participation contravenes section 4(o) of the Act 
is specious.  NAB Comments at 29.  Whereas the MPAA decision on which NAB relies concerned section 713 of the 
Act, which Congress had recently adopted and which the Court interpreted as withholding authority under title I, 
section 4 of the Act enumerates various functions of the agency and has long co-existed with the FCCs regulatory 
authority over EAS.  See NAB Comments at 28, citing MPAA, 309 F.3d at 807 (concurring opinion of Henderson, 
J.).   
195 First Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 18643-44,  46.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
34
where they do business could prove to be unduly burdensome.  Satellite carriers, in particular, 
have expressed a need for a single receive point for EAS alerts that would complement their 
organizational structure.
62. We do not require SDARs and DBS providers to accommodate state-level alerts 
given the national nature of their broadcast area.  We note that SDARS and DBS cannot 
accommodate state-level alerts at present and might not be able to do so even after the full 
implementation of Next Generation EAS. In the United States, there are two licensed SDARS 
operators: Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc. (Sirius) and XM Radio, Inc. (XM).196 Both licensees 
transmit their programming via satellite directly to subscribers receivers on a nationwide 
basis.197 In the First Report and Order, the Commission required the SDARS licensees to 
transmit national level EAS messages on all channels on their systems.198 In the Further Notice, 
the Commission sought comment on how technologies like SDARS, which are designed to 
receive and deliver national programming, could deliver state and local alerts. 199  Although some 
potential, developing functionalities may enable SDARS to support geo-targeting, such as state-
level alerts, in the future, XM expressed concerns that its current system cannot support 
geographical targeting of even state-level alerts to affected subscribers.200 XM states that there 
are two impediments for SDARS to transmit state or local alerts -- a satellite radio provider does 
not have an ENDEC unit located in every area where a local alert might originate, and a satellite 
radio provider's programming reaches subscribers nationwide.201 Because SDARS providers face 
technical difficulties in distributing even state-level alerts to their subscribers, we will not at this 
time require SDARS to provide geographically-targeted alerts, including state-level alerts.
63. Likewise, DBS satellite service providers, such as EchoStar (Dish Network) and 
DIRECTV, transmit video programming on a nationwide basis to subscribers over a wide area.  
DIRECTV and PanAmSat state that currently DBS systems cannot distribute state and local 
alerts without interrupting programming across a wide area.202 DIRECTV also states that its 
system currently does not have the capability to receive, sort, and disseminate state and local 
EAS messages only to the subscribers in the affected areas.203  Because DBS providers also face 
technical difficulties in distributing alerts to portions of their subscribers, we will not at this time 
require DBS to provide geographically-targeted alerts, including state-level alerts.   
  
196 SDARS is commonly known as satellite radio.
197 First Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 18639-640,  40.
198 Id. at 18641-42,  43.
199 Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 18652-53,  68.  
200 See, e.g., June 9, 2006 ex parte meeting with Anthony Masiello, Senior Vice President, Broadcast Operations, 
and John Archer, Vice President, Operations, XM Radio, Inc.
201 XM Comments at 4.
202 DIRECTV Comments at 2; PanAmSat Comments at 5-6.
203 DIRECTV Comments at 2.  DIRECTV already provides state and local emergency information to many 
subscribers by retransmitting state and local alerts aired by local television broadcast stations in over 140 markets 
where it provides local-into-local service.  Id. at 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
35
b. Geographically Targeted Alerts at Less than State-Level
64. Although we are limiting the requirement that EAS Participants receive state level 
messages to messages received from state governors (or their designees) pursuant to CAP, we do 
not seek to restrict state use of the EAS network to only emergency messages that require 
statewide distribution.  A governor could, for example, determine that certain emergencies 
warrant use of the EAS network to deliver a geographically-targeted alert to particular regions.  
Employing CAP will facilitate such geo-targeting, at least in connection with some technologies. 
Accordingly, we also require EAS Participants to deliver emergency alerts to areas smaller than 
a state.  In order to transmit such targeted alerts, however, EAS Participants must be provided 
with CAP-formatted messages containing appropriate codes.204 Further, EAS Participants may 
comply with this requirement by utilizing geographic-specific alerts such as subscripts utilizing 
localized information.  Expanding our state-level alert transmission requirement to include 
geographically targeted alerts will afford each state governor the ability to determine the types 
and geographic scope of emergency alerts provided to residents via the EAS network, in 
coordination with the ability of EAS Participants in his or her state to accommodate such alerts. 
Importantly, however, in adopting this requirement, we note that terrestrial broadcasters may not 
presently have the technical ability to restrict delivery of a targeted alert solely to the affected 
portion of their service area.  This type of restriction is not necessary in order to comply with the 
requirements established in this Order.205
E. Coordination with State and Local Governments
1. Background
65. State and local participation in the EAS is not currently required by the 
Commissions rules.  Nevertheless, all states, the District of Columbia, as well as many local 
jurisdictions, have elected to participate in the EAS to varying degrees.  In order to participate in 
the EAS, entities must file an EAS plan with the Commission for review and approval prior to 
implementation to ensure that they are consistent with national plans, FCC regulations, and EAS 
operation.206 In the 2004 NPRM, the Commission noted the importance of state and local EAS 
plans and requested comment on whether to require periodic updating and review of these 
plans.207 In the Further Notice, the Commission reiterated this request and also asked whether it 
should require state and local entities to notify the Commission of any revisions to their EAS 
plans or their EAS designations (for example, NP, LP1, LP2, SR, and LR).208 The Commission 
  
204 CAP incorporates geospatial elements to permit precise geographic targeting of alerts.  For example, a CAP-
formatted message could include the Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) Codes that correspond to the 
counties and independent cities expected to be affected by a storm.
205 Thus, to the extent that there is a tornado warning for Gaithersburg, MD, it would be acceptable for a station to 
broadcast the alert in the entire D.C. Metropolitan area.
206 Section 11.21 of the Commissions rules states that EAS plans must be reviewed and approved by the Director, 
Office of Homeland Security, Enforcement Bureau [now, Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau], prior 
to implementation to ensure that they are consistent with national plans, FCC regulations, and EAS operation.  47 
C.F.R.  11.21.  
207 2004 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 15784,  25.
208 Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 18654,  73.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
36
also inquired whether it should require state and local entities to annually confirm their plans and 
designations.209
2. Discussion
66. For nearly half a century, the Commission has encouraged state and local 
participation in the EAS (and its predecessor, the EBS), and we take additional steps today in this 
Order that will ensure the effective and efficient participation by states and local jurisdictions in 
the EAS.  We note that the SECCs, industry participants, and state and local officials have 
worked closely with Commission staff to ensure the efficacy of the EAS, resulting in EAS plans 
for all 50 states.210 The Commission has reviewed and approved EAS plans for a number of
states,211 and continues to have a cooperative, highly effective relationship with the SECCs. 212
67. As a result of the actions we take today to ensure that state governors have a 
robust and reliable EAS network at their disposal, states will likely need to revise their EAS 
plans to specify how and what types of EAS alerts they will transmit to EAS Participants.  Such 
information will enable the Commission, FEMA, affected EAS Participants, and other interested 
parties to ensure that these plans are implemented successfully.  While we do not dictate specific 
plan revisions other than those set forth herein for implementing mandatory state-level alerts, we 
encourage states to include information regarding redundant distribution of EAS alerts.  Since 
state EAS plans will be required to contain information concerning our new requirement that 
EAS Participants must distribute EAS alerts delivered by state governors, plans should specify 
how the governors CAP-formatted EAS messages will be transmitted to all EAS Participants
who provide services in the state.  We also encourage states to submit an electronic data file 
specifying monitoring assignments and the paths for the Emergency Action Notification (EAN) 
from the NP to each station in their plans.  We believe that such an electronic submission would 
facilitate the Commissions revision of the EAS Map Book required under the EAS rules.213  
We also urge states to provide detailed information identifying the monitored and monitoring 
broadcast stations.
  
209 Id.
210 The Emergency Alert Systems (EAS): An Assessment, Partnership for Public Warning, February 2004, PPW 
Report 2004-1, pg. 52.
211 See www.fcc.gov/pshs/eas/Welcome.html.
212 Commenters, including broadcasters and SECCs, support a mandatory state EAS plan filing requirement. See, 
e.g., AFB 10/29/04 Comments at 2 (every state and municipality should adopt an EAS plan); California Broadcasters 
Assoc. 11/10/04 Comments at 12; ComLabs, Inc. 10/29/04 Comments at 8; Hearst-Argyle Television 10/29/04 
Comments at 3-5 (all states would be required to file EAS plans and update them at least once every five years; 
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 10/29/04 Comments at 5; New Hampshire SECC 10/27/04 
Comments at 5; NC Association of Broadcasters 10/29/04 Comments at 9; Partnership for Public Warning 10/25/04 
Comments at 4); State of Ohio Emergency Management Agency 10/27/04 Comments at 2; TFT 10/22/04 Comments 
at 6; Thomas Newell 10/29/04 Comments at 2; WTOP 10/29/04 Comments at 6.  In addition, several commenters 
filed comments to the FNPRM recommending mandatory state plans.  See, e.g., Wireless RERC Comments at 9; 
NPSTC Comments at 6 (no entity is responsible for ensuring that every state adopts a plan); SBE Comments at 19-
20.
213 See 47 C.F.R.  11.21(c).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
37
68. In order to ensure that the Commission has sufficient notice of revised EAS plans, 
we will require state and local entities to file modified plans with the Commission at least 90 
days before the effective date of any revision to their EAS plans or their EAS designations.  In 
addition, we will require state and local entities to annually confirm their plans and designations.
69. We also agree with commenters and the specific recommendation of the 
Independent Panel that the Commission should proactively provide EAS training to interested 
parties. 214 We agree with Contra Costa that education to public safety and citizens is critical in 
making any type of infrastructure successful.215 We also believe that the Alaska Broadcasters 
Association and the State Emergency Communications Committee (Joint Parties) in our EAS 
proceeding are correct in recommending that training be provided for emergency managers as 
well as subject broadcasters, cable systems and other media operators.216  We take particular note
of the argument of the Ohio Association of Broadcasters that proper training (and retraining) is a 
critical component of EAS, and supports training programs at the local level.  OAB believes the 
Federal government also should be responsible for providing guidance to ensure that an 
appropriate minimum level of training of emergency management personnel is provided.  
According to OAB, a national training standard would ensure that training of persons who 
administer and activate EAS is uniform throughout local communities, states, and among 
federal, state and local government agencies.217  Accordingly, we hereby instruct the 
Commissions Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to coordinate with FEMA on the 
appropriate requirements for and resources to conduct EAS training programs to ensure states 
and other interested parties can implement the Next Generation EAS.
F. Assessing EAS Operation
70. In the Further Notice, we asked whether performance standards are necessary to 
ensure that Next Generation technologies deliver alerts to the American public in a timely and 
accurate fashion.218 We noted that proposed standards could include the length of time it takes to 
receive a message and the accuracy of the message.219
71. It is vital that the EAS operates as designed in an emergency.  We intend to 
examine several potential mechanisms to ensure that is the case.  In the Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, we seek comment on several options, including: (1) additional testing; (2) 
station certification of compliance; and (3) assessments of EAS performance after an alert has 
  
214 Some commenters have suggested that the Commission develop training programs and model state plans in 
conjunction with DHS and the Media Security and Reliability Council (MSRC).  See, e.g., SBE Comments at 19-
21 (training sessions for emergency managers and broadcasters); NPSTC Comments at 7 (implementation of 
MSRCs recommendations); State Associations Comments at 14 (educate state and local emergency management); 
NYC Comments at 4 (training programs); State of Ohio Emergency Management Agency 10/27/04 Comments at 5 
(recommending training).
215 Contra Costa 10/29/04 Comments at 3.
216 Joint Parties 11/1/04 Comments at 5.  
217 OAB Comments at 12-13.
218 Further Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 18654,  72. 
219 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
38
been triggered.  We will revisit the issue of performance standards if it appears that they are 
warranted.  
.
IV. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING220
72. Non-English Speakers.  We recognize the need for all Americans  including 
those whose primary language is not English  to be alerted in the event of an emergency.  We 
therefore seek comment on how non-English speakers may best be served by national, state and 
local EAS.  In particular, we invite comment on how localities with non-English speakers should 
be identified.  In which markets should special emergency alert rules apply? As MMTC et al. 
propose, should state and local EAS plans designate a Local Primary Multilingual station to 
transmit emergency information the relevant foreign language in local areas where a substantial 
proportion of the population has a fluency in a language other than English?221 How should we 
quantify the substantial proportion?  Should at least one broadcast station in every market, or 
some subset of markets, be required to monitor and rebroadcast emergency information carried 
by a Local Primary Multilingual station.  And, should stations that remain on the air during an 
emergency be required to broadcast emergency information in the relevant foreign language to 
the extent that the Local Primary Multilingual station loses transmission capability. What 
criteria should the originator of an EAS message use in determining which languages to require 
EAS Participants to transmit?  Should more than two languages be transmitted in certain areas?  
We seek comments on the technical, economic, practical, and legal issues, including the 
Commissions authority, involved in making emergency information accessible to persons whose 
primary language is not English. We would especially welcome comments on state-level or other 
efforts designed to address these issues. We note, for example, that Florida has implemented a 
program to promote the provision of emergency information to non-English speakers in that 
state, and that California and Texas have addressed the issue in their EAS plans filed with this 
Commission.222  We direct the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to convene a 
meeting  or series of meetings  as soon as possible concerning EAS as it relates to the needs of
non-English speakers.  The Bureau should thereafter submit into the record a progress report on 
these discussions within 30 days of this Orders release.
73. Persons with Disabilities. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking we 
reexamine the best way to make EAS and other emergency information accessible to persons 
with disabilities.  We request comments on this subject, including, but not necessarily limited to 
the following key issues: (1) presentation of the audio feed in text format, and vice-versa; (2) 
  
220 Given the importance of these issues, we intend to issue an order addressing the issues set forth below within six 
months.
221 MMTC et. al at 4.
222 Written Statement of Mr. C. Patrick Roberts, President of the Florida Association of Broadcasters, On the 
Lifesaving Role of Accurate Hurricane Predication, Before the Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention and Prediction 
of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transpiration, United States Senate, at 3, 4, 5, 11 (Sept. 20, 2005), 
available at http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/roberts.pdf.  California EAS Plan, at 7 (revised July 2002); Texas EAS 
Plan,at 5 (revised March 2004).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
39
making emergency information available to various devices commonly used by persons with 
disabilities; and (3) providing emergency messages in multiple formats to meet the needs of 
persons with disabilities. We also seek comment on the interaction between our Part 11 rules and 
section 79.2 of our rules.  We welcome comments on the technical, economic, practical, and 
legal issues, including the Commissions authority, involved in making emergency information 
accessible to persons with disabilities.
74. Other local official alerts.  Our action today enables state governors (or their 
designees) to initiate state-level and geo-targeted alerts for mandatory transmission by EAS 
Participants.  Since, as stated above, EAS activations to date have been overwhelmingly related 
to weather and state and local alerts, we seek comment on whether EAS Participants should be 
required to receive and transmit alerts initiated by government entities other than a state 
governor.  Should local, county, tribal, or other state governmental entities be allowed to initiate 
mandatory state and local alerts?  How should the Commission decide which public officials 
should be permitted to activate the alert?  Should the expansion of mandatory state and local 
alerts be limited to certain types of alerts?  We seek comment on whether the Commission 
should specify the types of emergency alerts that these local officials should be permitted to 
activate?  Should only certain classes of EAS Participants be required to transmit such alerts by 
entities other than the governor?  Does CAP allow for proper delivery of such alerts, or should 
such alerts be mandatory only in the context of Next Generation EAS?  What other 
considerations should govern the appropriate use of a mandatory alerting process by entities other 
than a governor?  We seek comment generally on how this type of requirement should be 
implemented.
75. Assessing EAS Operation.  We seek comment on several options for ensuring that 
EAS operates as designed in an emergency, including whether we should require: (1) additional 
testing of the EAS,223 and specifically CAP; (2) station certification of compliance; and (3) 
assessments of EAS performance after an alert has been triggered.  We will revisit the issue of 
performance standards if it appears that they are warranted. In particular, we seek comments on 
the technical, economic, practical, and legal issues involved.
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A. Ex Parte Presentations 
76. This matter shall be treated as a permit-but-disclose proceeding in accordance 
with the Commissions ex parte rules.224 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.225 Other 
requirements pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in section 1.1206(b) of the 
Commissions rules.  
  
223 See 47 C.F.R.  11.61(a) (distinguishing additional EAS tests from required tests).
224 47 C.F.R.  1.200 et seq.
225 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1206(b)(2).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
40
B. Comment Filing Procedures
77. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commissions rules, 47 C.F.R  1.415, 
1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the 
first page of this document.  All filings related to this Order and the Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking should refer to EB Docket No. 04-296.  Comments may be filed using:  (1) the 
Commissions Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Governments eRulemaking 
Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies.  See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 
FR 24121 (1998).
 Electronic Filers:  Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing 
the ECFS:  http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal:  
http://www.regulations.gov.  Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website 
for submitting comments.  
 For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption 
of this proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy of the comments for 
each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption.  In completing the 
transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service 
mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number.  Parties may 
also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail.  To get filing instructions, 
filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in 
the body of the message, get form.  A sample form and directions will be sent in 
response.
 Paper Filers:  Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of 
each filing.  If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this 
proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by 
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience 
delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail).  All filings must be addressed to the 
Commissions Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
 The Commissions contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered 
paper filings for the Commissions Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., 
Suite 110, Washington, DC  20002.  The filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. 
to 7:00 p.m.  All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or 
fasteners.  Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
 Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and 
Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD  
20743.
 U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 
445 12th Street, SW, Washington DC  20554.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
41
C. Accessible Formats
78. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, 
large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
D. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
79. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5 U.S.C.  604, the 
Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the possible 
significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this 
document. The FRFA is set forth in Appendix B.
80. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5 U.S.C.  603, the 
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 
significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this 
document.  The IRFA is set forth in Appendix D.  Written public comments are requested on the 
IRFA.  These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments 
filed in response to this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as set forth in paragraph 77, and 
have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
81. This Second Report and Order contains new and modified information collection 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13.  It 
will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 
3507(d) of the PRA.    
F. Congressional Review Act
82. The Commission will send a copy of this Second Report and Order in a report to 
be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act (CRA), see 5 U.S.C.  801(a)(1)(A).
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES
83. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(o), 301, 
303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 624(g),706 and 715 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C.  151, 152, 154(i) and (o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 544(g), 
606, and 615. the Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in EB 
Docket No. 04-296 IS ADOPTED, and that Part 11 of the Commissions Rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 
11, is amended as set forth in Appendix C.  The Order shall become effective 30 days after 
publication in the Federal Register, except that new or modified information collection 
requirements contained in Appendix C will not become effective prior to OMB approval; and
84. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commissions Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this 
Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
42
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
43
APPENDIX A
List Of Commenters
Comments in EB Docket No.  04-296
Commenters Abbreviation
Active Data Exchange, Inc. Active Data
Airit2me, Inc. Airit2me
Alert Systems, Inc. Alert Systems
American Association of Paging Carriers AAPC
American Foundation for the Blind AFB
Association of Maximum Service Television AMST
Association of Public Broadcasting APB
AT&T AT&T
Azos AI, LLC Azos
Bell, Frank W. Bell
BellSouth BellSouth
Brooks, Rex Brooks
Brown, Robert Brown
Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association CTIA
City of New York NYC
Cingular Cingular
Cohen, Philip Cohen
Community Broadcasters Association CBA
Consumer Electronics Association CEA
Cox Broadcasting COX
DIRECTV DIRECTV 
Dodds, Betty Dodds
EchoStar EchoStar
Emergency E-Mail & Wireless Network EEWN
Ericsson Inc. Ericsson
Harris Corporation Harris        
Jones, Elysa Jones
Marks, Alan R. Marks
Merrell, John Merrell
Minority Media & Telecommunications Council, MMTC
Independent Spanish Broadcasters, et. al.
Named State Broadcasters Associations State 
Associations
National Association of Broadcasters NAB
National Cable & Telecommunications Association NCTA
National Public Safety Telecommunications Council NPSTC
Notification Technologies, Inc. NT
PanAmSat, et. al. PanAmSat
Putkovich, Kenneth Putkovich
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
44
RadioShack Corporation RadioShack
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Mobile Wireless Technologies RERC 
Wireless
Research Center on Telecommunications Access RCTA
Rural Cellular Association RCA
Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc. SBE
Sprint Nextel Sprint Nextel
Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing TDI
TFT, Inc. TFT 
T-Mobile T-Mobile
U.S. Geological Survey USGS
USA Mobility, Inc. USA Mobility
VeriSign VeriSign
Verizon Verizon
WFSA-TV Montgomery, AL WFSA-TV
WGBH National Center for Accessible Media and Rehabilitation Engineering WGBH
XM Radio Inc. XM
Reply Commenters Abbreviation
3G Americas, LLC  3G
Airit2me, Inc.  Airit2me 
Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc.  AMST
AT&T  AT&T
Bell, Frank W. Bell
Cingular Wireless LLC Cingular   
Communication Service for the Deaf, Inc. CSD
CTIA - The Wireless Association CTIA   
Dominion Video Satellite Inc.   DVS
EchoStar Satellite LLC EchoStar
Minority Media & Telecommunications Council, MMTC
Independent Spanish Broadcasters, et. al.
National Association of Broadcasters   NAB
National Cable & Telecommunications Association  NCTA
National Public Safety Telecommunications Council   NPSTC
NYC Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications   NYC
Putkovich, Kenneth Putkovich
Rural Cellular Association  RCA
Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. TDI  
TFT, Inc.  TFT
T-Mobile USA, Inc. T-Mobile  
USA Mobility, Inc.  USA Mobility
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
45
APPENDIX B
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),226 an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 
EB Docket 04-296 (First Report and Order and FNPRM).227 The Commission sought written 
public comment on the proposals in the EAS NPRM, including comment on the IRFA.  This Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules
2. This Second Report and Order adopts rules that set the framework for a Next 
Generation EAS.  In this Order, we take the following actions to establish service requirements 
for a Next Generation EAS, and establish schedules by which industry segments must transition 
to the new system:   (1) require EAS Participants to configure their systems to accept EAS alerts 
formatted in the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) format no later than 180 days after FEMA 
announces the technical standards and requirements for CAP-formatted messages; (2) require 
EAS Participants to configure their systems to authenticate and validate EAS alerts formatted in 
the CAP format no later than 180 days after FEMA announces the standards for authentication 
and validation of CAP-formatted messages; (3) require EAS Participants to receive and transmit 
state-level messages delivered to the Participant by the states governor (or the governors 
designee) within 180 days from the date FEMA adopts CAP, so long as such delivery is 
explicitly described in a state EAS plan that is submitted to and approved by the Commission; (4) 
require wireline common carriers that provide video programming service to receive and 
distribute EAS messages; and (5) delegate authority to the Chief, Public Safety and Homeland 
Security Bureau to perform actions that will facilitate proper implementation of our rules and 
resolution of issues as set forth herein.  
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to 
the IRFA
3. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the IRFA.  
  
226 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).
227 See Review of the Emergency Alert System, EB Docket No. 04-296, First Report and Order and Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 18625 (2005) (First Report and Order and FNPRM). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
46
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 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 may be affected by the rules adopted herein.228 The 
RFA generally defines the term small entity as having the same meaning as the terms small 
business, small organization, and small governmental jurisdiction.229 In addition, the term 
small business has the same meaning as the term small business concern under the Small 
Business Act.230 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).231
5. A small organization is generally any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.232 Nationwide, as of 2002, 
there were approximately 1.6 million small organizations.233 The term small governmental 
jurisdiction is defined as governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or 
special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.234 As of 1997, there were 
approximately 87,453 governmental jurisdictions in the United States.235 This number includes 
39,044 county governments, municipalities, and townships, of which 37,546 (approximately 96.2 
percent) have populations of fewer than 50,000, and of which 1,498 have populations of 50,000 
or more.  Thus, we estimate the number of small governmental jurisdictions overall to be 84,098 
or fewer.  Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small businesses, according 
to SBA data.236
6. Television Broadcasting.  The SBA has developed a small business sized standard 
for television broadcasting, which consists of all such firms having $13 million or less in annual 
receipts.237 Business concerns included in this industry are those primarily engaged in 
  
228 5 U.S.C.  604(a)(3).
229 5 U.S.C.  601(6).
230 5 U.S.C.  601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of small-business concern in the Small Business 
Act, 15 U.S.C.  632).  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.  601(3), 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).
231 15 U.S.C.  632.
232 5 U.S.C.  601(4).
233 Independent Sector, The New Nonprofit Almanac & Desk Reference (2002). 
234 5 U.S.C.  601(5). 
235 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2000, Section 9, pages 299-300, Tables 490 and 492.  
236 See SBA, Programs and Services, SBA Pamphlet No. CO-0028, 40 (Jul. 2002).
237 13 C.F.R.  121.201, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 515120.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
47
broadcasting images together with sound.238 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) affiliations239must be included.240 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).241 Given the nature of 
this service, we will presume that all LPTV licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA size 
standard.  
7. Radio Stations.  The revised rules and policies potentially will apply to all AM and 
commercial FM radio broadcasting licensees and potential licensees.  The SBA defines a radio 
broadcasting station that has $6.5 million or less in annual receipts as a small business.242 A 
radio broadcasting station is an establishment primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs 
by radio to the public.243 Included in this industry are commercial, religious, educational, and 
other radio stations.244 Radio broadcasting stations which primarily are engaged in radio 
broadcasting and which produce radio program materials are similarly included.245 However, 
radio stations that are separate establishments and are primarily engaged in producing radio 
program material are classified under another NAICS number.246 According to Commission staff 
review of BIA Publications, Inc. Master Access Radio Analyzer Database on March 31, 2005, 
about 10,840 (95 percent) of 11,410 commercial radio stations have revenue of $6 million or 
less.  We note, however, that many radio stations are affiliated with much larger corporations 
  
238 Office of Management and Budget, 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.  Id. at 502-05, NAICS code 512120, Motion Picture and Video Production; NAICS code 512120, 
Motion Picture and Video Distribution; NAICS code 512191, Teleproduction and Other Post-Production Services; 
and NAICS code 512199, Other Motion Picture and Video Industries. 
239 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).
240 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).
241 Broadcast Station Totals as of September 30, 2002, FCC News Release (rel. Nov. 6, 2002).
242 See 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 515112.
243 Id.
244 Id.
245 Id.
246 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
48
having much higher revenue.  Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small 
entities that might be affected by our action. 
8. 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.247 According to Census Bureau data for 1997, in this 
category there was a total of 1,311 firms that operated for the entire year.248  Of this total, 1,180
firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and an additional 52 firms had receipts of $10 
million to $24,999,999.249 Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered 
small.  In addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of 
cable and other program distribution companies increased approximately 46 percent from 1997 
to 2002.250
9. Cable System Operators (Rate Regulation Standard).  The Commission has 
developed its own small business size standard for cable system operators, for purposes of rate 
regulation.  Under the Commissions rules, a small cable company is one serving 400,000 or 
fewer subscribers nationwide.251 We have estimated that there were 1,065 cable operators who 
qualified as small cable system operators at the end of 2005.252 Since then, some of those 
companies may have grown to serve over 400,000 subscribers, and others may have been 
involved in transactions that caused them to be combined with other cable operators.  
Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are now fewer than 1,065 small entity cable 
system operators that may be affected by the rules and policies proposed herein.
10. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard).  The Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, (Act) also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which 
is a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 
percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities 
whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.253 The Commission has 
determined that there are 67,700,000 subscribers in the United States.254 Therefore, an operator 
  
247 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 517510.
248 U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:  Information, Establishment and Firm Size 
(including Legal Form of Organization), Table 4, NAICS code 513220. 
249 Id.
250 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:  Information, Table 2, Comparative Statistics 
for the United States (1997 NAICS Basis):  2002 and 1997, NAICS code 513220 (issued Nov. 2004).  
251 47 C.F.R.  76.901(e).  The Commission developed this definition based on its determination that a small cable 
system operator is one with annual revenues of $100 million or less.  Implementation of Sections of the 1992 Cable 
Act:  Rate Regulation, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393 (1995), 60 
FR 10534 (February 27, 1995).
252 Paul Kagan Associates, Inc., Cable TV Investor, February 29, 1996 (based on figures for Dec. 30, 1995).
253 47 U.S.C.  543(m)(2).
254 See FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator, Public Notice, 16 FCC 
Rcd 2225 (2001) (Jan. 24, 2001 Public Notice).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
49
serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, 
when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in 
the aggregate.255 Based on available data, the Commission estimates that the number of cable 
operators serving 677,000 subscribers or fewer, totals 1,065.256 The Commission neither 
requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities 
whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million,257 and therefore are unable, at this time, to 
estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable 
operators under the size standard contained in the Act. 
11. Multipoint Distribution Systems.  The established rules apply to Multipoint 
Distribution Systems (MDS) 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.258 This definition of small entity in the context of MDS auctions 
has been approved by the SBA.259 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.
12. MDS also includes licensees of stations authorized prior to the auction.  As noted 
above, the SBA has developed a definition of small entities for pay television services, cable and 
other subscription programming, which includes all such companies generating $13.5 million or 
less in annual receipts.260 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 estimate that there are at least 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 adopted herein. In addition, limited preliminary census 
data for 2002 indicate that the total number of cable and other program distribution companies 
increased approximately 46 percent from 1997 to 2002.261
  
255 47 C.F.R.  76.901(f).
256 See Jan. 24, 2001 Public Notice.
257 The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local 
franchise authoritys finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to section 76.901(f) 
of the Commissions rules.  See 47 C.F.R.  76.909(b).
258 47 C.F.R.  21.961(b)(1).
259 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).
260 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 515210.
261 See supra note 250.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
50
13. Instructional Television Fixed Service.  The established rules would also apply to 
Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) 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.262 There are presently 2,032 ITFS licensees.  All but 100 of these licenses are held by 
educational institutions.  Educational institutions are included in the definition of a small 
business.263 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 are small businesses and 
may be affected by the established rules.
14. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (LECs).  We have included small 
incumbent LECs in this present IRFA analysis.  As noted above, a small business under the 
RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone 
communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and is not dominant in its field of 
operation.264 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.265 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.266
According to Commission data,267 1,303 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the 
provision of incumbent local exchange services.  Of these 1,303 carriers, an estimated 1,020 have 
1,500 or fewer employees and 283 have more than 1,500 employees.  Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are small 
businesses that may be affected by our proposed rules.
15. 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 
  
262 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 515210.
263 5 U.S.C.  601(3).
264 15 U.S.C.  632.
265 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).
266 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 517110.
267 Trends in Telephone Service, Table 5.3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
51
Carriers.  Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.268
According to Commission data,269 769 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the 
provision of either competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange carrier 
services.  Of these 769 carriers, an estimated 676 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 93 have 
more than 1,500 employees.  In addition, 12 carriers have reported that they are Shared-Tenant 
Service Providers, and all 12 are estimated to have 1.500 or fewer employees.  In addition, 39 
carriers have reported that they are Other Local Service Providers.  Of the 39, an estimated 38 
have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees.  Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive 
access providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers are 
small entities that may be affected by our proposed rules. 
16. Satellite Telecommunications and Other Telecommunications.   The Commission 
has not developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of satellite service.  
The appropriate size standards under SBA rules are for the two broad categories of Satellite 
Telecommunications and Other Telecommunications.  Under both categories, such a business is 
small if it has $12.5 million or less in average annual receipts.270 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.271 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.
17. 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.272  
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
18. In this Second Report and Order, we have taken steps to advance our public safety 
mission by establishing a framework for the Next Generation of EAS and by expanding the base 
  
268 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS code 517110.
269 Trends in Telephone Service, Table 5.3.
270 13 C.F.R.  121.201, NAICS codes 517410 and 517910.
271 U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:  Information, Establishment and Firm Size 
(Including Legal Form of Organization), Table 4, NAICS code 513340.
272 Office of Management and Budget, North American Industry Classification System, 513 (1997) (NAICS code 
517910.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
52
of EAS participants to include wireline telephone companies that provide programming in 
competition with broadcast and cable television.    
E. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, 
and Significant Alternatives Considered
19. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has 
considered in developing its approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among 
others):  (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables 
that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, 
or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such 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 such small entities.273
20. The First Report and Order and FNPRM sought comment on a number of 
alternatives to the imposition of EAS obligations on the digital communications technologies 
discussed in this Second Report and Order that are increasingly being used by the American 
public.  The Commission has considered each of the alternatives and in this Second Report and 
Order imposes minimal regulation on small entities to the extent consistent with our goal of 
advancing our public safety mission by adopting rules that expand the reach of EAS.  The 
affected service providers have generally expressed their willingness to cooperate in a national 
warning system, and we anticipate that this addition of new providers to EAS can be 
accomplished swiftly and smoothly.  
21. The benefits of requiring additional carriers to participate in the current EAS far 
outweigh any burdens associated with implementing these requirements.  EAS represents a 
significant and valuable investment that is able to provide effective alert and warning during the 
time that new, digitally-based public alert and warning systems are being developed.  Most 
commenters contend, and we agree, that the EAS should remain an important component of any 
future alert and warning system.  Further, in most cases, the digital platforms affected by this 
Second Report and Order either have in place the ability to distribute EAS warnings, or can do so 
in a reasonable amount of time and with minimal cost.  
22. Likewise, most commenters agreed that CAP is best-suited to deliver Next 
Generation EAS.  By requiring EAS participants to adopt CAP, we believe that this will best 
serve our goal of protecting the life and property of all Americans.  We acknowledge that 
compliance with the rules adopted in the order may impose cost burdens on small entities.  
However, given the great public interest benefits of the rules, we find that the public interest 
benefits outweigh the economic burdens, if any.  In the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, we 
sought comment on these rules and no commenter proposed an alternative version that would 
serve these benefits while lessening the economic burdens.  Accordingly, we find that we have 
discharged our duty to consider burdens imposed on small entities.
  
273 5 U.S.C.  603(c)(1)  (c)(4).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
53
23. Report to Congress:  The Commission will send a copy of the Second Report and 
Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government 
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.274 In addition, the Commission 
will send a copy of the Second Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the SBA.  A copy of the Second Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries 
thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.275  
  
274 See 5 U.S.C.  801(a)(1)(A).
275 See 5 U.S.C.  604(b).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
54
APPENDIX C
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 
C.F.R. Part 11 as follows:
PART 11  EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM (EAS)
1. The authority citation for Part 11 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154 (i) and (o), 303(r), 544(g) and 606. 
2. Revise  11.1 to read as follows:
 11.1  Purpose.
This part contains rules and regulations providing for an Emergency Alert System (EAS). The EAS 
provides the President with the capability to provide immediate communications and information to the 
general public at the National, State and Local Area levels during periods of national emergency. The 
rules in this part describe the required technical standards and operational procedures of the EAS for 
analog AM, FM, and TV broadcast stations, digital broadcast stations, analog cable systems, digital cable 
systems, wireline video systems, wireless cable systems, Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) services, 
Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS), and other participating entities.  The EAS may be used 
to provide the heads of State and local government, or their designated representatives, with a means of 
emergency communication with the public in their State or Local Area. 
3. Add new  11.2, as follows:
 11.2  Definitions
The definitions of terms used in Part 11 are:
(a) Primary Entry Point (PEP) System.  The PEP system is a nationwide network of 
broadcast stations and other entities connected with government activation points.  It is used to 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
55
distribute the EAN, EAT, and EAS national test messages and other EAS messages.  FEMA has 
designated 34 of the nations largest radio broadcast stations as PEPs.  The PEPs are designated 
to receive the Presidential alert from FEMA and distribute it to local stations.
(b) Local Primary One (LP-1). The LP-1 is a radio station that acts as a key EAS 
monitoring source.  Each LP-1 station must monitor its regional PEP station and a back-up 
source for Presidential messages.
(c) EAS Participants.  Entities required under the Commissions rules to comply with 
EAS rules, e.g., analog radio and television stations, and wired and wireless cable television 
systems, DBS, DTV, SDARS, digital cable and DAB, and wireline video systems.  
(d) Wireline Video System. The system of a wireline common carrier used to provide 
video programming service.
(e) Participating National (PN).  PN stations are broadcast stations that transmit EAS 
National, state, or local EAS messages to the public.
(f) National Primary (NP).  Stations that are the primary entry point for Presidential 
messages delivered by FEMA.  These stations are responsible for broadcasting a Presidential 
alert to the public and to State Primary stations within their broadcast range.
(g)  State Primary (SP).  Stations that are the entry point for State messages, which can 
originate from the Governor or a designated representative.  
4. Amend  11.11 by revising paragraph (a) and (e) to read as follows:  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
56
 11.11 The Emergency Alert System (EAS).
(a) The EAS is composed of analog radio broadcast stations including AM, FM, and Low-power FM 
(LPFM) stations; digital audio broadcasting (DAB) stations, including digital AM, FM, and Low-
power FM stations; analog television broadcast stations including Class A television (CA) and Low-
power TV (LPTV) stations; digital television (DTV) broadcast stations, including digital CA and 
digital LPTV stations; analog cable systems; digital cable systems which are defined for purposes of 
this Part only as the portion of a cable system that delivers channels in digital format to subscribers 
at the input of a Unidirectional Digital Cable Product or other navigation device; wireline video 
systems; wireless cable systems which may consist of Broadband Radio Service (BRS), or 
Educational Broadband Service (EBS) stations; DBS services, as defined in 47 C.F.R.  25.701(a) 
(including certain Ku-band Fixed-Satellite Service Direct to Home providers); SDARS, as defined in 
47 C.F.R.  25.201; participating broadcast networks, cable networks and program suppliers; and 
other entities and industries operating on an organized basis during emergencies at the National, 
State and local levels. These entities are referred to collectively as EAS Participants in this Part, and 
are subject to this Part, except as otherwise provided herein.  At a minimum EAS Participants must 
use a common EAS protocol, as defined in  11.31, to send and receive emergency alerts in 
accordance with the effective dates listed above and in the following tables:
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
57
Analog and Digital Broadcast Stations
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
EAS Equipment AM & FM   Digital TV DTV     FM Class D276 LPTV277 LPFM278  
Class A TV279
Requirement AM & FM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Two-tone encoder280 281Y         Y 12/31/06  Y         Y 12/31/06 N          N          N Y
EAS decoder Y 1/1/97 Y 12/31/06 Y 1/1/97 Y 12/31/06 Y 1/1/97  Y 1/1/97 Y Y
EAS encoger Y 1/1/97  Y 12/31/06 Y 1/1/97 Y 12/31/06 N          N           N Y
Audio message Y 1/1/97 Y 12/31/06 Y 1/1/97 Y 12/31/06 Y 1/1/97 Y 1/1/97 Y Y
Video message N/A N/A Y 1/1/97 Y 12/31/06 N/A Y 1/1/97 N/A Y
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
1 Effective December 31, 2006, digital FM Class D stations have the same requirements.
2 LPTV stations that operate as television broadcast translator stations are exempt from the requirement 
to have EAS equipment.  Effective December 31, 2006, digital LPTV stations have the same 
requirements.
3 LPFM stations must install a decoder within one year after the FCC publishes in the Federal Register a 
public notice indicating that at least one decoder has been certified by the FCC.  Effective December 31, 
2006, digital LPFM stations have the same requirements.
4 Effective December 31, 2006, digital Class A TV stations have the same requirements.  
5 Effective July 1, 1995, the two-tone signal must be 8-25 seconds
6 Effective January 1, 1998, the two-tone signal may only be used to provide audio alerts to audiences 
before EAS emergency messages and the required monthly tests.
  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
58
Analog Cable Systems
[A. Analog cable systems serving fewer than 5,000 subscribers from a headend must either provide the 
National level EAS message on all programmed channels including the required testing by October 1, 
2002, or comply with the following EAS requirements. All other analog cable systems must comply with 
B.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System size and effective dates
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. EAS Equipment Requirement    >=5,000 but < 10,000 subscribers     >=10,000 subscribers     <5,000 
subscribers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two-tone signal from storage device1  Y 12/31/98 Y 10/1/02 Y 
10/1/02
EAS decoder3 Y 12/31/98 Y 10/1/02 Y 
10/1/02
EAS encoder2 Y 12/31/98 Y 10/1/02 Y 
10/1/02
Audio and Video EAS Message on all Y 12/31/98                Y 10/1/02 N
channels
Video interrupt and audio alert N N Y 
10/1/02
message on all channels,3 Audio
and Video EAS message on at least
one channel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Two-tone signal is only used to provide an audio alert to audience before EAS emergency messages 
and
required monthly test. The two-tone signal must be 8-25 seconds in duration.
2 Analog cable systems serving <5,000 subscribers are permitted to operate without an EAS encoder if 
they install an FCC-certified decoder.
3 The Video interrupt must cause all channels that carry programming to flash for the duration of the 
EAS
emergency message. The audio alert must give the channel where the EAS messages are carried and be 
repeated
for the duration of the EAS message.
Note: Programmed channels do not include channels used for the transmission of data such as interactive 
games.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
59
Wireless Cable Systems (BRS/EBS STATIONS)
[A. Wireless cable systems serving fewer than 5,000 subscribers from a single transmission site must 
either provide the National level EAS message on all programmed channels including the required 
testing by October 1, 2002, or comply with the following EAS requirements. All other wireless cable 
systems must comply with B.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
System size and effective dates
 ----------------------------------------
B. EAS Equipment Requirement         >= 5,000  subscribers         < 5,000 subscribers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAS decoder Y 10/1/02 Y 10/1/02
EAS encoder \1\ \2\ Y 10/1/02 Y 10/1/02
Audio and Video EAS Message on Y 10/1/02 N
all channels \3\
Video interrupt and audio alert N Y 10/1/02
message on all channels; \4\ Audio
and Video EAS message on
at least one channel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The two-tone signal is used only to provide an audio alert to an audience prior to an EAS emergency 
message or to the Required Monthly Test (RMT) under  11.61(a)(1). The two-tone signal must be 8-25 
seconds in duration.
\2\ Wireless cable systems serving < 5,000 subscribers are permitted to operate without an EAS encoder 
if they install an FCC-certified decoder.
\3\ All wireless cable systems may comply with this requirement by providing a means to switch all 
programmed channels to a predesignated channel that carries the required audio and video EAS 
messages.
\4\ The Video interrupt must cause all channels that carry programming
to flash for the duration of the EAS emergency message. The audio
alert must give the channel where the EAS messages are carried and be
repeated for the duration of the EAS message.
Note: Programmed channels do not include channels used for the transmission of data services such as 
Internet.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
60
Digital Cable Systems and Wireline Video Systems
[A. Digital cable systems and Wireline Video Systems serving fewer than 5,000 subscribers from a 
headend must either provide the National level EAS message on all programmed channels including the 
required testing by December 31, 2006, or comply with the following EAS requirements. All other 
digital cable systems and Wireline Video Systems must comply with B.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 System size and effective dates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. EAS Equipment Requirement      >=5,000 subscribers          <5,000 subscribers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two-tone signal from storage device\1\ Y 12/31/06 Y 12/31/06
EAS decoder \3\ Y 12/31/06 Y 12/31/06
EAS encoder \2\ Y 12/31/06 Y 12/31/06
Audio and Video EAS Message on all Y 12/31/06 N
channels \4\
Video interrupt and audio alert N Y 12/31/06
message on all channels;\3\ Audio
and Video EAS message on at least
one channel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Two-tone signal is only used to provide an audio alert to audience before EAS emergency messages 
and
required monthly test. The two-tone signal must be 8-25 seconds in duration.
\2\ Digital cable systems and Wireline Video Systems serving <5,000 subscribers are permitted to 
operate without an EAS encoder if they install an FCC-certified decoder.
\3\ The Video interrupt must cause all channels that carry programming to flash for the duration of the 
EAS
emergency message. The audio alert must give the channel where the EAS messages are carried and be 
repeated
for the duration of the EAS message.
\4\ All digital cable systems and/Wireline Video Systems may comply with this requirement by
providing a means to switch all programmed channels to a predesignated channel that carries the
required audio and video EAS messages. 
Note: Programmed channels do not include channels used for the transmission of data such as interactive 
games or the transmission of data services such as Internet.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
61
SDARS and DBS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAS Equipment Requirement  SDARS                DBS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two-tone signal \1\ Y 12/31/06 Y 5/31/07
EAS decoder Y 12/31/06 Y 5/31/07
EAS encoder Y 12/31/06 Y 5/31/07
Audio message on all channels \2\ Y 12/31/06 Y 5/31/07
Video message on all channels \2\ N/A Y 5/31/07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Two-tone signal is only used to provide an audio alert to audience before EAS emergency messages 
and
required monthly test. The two-tone signal must be 8-25 seconds in duration.
\2\ All SDARS and DBS providers may comply with this requirement by providing a means to switch all
programmed channels to a predesignated channel that carries the required audio and video EAS
messages or by any other method that ensures that viewers of all channels receive the EAS message.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
62
* * * * * 
(e)  Other technologies and public service providers, such as low earth orbiting satellites, that 
wish to participate in the EAS may contact the FCCs Public Safety and Homeland Security 
Bureau or their State Emergency Communications Committee for information and guidance.  
5. Revise  11.21 introductory text and revise sections (a), (b), and (c) as follows:
 11.21 State and Local Area Plans and FCC Mapbook.
EAS plans contain guidelines which must be followed by EAS Participants personnel, emergency 
officials, and National Weather Service (NWS) personnel to activate the EAS. The plans include the 
EAS header codes and messages that will be transmitted by key EAS sources (NP, LP, SP and SR). State 
and local plans contain unique methods of EAS message distribution such as the use of the Radio 
Broadcast Data System (RBDS).  The plans must be reviewed and approved by the Chief, Public Safety 
and Homeland Security Bureau, prior to implementation to ensure that they are consistent with national 
plans, FCC regulations, and EAS operation. 
(a) The State plan contains procedures for State emergency management and other State officials, the 
NWS, and EAS Participants' personnel to transmit emergency information to the public during a State 
emergency using the EAS, including mandatory messages initiated by a state governor or his/her 
designee. The State plan must specify how state-level and geographically targeted EAS messages
initiated by a state governor or his/her designee will be transmitted to all EAS Participants who provide 
services in the state, and must include specific and detailed information describing how such messages 
will be aggregated, designated as mandatory, and delivered to EAS Participants. State EAS plans should 
include a data table, in computer readable form, clearly showing monitoring assignments and the specific 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
63
primary and backup path for the emergency action notification (EAN) from the PEP to each station in 
the plan.
(b) The Local Area plan contains procedures for local officials or the NWS to transmit emergency 
information to the public during a local emergency using the EAS. Local plans may be a part of the State 
plan. A Local Area is a geographical area of contiguous communities or counties that may include more 
than one state.
(c) The FCC Mapbook is based on the above plans. It organizes all broadcast stations and cable systems 
according to their State, EAS Local Area, and EAS designation.
 * * * * *
6. Revise  11.47(b) to read as follows:
Other technologies and public service providers, such as low earth orbiting satellites, that wish to 
participate in the EAS may contact the FCCs Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau or 
their State Emergency Communications Committee for information and guidance.  
7. Revise  11.51 (g) as follows:
(g)  Analog cable systems and digital cable systems with fewer than 5,000 subscribers per headend and 
wireline video systems and wireless cable systems with fewer than 5,000 subscribers.. [rest of 
paragraph manet]
8.    Revise  11.51 (h) as follows:
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
64
(h)  Analog cable systems and digital cable systems with 10,000 or more subscribers; analog cable and 
digital cable systems serving 5,000 or more, but less than 10,000 subscribers per headend; and wireline 
video systems and wireless cable systems with 5,000 or more subscribers... [rest of paragraph manet]
8. Amend  11.55 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:  
 11.55  EAS operation during a State or Local Area emergency.
(a) All EAS Participants within a state (excepting SDARs and DBS providers) must receive and transmit 
state-level and geographically targeted EAS messages, as aggregated and delivered by the state governor
or his/her designee, or by FEMA on behalf of such state governor, upon approval by the Commission of 
an applicable state plan providing for delivery of such alerts no sooner than 180 days after adoption of 
CAP by FEMA [(a)(1) and a(2) manet]
9. (1)  Add new  11.56 as follows:
 11.56 EAS Participants receive CAP-formatted alerts 
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, all EAS Participants must be able to receive CAP-
formatted EAS alerts no later than 180 days after FEMA publishes the technical standards and 
requirements for such FEMA transmissions.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
65
APPENDIX D
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),282 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 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice).  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 Further Notice provided in Section IV of 
the item.  The Commission will send a copy of the Further Notice, including this IRFA, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).283 In addition, the 
Further Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.284
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
2. Todays Second Report and Order seeks to ensure that the Commissions
emergency alert services (EAS) rules better protect the life and property of all Americans.285  
To further serve this goal, the Further Notice invites additional comment on four areas where the 
EAS rules might be amended.  Recognizing the need of all Americans to be alerted in the event 
of an emergency, the Commission invites comments first on non-English speakers and second on 
persons with disabilities to determine how these communities might best be served by EAS.  
Third, the Commission invites comment on whether emergency alerts transmitted by local 
authorities should be transmitted.  Fourth, the Commission invites comment on various ways that 
the performance of EAS operations may be assessed.286
B. Legal Basis
3. Authority for the actions proposed in this Further Notice may be found in sections 
1, 4(i), 4(o), 303(r), 403, 624(g) and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (Act) 
47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 154(j), 154(o), 303(r), 544(g) and 606.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules 
Will Apply
  
282 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).
283 See 5 U.S.C.  603(a).
284 Id.
285 See Appendix B at  2 for description of rules the Commission adopted in the Second Report and Order.
286 See Further Notice at  71-74 for a more detailed discussion of these four subject matter areas.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
66
4. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an 
estimate of, the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein.287 The 
RFA generally defines the term small entity as having the same meaning as the terms small 
business, small organization, and small governmental jurisdiction.288 In addition, the term 
small business has the same meaning as the term small business concern under the Small 
Business Act.289 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).290
5. See Appendix B, Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, attached hereto for a 
detailed description of, and an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be affected by 
any rules that may be adopted in response to the Further Notice.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements
6. There are potential reporting or recordkeeping requirements proposed in this 
Further Notice. For example, the Commission is considering whether to adopt performance 
standards and reporting obligations for EAS participants.  The proposals set forth in this Further 
Notice are intended to advance our public safety mission and enhance the performance of the 
EAS while reducing regulatory burdens wherever possible.  
E. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, 
and Significant Alternatives Considered
7. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has 
considered in developing its approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among 
others):  (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables 
that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, 
or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such 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 such small entities.291
8. As noted in paragraph 2 above, the Further Notice seeks comment on how the 
Commission may better protect the lives and property of Americans. In commenting on this 
  
287 5 U.S.C.  604(a)(3).
288 5 U.S.C.  601(6).
289 5 U.S.C.  601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of small-business concern in the Small Business 
Act, 15 U.S.C.  632).  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C.  601(3), 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).
290 15 U.S.C.  632.
291 5 U.S.C.  603(c)(1)  (c)(4).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
67
goal, commenters are invited to propose steps that the Commission may take to minimize any
significant economic impact on small entities. When considering proposals made by other 
parties, commenters are invited to propose significant alternatives that serve the goals of these 
proposals. We expect that the record will develop to demonstrate significant alternatives.
F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed 
Rules
None.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
68
STATEMENT OF 
CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN
Re:  Review of the Emergency Alert System; Independent Spanish Broadcasters Association, 
the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ, Inc., and the Minority
Media and Telecommunications Council, Petition for Immediate Relief, EB Docket No. 
04-296.
Public safety is one of the Commissions top priorities.  The public must have the tools 
necessary to know when an emergency is coming and what type of emergency it is.  The 
governments success in enabling reliable and effective communications can often mean the 
difference between life and death.  
The Emergency Alert System (EAS) is designed to provide a means of warning the 
American people in the event of a national emergency.  The EAS should be capable of 
disseminating emergency information as quickly as possible.  As with every aspect of todays 
technological revolution, technological changes require us to update EAS to ensure it is a state-
of-the art, next-generation system.  As such, it is imperative that this system continually be 
revised and expanded to reflect new technologies.  Shortly after I became Chairman, the 
Commission expanded the system to include participation by digital television broadcasters, 
digital cable television providers, digital broadcast radio, Digital Audio Radio Service (DARS) 
and DBS systems.  In fact, the rules regarding DBS systems take effect today.  
In todays order, we revise and expand the system once again.  Specifically, the item we 
adopt today makes the EAS system more reliable, secure, and efficient by requiring all EAS 
participants to be able to receive EAS warnings sent using a common alert protocol (CAP) once 
that protocol is adopted by FEMA.  CAP, which employs an open and interoperable standard, 
standardizes message formats and enables a digitally-based alert or warning to be distributed 
simultaneously over multiple distribution platforms.  We also expand the scope of participation 
in the system to include wireline video service providers.  It is critical that our public safety rules, 
like our competition rules, be technologically neutral.  Thus, all platform providers should have 
the same obligations to notify the public of emergency situations.  After all, video programming 
viewers expect to receive an emergency alert regardless of whether they subscribe to a cable, 
DBS, or any wireline video service.
The order does not stop there however.  Although traditionally EAS participants have 
only been required to disseminate Presidential alerts, today we take steps to require EAS 
participants to receive and pass along state-level alerts triggered by a state governor.  We also 
require EAS participants to transmit geo-targeted alerts to areas smaller than a state.  These 
actions are critical in ensuring that the citizens most in need of receiving emergency information 
receive it quickly and effectively.
I am also pleased that the Commission is adopting a Further Notice in this proceeding.  It 
is the governments responsibility to ensure that the communications needs of all Americans, 
including non-English speakers and people with disabilities, are met in the event of an 
emergency.  I agree that more work needs to be done to address the public safety needs of 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
69
persons with disabilities and non-English speakers.  It is my hope that by the specific questions 
we raise in these areas, the Commission will be in a better position to adopt meaningful rules that 
enable these citizens to receive emergency information on a timely basis.  I also hope that the 
industry will continue to work hard to find a way to provide multilingual alerts on its own.  
In addition, local public safety officials need to be permitted to activate emergency alerts. 
Local officials are often best-situated to serve the needs of their own communities.  I look 
forward to finding a way to better utilize and empower local public safety officials as well. 
The success of the EAS is dependent not only on the ability of the Commission to adopt 
the appropriate rules to ensure that the communications systems are capable of sending and 
receiving alerts to the public but is also dependent on our continued collaboration and 
coordination with the Department of Homeland Security who is charged with administering the 
system.  We look forward to continuing to work with our federal colleagues as well state and 
local officials and all the EAS participants to ensure that the United States continues to have a 
robust, dynamic, and dependable alert system.  Timely and reliable communication is most 
critical in times of crisis.  We are committed to expending whatever resources are necessary to do 
our part in implementing a resilient next-generation EAS system that will effectively serve our 
citizens for decades to come.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
70
STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS
Re:  Review of the Emergency Alert System; Independent Spanish Broadcasters Association, 
the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ, Inc., and the Minority
Media and Telecommunications Council, Petition for Immediate Relief, EB Docket No. 
04-296.
 No one who has lived through recent American history needs to be reminded of the 
importance of a warning system that reaches all of our citizens with timely emergency and public 
safety information. In order to achieve that goal, we need an Emergency Alert System that is 
more flexible, more robust and more compatible with the technologies that Americans are 
adopting in their everyday lives. In other words, EAS needs to move into the digital age.
 One promising step is our adoption of Common Alerting Protocols (CAP), a standardized 
alert message format that will permit emergency messages to flow across various digital 
platforms and devices, thereby dramatically increasing the possible avenues for alerts to reach the 
public. The Commission also mandates the use of CAPs security functions to strengthen 
significantly EAS defenses against hacking, jamming, or other unauthorized use.
 CAP is a positive step, but we still have much work ahead of us. I am particularly 
committed to take whatever steps we can to ensure that emergency and public safety information 
is fully accessible by persons with disabilities and residents whose primary language is not 
English. This includes EAS, but may involve other Commission rules and licensee obligations.
We need to take a comprehensive view of whether these communities have access to the 
emergency information they need and deserve  and this is the ideal time to do it, when broadcast 
TV, radio, and all of our media are moving to digital. I thank the Chairman and my colleagues 
for taking a proactive approach and making these issues a priority. We need solutions, and we 
need them now.
 Im also pleased that we have given state governors the ability to trigger the mandatory 
EAS system. State and local governments play a crucial role in the EAS process. While the 
federal EAS system has never been activated, there are hundreds of state and local warnings 
issued every year. Our decision will permit state governors to activate the system  not only 
state-wide, but also for a geographically-targeted area affected by a local emergency. And I 
support the idea of looking at whether mayors or other local officials should have the authority to 
trigger EAS alerts as well.
 While the move to digital promises great changes, one thing that will not change is the 
need to assess whether the system is operating properly. We have not done a very good job of 
that up to now. I appreciate my colleagues willingness to clearly state that we intend to make 
sure that the system works, and to seek comment on the best method for doing so. The answer 
may involve additional testing, licensee certification, or after-the-fact reviews of system 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
71
performance. Whatever the method, however, the American public deserves an EAS system that 
it can count on when the next hurricane or terrorist attack occurs.
I thank the Chairman for his willingness to issue a Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking to address these issues and for putting this proceeding on the fast track. We do not 
have the luxury of time. I look forward to working with my colleagues to bring this proceeding 
to a quick conclusion.
Finally, I want to acknowledge the presence of many in the disabilities community who 
have made the effort to attend our meeting today. We will need your continued assistance  as 
well as the assistance of those representing the non-English speaking community  as we work 
our way through these issues. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
72
STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN
Re:  Review of the Emergency Alert System; Independent Spanish Broadcasters Association, 
the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ, Inc., and the Minority
Media and Telecommunications Council, Petition for Immediate Relief, EB Docket No. 
04-296.
I support todays Report and Order mindful of two essential facts.  First, one of the 
central purposes for the very creation of the FCC is to promote the safety of life and property of 
all  and I mean all  Americans, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, 
national origin, or sex.  And second, the Atlantic hurricane season officially begins tomorrow, 
June 1st.  The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations 2007 Atlantic hurricane 
season outlook indicates a very high 75 percent chance of an above-normal hurricane season, a 
20 percent chance of a near-normal season, and only a five percent chance of a below-normal 
season. Taken together, this means that the Commission should not be bashful about using its 
authority to execute our public safety mandate because it is just a matter of time before we 
experience another emergency and peoples lives literally depend upon our actions. 
Todays Report and Order primarily addresses the requirements for broadcast, cable and 
satellite entities participating in the Emergency Alert System (EAS) to receive and disseminate 
federal and state messages using Common Alerting Protocol or CAP  the next-generation EAS 
messaging protocol  six months after FEMA formally adopts the new protocol.  In First Report 
and Order, we expanded the EAS rules to include digital broadcast and cable TV, digital audio 
broadcasting, satellite radio, and direct broadcast satellite services.  Todays Second Report and 
Order takes the modest step to include wireline video providers in EAS, irrespective of their 
regulatory classification as video or information service providers.  We also specifically permit 
the transmission of state-level EAS alerts and warnings that are originated by state governors. 
While these are all modest steps, they are nevertheless important to ensure that the current 
and next generation EAS network facilitates prompt and accurate delivery of national, state and 
local messages to ensure the safety and security of the American people during natural or man-
made disasters.  The Commission has an important role in prescribing rules that establish 
technical standards for EAS, procedures for participating entities, and EAS testing protocol.  
CAP will enable us develop a more secure, reliable, interoperable and integrated multi-
platform EAS network that better serves the needs of the originating source, public safety, EAS 
participating entities and, perhaps more importantly, the targeted communities who may be in the 
path of danger.  Even more hopeful is the potential for CAP to develop a digital alert system 
which would better serve the needs of people with disabilities.  For instance, CAP-formatted 
messages could provide the same alert in text, aural, and video formats.  EAS message 
originators and participants should remember that everyone deserves the same information.  
Therefore, the exact transcription of an audio alert should be the standard once CAP is adopted. 
I am, however, disappointed that this Report does not resolve EAS and general 
emergency information access concerns of non-English speaking and multi-lingual communities. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
73
But at least todays item and the Further Notice provide a framework for the Commission, for 
the first time, to assemble all stakeholders  broadcasters, state officials, FCC Public Safety staff 
and representatives of non-English speaking communities.  According to the Census Bureau, 
there are over 14 million U.S. households in which people speak a language other than English. 
One in five people over age five speaks a language other than English. Access to multi-lingual 
emergency information should have been a priority issue fully addressed and resolved in todays 
item.  I am hopeful that, once and for all, the Commission will pay serious attention to this 
important concern.
It is worth remembering, though, that Commission could impose countless mandates and 
requirements, but the effectiveness of EAS still rests on the good-faith of all participating entities 
and governmental agencies involved in our national, state and local alert system.  Accordingly, 
collaboration, communication and cooperation must be routine  not a single event.  I strongly 
encourage the FCCs Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to remain sincerely engaged, 
and to encourage collaboration among all stakeholders to develop policies, plans, and procedures 
to address the emergency readiness needs of all communities. 
Thus far, I am heartened by the efforts of the National Association of Broadcasters and 
the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council for acting on my request to begin talking 
about a multi-lingual EAS solution in advance of the meetings that the Bureau is required to 
facilitate in the coming weeks.  It is my firm belief that these leaders, who are trying to reach 
agreement in good-faith, should be able to find common ground on an issue of this importance.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
74
STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE 
Re:  Review of the Emergency Alert System; Independent Spanish Broadcasters Association, 
the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ, Inc., and the Minority
Media and Telecommunications Council, Petition for Immediate Relief, EB Docket No. 
04-296.
The dissemination of vital information and interoperable communications are the 
backbone of our defense against natural disasters, attacks on our homeland, and even the 
possibility of a pandemic, health-related, or environmental attack.  The truth of this statement 
was driven home just a few weeks ago in Greensburg, Kansas, where National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration forecasters were able to use the Emergency Alert System (EAS) to 
issue a tornado warning a full 39 minutes before the 1.7 mile wide wedge tornado hit the town, 
followed by a Tornado Emergency message 10-12 minutes before the twister hit urging residents 
to get to shelter immediately.  As tragic as the results of that storm were, residents of Greensburg 
and emergency response officials say that those warnings saved countless lives.
The steps the Commission takes today to improve and enhance the EAS are important 
ones, and will make the system even more effective.  I am proud to play a small role in helping to 
ensure that the President, the National Weather Service, and state governors or their designees 
will be able to rapidly communicate with our citizens in times of crisis over a variety of 
communications platforms.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-109   
75
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. MCDOWELL
Re:  Review of the Emergency Alert System; Independent Spanish Broadcasters Association, 
the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ, Inc., and the Minority
Media and Telecommunications Council, Petition for Immediate Relief, EB Docket No. 
04-296.
In this Order, we take steps to increase the reliability, security and efficacy of the nations 
Emergency Alert System (EAS) network to enable federal and state authorities to rapidly 
communicate with the public in times of crisis.  Specifically, we: require EAS participants to 
accept messages using Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) when CAP is approved by FEMA; 
require common carriers providing video service to participate in EAS as broadcasters and cable 
and satellite providers already do; and permit the transmission of state-level EAS alerts that are 
originated by governors or their designees.  This Order establishes a framework for the next 
generation of EAS, which through innovative technologies will provide a redundant, more 
resilient system for delivering emergency alerts.  The upgraded EAS that CAP will enable also 
will ensure better outreach to all Americans, including non-English speakers and persons with 
hearing and vision disabilities.  
As recent history has shown us, rapid response and warning systems are vital to the safety 
and security of the public in emergencies, whether the threat is an act of God or man-made.  
Americans tune in to their radios and televisions for the information they need in such critical 
times.  Our actions today harness the capabilities offered by new technologies to improve the 
EAS system for the benefit of the public, particularly those who have been harder to reach.  
I thank the Bureau for their hard work and I support this Order.