Home/Federal/Federal Register/2022-23408

Rule2022-23408

The Emergency Alert System

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

November 10, 2022

Effective

December 12, 2022

Issuing agencies

Federal Communications Commission

Abstract

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

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 217 (Thursday, November 10, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 217 (Thursday, November 10, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67808-67826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23408]

[[Page 67808]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 11

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

The Emergency Alert System

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chris Fedeli, Attorney Advisor, Public
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau at 202-418-1514 or
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#35765d475c46415a455d50471b73505150595c755356561b525a43">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

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

Accessible Formats

To request materials in accessible formats for people with
disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d1b7b2b2e4e1e591b7b2b2ffb6bea7">[email&#160;protected]</a> or call the Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

Synopsis

Introduction

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

A. Transmitting More Alert Messages in CAP Format

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

[[Page 67809]]

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

[[Page 67810]]

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

B. Revising the Alert Text for Certain National EAS Codes

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

[[Page 67811]]

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

[[Page 67812]]

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

[[Page 67813]]

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

C. Compliance Time Frame

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

[[Page 67814]]

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

[[Page 67815]]

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

D. Persistent Alerts

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

E. Benefit-Cost Analysis

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

[[Page 67816]]

property by considering the value of reduced mortality risk. If the
Commission were to estimate that the rule changes it adopts today would
reduce mortality risk sufficiently as to lead to an expected reduction
of one life lost per year--an expectation the Commission finds
reasonable and conservative here--the benefits of that risk reduction
would be worth $59 million over the first five years after the rules
take effect (i.e., 5 x $11.8 million).
50. Costs. The measures adopted today are the most cost-effective
ways to achieve the benefits of making EAS more comprehensible, and
therefore more effective, as described above. By declining to adopt
proposals to change the PEP code to NAT or the EAN code to NEM, the
Commission avoids imposing additional and potentially excessive costs
that its new requirements could have imposed on industry. By allowing
six years for complete cable system EAN text change compliance, the
Commission avoids imposing excessive costs on the cable industry that
would have resulted from a shorter compliance timeframe. By exempting
radio broadcasters from the legacy NPT script change, the Commission is
reducing the extent of decoder software updates made outside of the
normal course of planned upgrades. Yet, because the Commission is
allowing sufficient time and flexibility to allow EAS Participants to
make upgrades in tandem with general software upgrades installed during
the regular course of business, the cost of the software changes needed
due to the requirements adopted today will not significantly exceed the
costs of software updates that most EAS Participants would need to
implement whether or not these rule changes are adopted. Accordingly,
most EAS Participants will avoid this cost.
51. In the NDAA FNPRM and the Accessibility NPRM, the Commission
asked for cost estimate submissions from parties subject to today's
decision. No party did so. The Commission believes, however, that the
cost of implementing the EAS decoder equipment changes adopted in this
order will be roughly in line with the cost of changes adopted in the
2016 Weather Alerts Order and the 2017 Blue Alerts Order, which
similarly entailed few costs beyond the reprogramming of EAS decoder
equipment. In the Blue Alerts Order, for example, the Commission
concluded that the only cost to EAS Participants for installing the new
EAS software is the labor cost involved in downloading the software
patches into their devices and associated clerical work. The Commission
follows the procedure of estimating the labor costs of updating
software used in the Weather Alerts Order and the Blue Alerts Order.
52. To form an upper bound of the cost, the Commission assumes that
the software update takes 5 hours, which it expects is substantially
longer than the average time a software update would take. The Office
of Management and Budget approved an estimate of $25 per hour of labor
cost for an EAS Participant to fill out the Commission online report
form for EAS National Tests in 2011. The Commission finds that the real
labor cost of software updates to implement all of today's changes
would be similar and adjusts the labor cost upward to $35 to reflect
inflation since 2011. Each device update would then entail $175 of
labor cost, and with 28,555 estimated broadcasters and cable headends
to update, this implies a total cost of approximately $5 million. The
figure 28,555 is comprised of the sum of 21,149 broadcast stations and
7,136 cable headends.
53. Indeed, the Commission finds that the software updating cost is
likely to be well below $5 million because, as noted above, most EAS
Participants will have sufficient time to avoid this labor cost by
downloading the required software changes together with their general
software upgrades. The Commission therefore estimates the cost of all
decoder software updates most of which can be bundled with ``normally
scheduled software releases'' and performed at the same time, will not
exceed a total one-time cost of approximately $5 million for all EAS
participants.
54. According to cable industry commenters, four of the six changes
(CAP polling, EAN text, NPT text, and NPT script) also require
significant testing in cable operators' networks. As to those testing
costs for the cable industry, the Commission believes that industry
will realize substantial cost savings from conducting coordinated
testing for all of these changes and can do so on the same one-year
schedule in tandem with other annual testing. The Commission expects
that this will result in additional testing cost that, together with
the software downloads, will not cause total costs to exceed the $5
million cost ceiling discussed above. As to the added equipment costs
in the cable industry, the Commission expects that cost to be minimal.
The six-year timeframe it is allowing for the replacement of set-top
boxes will enable operators in most cases to install new equipment in
consumers' premises in the ordinary course of business. The Commission
estimates that the additional amount that cable operators will incur
for replacing set-top boxes to implement the new EAN requirement over
the six-year period will not exceed $4.4 million as a cost ceiling.
55. Comparison of Costs and Benefits. The Commission concludes that
the life-saving benefits to the public of increased comprehensibility
and accessibility of emergency information from the actions adopted in
this Order will far outweigh the implementation costs imposed on EAS
participants. Without attempting to quantify the precise dollar value
of improvements to the public's safety, life, and health, the
Commission observes that the value of the benefits of each of today's
six changes would only have to exceed the worst-case estimated
implementation costs to outweigh the cost of compliance. In light of
the record reflecting substantial public safety improvements from
today's changes, the Commission finds that the changes will have a
value that greatly exceeds the $9.4 million overall cost ceiling for
implementing these six changes. Based on the record, the Commission
further finds that each change has a value that exceeds its incremental
implementation cost.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

56. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
incorporated in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released in
June 2021, and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released in December
2021 (Notices). The Commission sought written public comment on the
proposals in the Notices, including comment on the IRFAs. The two
comments were filed addressing the IRFAs are discussed below in Section
B. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms
to the RFA.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Final Rules

57. In today's Report and Order (Order), the Commission adopts
rules to improve the comprehensibility and accessibility of emergency
alerts the public receives via broadcast, cable, and satellite radio
and television via the Emergency Alert System (EAS). The EAS ensures
that the public is quickly informed about emergency alerts issued by
federal, state, local, Tribal, and territorial governments and
delivered over radio and television. These announcements keep the
public safe and informed and have increased in importance in the wake
of the emergencies and disasters experienced

[[Page 67817]]

by Americans in the past few years. The Commission has determined that
these EAS rule changes are necessary to improve the comprehensibility
and accessibility of EAS alerts, and to ensure equal accessibility to
emergency alert information for people with hearing disabilities.
Consistent with the congressional directives in the Communications Act,
the Commission amends its rules to ensure that more people will receive
better emergency alert information from the EAS.
58. Specifically, the Commission requires EAS Participants, upon
receiving an alert in legacy format, to poll the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's (FEMA) Integrated Public Alert Warning System
(IPAWS) for a version of the alert in the Common Alerting Protocol
(CAP) and, if available, to distribute the CAP version of the alert
instead. The Commission also amends its rules to change the visual text
displayed to the public for three alert codes: the Emergency Action
Notification (EAN), the Primary Entry Point system (PEP), and the
National Periodic Test (NPT), and to add a fourth new visual display
for when the NPT is sent in legacy-only format. Finally, the Commission
removes the outdated National Information Center (NIC) code from the
EAS.
59. The rules adopted in the Order are intended to improve the
clarity and comprehensibility of visual alert information for all
Americans, and to ensure alerts are accessible to people who are deaf
or hard of hearing. They will benefit the public by improving the
quality of emergency information received, and they will ensure that
the superior visual ``enhanced text'' capabilities of CAP alerts are
more frequently distributed to the public. These actions will have the
result of minimizing confusion and disruption caused by confusing
visual alerts, will increase the public's trust in the EAS system, will
promote accessibility to emergency information for people who are deaf
or hard of hearing, and therefore will improve the system for
distributing vital alert information for all Americans.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA

60. Brett Silverman and Jack Underhill filed comments that
specifically addressed the analysis presented in the IRFAs. Silverman
states that the Commission's 2012 order requiring all EAS Participants
to make significant upgrades to their EAS equipment to support CAP
alerting ``means that many of the smaller business entities have
already paid to update their EAS systems,'' and therefore the proposed
rules ``will not put a significant effect on smaller broadcast
companies who it may have been a burden for.'' Underhill states that
the Commission should minimize costs for small entity broadcasters by
``grant[ing] governmental subsidies to fund the software upgrades,'' or
by ``providing a general subsidy for organizations to fund any kind of
equipment.''
61. The Commission agrees with Silverman's assessment that the
rules the Commission adopts today are, in large part, extensions of the
equipment upgrades for the transition to CAP alerting which began in
2012, and therefore the costs will not significantly impact small
entities. With respect to Underhill's comments, the Commission does not
currently have a statutory funding mechanism in place to make grants to
smaller broadcasters for the purpose of seeking to comply with the
Commission's EAS rules or as a general fund. The Commission encourages
small entities needing funds to seek grants that may be available from
other funding sources, including the U.S. Department of Commerce's
National Telecommunications and Information Administration or the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration

62. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended
the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the
proposed rules as a result of those comments.
63. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the
proposed rules in this proceeding.

D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Rules Will Apply

64. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be
affected by the rules, adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
65. Small entities are among the current EAS Participants which
include 17,521 radio broadcasters and 8,133 other participants,
including television broadcasters, cable operators, satellite
operators, and other businesses in the industry segments discussed
below, that are impacted by the changes adopted in today's Order.
66. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. The Commission's actions may, over time, affect small
entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission
therefore describes here, at the outset, three broad groups of small
entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are
industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in
the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's
Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent
business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small
businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States which
translates to 32.5 million businesses.
67. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or
less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for small
exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there were
approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
68. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census
Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate that there
were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United
States. Of this number there were 36,931 General purpose governments
(county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than
50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments--independent school
districts with enrollment of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on
the 2017 U.S.

[[Page 67818]]

Census of Governments data, the Commission estimates that at least
48,971 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental
jurisdictions.''
69. Radio Stations. This industry is comprised of ``establishments
primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the
public.'' Programming may originate in their own studio, from an
affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA small business
size standard for this industry classifies firms having $41.5 million
or less in annual receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017
show that 2,963 firms operated in this industry during that year. Of
this number, 1,879 firms operated with revenue of less than $25 million
per year. Based on this data and the SBA's small business size
standard, the Commission estimates a majority of such entities are
small entities.
70. The Commission estimates that as of March 31, 2022, there were
4,508 licensed commercial AM radio stations and 6,763 licensed
commercial FM radio stations, for a combined total of 11,271 commercial
radio stations. Of this total, 11,269 stations (or 99.98%) had revenues
of $41.5 million or less in 2021, according to Commission staff review
of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Database (BIA) on June 1, 2022,
and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA
definition. In addition, the Commission estimates that as of March
2022, there were 4,119 licensed noncommercial (NCE) FM radio stations,
2,049 low power FM (LPFM) stations, and 8,919 FM translators and
boosters. The Commission however does not compile, and otherwise does
not have access to financial information for these radio stations that
would permit it to determine how many of these stations qualify as
small entities under the SBA small business size standard.
Nevertheless, given the SBA's large annual receipts threshold for this
industry and the nature of radio station licensees, the Commission
presumes that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the
above SBA small business size standard.
71. The Commission notes, however, that in assessing whether a
business concern qualifies as ``small'' under the above definition,
business (control) affiliations must be included. The Commission's
estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities
that might be affected by the Commission's action, because the revenue
figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from
affiliated companies. In addition, another element of the definition of
``small business'' requires that an entity not be dominant in its field
of operation. The Commission is unable at this time to define or
quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific radio or
television broadcast station is dominant in its field of operation.
Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which the rules may
apply does not exclude any radio or television station from the
definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly
over-inclusive. An additional element of the definition of ``small
business'' is that the entity must be independently owned and operated.
Because it is difficult to assess these criteria in the context of
media entities, the estimate of small businesses to which the rules may
apply does not exclude any radio or television station from the
definition of a small business on this basis and similarly may be over-
inclusive.
72. FM Translator Stations and Low Power FM Stations. FM
translators and Low Power FM Stations are classified in the industry
for Radio Stations. The Radio Stations industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by
radio to the public. Programming may originate in their own studio,
from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA small
business size standard for this industry classifies firms having $41.5
million or less in annual receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data
for 2017 show that 2,963 firms operated during that year. Of that
number, 1,879 firms operated with revenue of less than $25 million per
year. Therefore, based on the SBA's size standard the Commission
concludes that the majority of FM Translator stations and Low Power FM
Stations are small. Additionally, according to Commission data, as of
March 31, 2022, there were 8,919 FM Translator Stations and 2,049 Low
Power FM licensed broadcast stations. The Commission however does not
compile and otherwise does not have access to information on the
revenue of these stations that would permit it to determine how many of
the stations would qualify as small entities. For purposes of this
regulatory flexibility analysis, the Commission presumes the majority
of these stations are small entities.
73. Television Broadcasting. This industry is comprised of
``establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with
sound.'' These establishments operate television broadcast 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 studio, from an affiliated
network, or from external sources. The SBA small business size standard
for this industry classifies businesses having $41.5 million or less in
annual receipts as small. 2017 U.S. Census Bureau data indicate that
744 firms in this industry operated for the entire year. Of that
number, 657 firms had revenue of less than $25,000,000. Based on this
data the Commission estimates that the majority of television
broadcasters are small entities under the SBA small business size
standard.
74. The Commission estimates that as of March 31, 2022, there were
1,373 licensed commercial television stations. Of this total, 1,280
stations (or 93.2%) had revenues of $41.5 million or less in 2021,
according to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media
Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on June 1, 2022, and therefore
these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In
addition, the Commission estimates as of March 31, 2022, there were 384
licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations, 383 Class
A TV stations, 1,840 LPTV stations and 3,231 TV translator stations.
The Commission however does not compile, and otherwise does not have
access to financial information for these television broadcast stations
that would permit it to determine how many of these stations qualify as
small entities under the SBA small business size standard.
Nevertheless, given the SBA's large annual receipts threshold for this
industry and the nature of television station licensees, the Commission
presumes that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the
above SBA small business size standard.
75. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. The U.S. Census
Bureau defines this industry as establishments primarily engaged in
operating studios and facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a
subscription or fee basis. The broadcast programming is typically
narrowcast in nature (e.g., limited format, such as news, sports,
education, or youth-oriented). These establishments produce programming
in their own facilities or acquire programming from external sources.
The programming material is usually delivered to a third party, such as
cable systems or direct-to-home satellite systems, for transmission to
viewers. The SBA small business size standard for this industry
classifies firms with annual receipts less than $41.5 million

[[Page 67819]]

as small. Based on U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017, 378 firms operated
in this industry during that year. Of that number, 149 firms operated
with revenue of less than $25 million a year and 44 firms operated with
revenue of $25 million or more. Based on this data, the Commission
estimates that a majority of firms in this industry are small.
76. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, contains a size standard for
small cable system operators, which classifies ``a cable operator that,
directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than
one 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,'' as small. For purposes of the
Telecom Act Standard, the Commission determined that a cable system
operator that serves fewer than 677,000 subscribers, either directly or
through affiliates, will meet the definition of a small cable operator
based on the cable subscriber count established in a 2001 Public
Notice. Based on industry data, only six cable system operators have
more than 677,000 subscribers. Accordingly, the Commission estimates
that the majority of cable system operators are small under this size
standard. The Commission notes however, that the Commission neither
requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are
affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250
million. Therefore, the Commission is unable at this time to estimate
with greater precision the number of cable system operators that would
qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the
Communications Act.
77. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission
has developed its own small business size standard for the purpose of
cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a ``small cable
company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide. Based
on industry data, there are about 420 cable companies in the U.S. Of
these, only seven have more than 400,000 subscribers. In addition,
under the Commission's rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system
serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Based on industry data, there are
about 4,139 cable systems (headends) in the U.S. Of these, about 639
have more than 15,000 subscribers. Accordingly, the Commission
estimates that the majority of cable operators are small.
78. Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Satellite
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth
station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this
industry classifies a business with $35 million or less in annual
receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms
in this industry operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242
firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Additionally, based on
Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of
December 31, 2020, there were 71 providers that reported they were
engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of
these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 48
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently using the SBA's
small business size standard, a little more than 80 percent of these
providers can be considered small entities.
79. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of
establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of
internet services (e.g., dial-up ISPs) or voice over internet protocol
(VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are
also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard
for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million
or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were
1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of
those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this
data, the Commission estimates that the majority of ``All Other
Telecommunications'' firms can be considered small.
80. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service.
Broadband Radio Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint
Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution
Service (MMDS) systems, and ``wireless cable,'' transmit video
programming to subscribers and provide two-way high speed data
operations using the microwave frequencies of the Broadband Radio
Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) (previously
referred to as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)).
Wireless cable operators that use spectrum in the BRS often
supplemented with leased channels from the EBS, provide a competitive
alternative to wired cable and other multichannel video programming
distributors. Wireless cable programming to subscribers resembles cable
television, but instead of coaxial cable, wireless cable uses microwave
channels.
81. In light of the use of wireless frequencies by BRS and EBS
services, the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard
applicable to these services is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except Satellite). The SBA small business size standard for this
industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893
firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this
number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the
SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of
licensees in this industry can be considered small.
82. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were
approximately 5,869 active BRS and EBS licenses. The Commission's small
business size standards with respect to BRS involves eligibility for
bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for
these services. For the auction of BRS licenses, the Commission adopted
criteria for three groups of small businesses. A very small business is
an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests,
has average annual gross revenues exceed $3 million and did not exceed
$15 million for the preceding three years, a small business is an
entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests,
has average gross revenues exceed $15 million and did not exceed $40
million for the preceding three years, and an entrepreneur is an entity
that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has
average gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three
years. Of the ten winning bidders for BRS licenses, two bidders
claiming the small business status won 4 licenses, one bidder

[[Page 67820]]

claiming the very small business status won three licenses and two
bidders claiming entrepreneur status won six licenses. One of the
winning bidders claiming a small business status classification in the
BRS license auction has an active license as of December 2021.
83. The Commission's small business size standards for EBS define a
small business as an entity that, together with its affiliates, its
controlling interests and the affiliates of its controlling interests,
has average gross revenues that are not more than $55 million for the
preceding five (5) years, and a very small business is an entity that,
together with its affiliates, its controlling interests and the
affiliates of its controlling interests, has average gross revenues
that are not more than $20 million for the preceding five (5) years. In
frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission
notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that
qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not
necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in
service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time the Commission is not
able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that
would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
84. Direct Broadcast Satellite (``DBS'') Service. DBS service is a
nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and
audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic ``dish'' antenna
at the subscriber's location. DBS is included in the Wired
Telecommunications Carriers industry which comprises establishments
primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission
facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the
transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired
telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a
single technology or combination of technologies. Establishments in
this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that
they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony
services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video
programming distribution; and wired broadband internet services. By
exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution
services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are
included in this industry.
85. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 3,054
firms operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number,
2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Based on this data,
the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small under
the SBA small business size standard. According to Commission data
however, only two entities provide DBS service--DIRECTV (owned by AT&T)
and DISH Network, which require a great deal of capital for operation.
DIRECTV and DISH Network both exceed the SBA size standard for
classification as a small business. Therefore, the Commission must
conclude based on internally developed Commission data, in general DBS
service is provided only by large firms.
86. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and
wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and
broadcasting equipment. The SBA small business size standard for this
industry classifies businesses having 1,250 employees or less as small.
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 656 firms in this
industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 624 firms
had fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the
majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.

E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

87. The Order does not impose new and/or additional reporting or
record keeping requirements, however as proposed in the Notices, the
Order imposes additional compliance obligations on certain small, as
well as other, entities that distribute EAS alerts and manufacture EAS
equipment that process such alerts.
88. Specifically, the Commission adopts a mandatory CAP polling
rule that requires EAS Participants, when they receive a state or local
legacy EAS alert, to poll the IPAWS CAP EAS server to confirm whether
there is a CAP version of that alert and use the CAP version. EAS
Participants must poll the IPAWS CAP EAS Feed for a CAP version of the
received legacy alert at least 10 seconds after detection of the legacy
alert's initial header code for a legacy state or local alert that, (i)
is valid, (ii) covers a type of event and a geographic area for which
the EAS Participant normally transmits alerts to the public and (iii)
is not a duplicate of a CAP-formatted message it has already received.
89. The Commission also adopts changes to three EAS code text
descriptions that EAS Participants must implement within one-year of
the effective date of the Order. These changes impact for PEP code, EAN
code, and NPT codes, but do not change the three-letter codes
themselves. The Order changes the PEP code description from ``Primary
Entry Point'' to ``United States Government,'' and changes the EAN code
description from ``Emergency Action Notification'' to ``National
Emergency Message,'' and the NPT event code description from ``National
Periodic Test'' to ``Nationwide Test of the Emergency Alert System.''
Additionally, the Commission requires a separate, longer prepared
visual script for the NPT during legacy-based nationwide EAS test
alerts. and deletes the NIC code from the EAS.
90. All of these changes require EAS equipment manufacturers to
develop software updates in deployed EAS equipment and EAS equipment in
production. Separately, the CAP polling change, the NPT code
description change, and the NPT script addition will each also require
EAS participants, particularly cable operators, to conduct testing and
make modifications to downstream equipment used to process alerts, such
as set-top boxes. The EAN code description change will also require EAS
participants, particularly cable operators, to replace certain
downstream equipment used to process the EAN, such as set-top boxes. In
addition, since some deployed EAS encoder equipment might not be
capable of being updated to reflect the new requirements, those devices
will have to be replaced.
91. The primary costs associated with the rules the Commission
adopts in the Order involve creating and installing software into EAS
encoder devices, testing and modifying downstream network processing
equipment, and replacing certain downstream processing equipment. In
the Notices, the Commission requested cost estimates from the parties
on the proposals adopted in today's proceeding but did not receive any.
Therefore, the

[[Page 67821]]

Commission cannot quantify the cost of compliance for small entities.
The Commission assesses that small entities will need to have their EAS
decoder equipment updated by manufacturers to implement the
requirements adopted in the Order. However, based on past EAS equipment
updates where the Commission adopted changes adding new EAS event
codes, the Commission believes the cost of compliance with the rule
changes adopted in the Order for most affected industries, will not
significantly exceed the costs of software updates that most EAS
Participants would need to implement whether or not these rule changes
are adopted. Moreover, the Commission further believes that the cost of
implementing the required EAS decoder equipment changes will be roughly
in line with the cost of changes adopted in the 2016 Weather Alerts
Order and the 2017 Blue Alerts Order, which similarly entailed few
costs beyond the reprogramming of EAS decoder equipment. Consequently,
the Commission estimates the costs of all decoder software updates
needed to implement the rule changes adopted in the Order, most of
which according to commenters in the proceeding can be bundled with
``normally scheduled software releases'' and performed at the same
time, will cost a total of $5 million for the industry. Additionally,
small entities that have complied with previous EAS code changes have
the experience, and should have the processes and procedures in place
to facilitate compliance resulting in minimal incremental costs to
comply with the changes in the Order.
92. With regard to four of the six changes cable operators have
identified (CAP polling, EAN text, NPT text, and NPT script) as
requiring testing, modification, and/or replacement of downstream
equipment in cable operators' networks, the Commission believes small
and other cable operators will realize significant cost savings from
conducting testing and downstream equipment modification in a
coordinated fashion for all of these changes on the same one-year
schedule, and these costs are included in the $5 million cost ceiling.
Further, since the Commission has allowed cable operators the
additional time to replace set-top boxes with new equipment that no
longer have the EAN label hard-wired into them which should make it
possible for operators to incorporate such a specification into the new
devices that will be installed in consumers' premises in the ordinary
course of business irrespective of this requirement, in most instances,
the Commission estimates the additional costs that small and other
cable operators will incur to replace set-top boxes to implement this
requirement over the extended six-year period following the effective
date of this order should not exceed $4.4 million.
93. The Commission believes these changes adopted in the Order
impose minor costs for small and other entities, when compared to the
substantial public safety improvements reflected in the record. While
as a general matter, it is impossible to quantify the precise dollar
value of improvements to the public's safety, life, and health, the
value of these changes are likely to substantially exceeds the overall
cost of their implementation. Thus, the Commission further believes
that the value of improved public safety in reducing risk of avoidable
deaths and injuries by better informing the public of pending
emergencies is substantial, and outweighs the costs of the EAS changes
adopted in the Order.

F. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

94. The RFA requires an agency to provide, a description of the
steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact
on small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy,
and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final
rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule
considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was
rejected.
95. The actions taken by the Commission in the Order are intended
to be minimally costly and minimally burdensome for small and other
entities impacted by the rules. As such, the Commission does not expect
the adopted requirements to have a significant economic impact on small
entities. Below the Commission discusses actions the Commission takes
in the Order to minimize any significant economic impact on small
entities and some alternatives that were considered.
96. Adopting A Mandatory CAP Polling and CAP Message Prioritizing
Requirement. The Commission considered but declined to adopt proposals
by commenters not to implement a CAP polling requirement and to make
CAP message prioritizing optional within the discretion of each EAS
Participant. These alternatives were not supported by any factual
information, were not justifiable because of the current unavailability
of National Weather Service (NWS) alerts in CAP format and were
premised on an erroneous assumption that the Commission would adopt a
uniform polling requirement for all EAS Participants. The Commission
concluded that the potential benefits to public safety of increased CAP
usage for non-weather related state and local emergency alerts should
not be foreclosed because NWS alerts are not included. Moreover, the
Commission has included sufficient flexibility in its requirements to
account for unique factors affecting EAS Participants.
97. The Commission also considered but declined to grant radio
broadcasters an exception from its CAP prioritization mandate. There
are various reasons why radio broadcasters, like video service EAS
Participants, should be required to distribute CAP messages rather than
legacy-formatted messages wherever possible. Indeed, the Commission
identifies various reasons why radio broadcasters, like video service
EAS Participants, should be required to distribute CAP messages rather
than legacy-formatted messages wherever possible, including but not
limited to the fact that there are digital radio broadcasters that
produce visual alerts to digital radio receivers; the use of text-to-
speech has been standardized in EAS equipment and systems for over 12
years and it is routinely used and supported today and the audio
generated from a CAP alert, whether from text-to-speech or from airing
a CAP audio file, typically is superior in clarity and quality to that
contained in a legacy alert.
98. Changing the Three-Letter EAS Codes. The Commission has
declined to adopt its Notice proposals to change the three-letter codes
for PEP to NAT and for EAN to NEM, which would have created both
increased decoder costs and substantial downstream network equipment
replacement costs for small entities and other EAS Participants.
Similarly, the three-letter event code for the NPT will remain the
same, which the Commission believes will also minimize the compliance
burdens borne by EAS Participants. Changing only the definitions of
these codes, as the Order does, achieves the public benefit of more
comprehensible alerts, whereas changing the three-letter codes
themselves does not further the goal of averting public confusion
because the public does not see the three-letter codes on their screens
or hear them pronounced in audio, and similarly the three-letter codes
are not seen by EAS participants. Rather, the three-letter code
acronyms are computer code designed to transmit specific

[[Page 67822]]

instructions for different alerts and to instruct EAS equipment to
generate different outputs based on the codes. By leaving the codes as-
is, the Order avoids substantial compliance costs that small entities
would have otherwise faced.
99. Timing of Compliance. The Commission has adopted a consolidated
compliance schedule allowing a full year from the effective date of the
Order for entities to comply with all regulatory changes adopted in the
Order, instead of requiring multiple compliance timeframes (with two
exceptions discussed in the following paragraph). This approach is
consistent with the Commission's past orders requiring EAS encoder
software updates and will save small entities significant costs, as
production and labor to make the necessary EAS encoder equipment
changes can be done with a single software installation instead of
multiple installations in different years and on different compliance
timetables. The consolidated compliance schedule, which establishes a
single deadline for compliance with multiple similar changes, also
means that downstream equipment field testing and modifications can
often be conducted at the same time, saving small as well as other
entities the cost of scheduling additional separate field tests and
upgrades at different times in different years.
100. The exceptions to the one year compliance requirement provide
a six year compliance deadline for cable operators to replace
downstream equipment to comply with the EAN descriptive text change,
and fifteen months for downstream equipment EAN software updates. These
implementation extensions will substantially reduce costs for small
entities, as set-top boxes can be replaced in the ordinary course of
business per the normal lifecycle of this equipment, instead of
requiring a large scale replacement of set-top boxes for compliance on
a nearer term schedule. Accordingly, the marginal cost of compliance
with the change to EAN text displayed to the public will be
substantially reduced for small and all other cable operators entities
including small entities.
101. Legacy Script Change Exemption. The Commission exempted radio
broadcasters from compliance with the NPT legacy script change. The
Commission did not find that the potential marginal benefit of applying
the legacy script requirement to all radio broadcasters was justified
when the vast majority of radio broadcasters will not produce increased
alert clarity as a result of such a requirement. This exemption will
reduce costs for small and other radio broadcaster entities. Moreover,
since radio broadcasters in particular make up the largest category of
EAS Participants by number of entities, lessening costs for this
category of EAS participants should minimize the economic impact for a
substantial number of small entities.
102. Implementation. The Commission does not mandate how EAS
equipment must be designed in order to comply with the rule changes
adopted in the Order and will use performance standards rather than
design standards to measure compliance. EAS Participants will be in
compliance with the required changes as long as their EAS equipment
performs the CAP polling within the specified time frame, and ensures
the new code descriptive text or script is displayed to the public.
Leaving the equipment modification decisions up to the industry
provides small and other affected EAS Participants the flexibility to
make decisions and adopt approaches that are technically and
financially feasible for their businesses.
103. Persistent Alerts. The Commission has declined to adopt a new
persistent alerting requirement in light of the record which
establishes that requiring equipment updates and network changes
necessary to implement this rule will introduce excessive costs to EAS
Participants that are difficult to justify given the complexity and
design burdens associated with their adoption. The Commission was not
persuaded that implementing persistent alerts would be technically
feasible in the context of the basic design of the EAS, and note that
there was virtually unanimous opposition to this proposal by commenting
parties, including alert originators, SECCs, EAS Participants, and
equipment manufacturers. Further, adopting a persistent alerting
requirement would have resulted in substantial equipment modifications
or replacements for all affected small and other entities, and could
have led to significant problems and disruptions to the overall EAS
system. Such events, which would result in even greater costs in the
form of fixing later-arising problems or malfunctions, and would have
further increased costs for all EAS Participants and been detrimental
to EAS operations and potentially to the public.

Report to Congress

104. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order,
including this FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy
of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the SBA.

Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

105. This document does not contain new or modified information
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA). In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act
of 2002.

Congressional Review Act

106. The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, concurs, that this rule is non-major under the Congressional
Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of this
Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Incorporation by Reference

The material referenced in the regulatory text was approved for
incorporation by reference on April 23, 2012, and no changes are made
in this final rule.

Ordering Clauses

107. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 151,
152, 154(i), 154(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 544(g),
606, 613, 1201, 1202(a), (b), (c), (f), 1203, 1204 and 1206, that the
foregoing Report and Order is adopted, and the Commission's rules are
hereby amended, as set forth in Appendix A of the Report & Order.
108. It is further ordered that that 47 U.S.C. part 11 is amended,
as set forth below, and that this Report and Order, including the
amended rules, shall be effective December 12, 2022.
109. It is further ordered that the Office of the Managing
Director, Performance Evaluation and Records Management, shall send a
copy of this Report & Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
110. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of the Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.

[[Page 67823]]

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 11

Incorporation by reference, Radio, Television.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 11 as follows:

PART 11--EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM (EAS)

0
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), 606,
1201, 1206.

0
2. Amend Sec. 11.2 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec. 11.2 Definitions.

* * * * *
(a) National Emergency Message (EAN). The National Emergency
Message (formerly called the Emergency Action Notification or
Presidential alert message) is the notice to all EAS Participants and
to the general public that the EAS has been activated for a national
emergency. EAN messages that are formatted in the EAS Protocol
(specified in Sec. 11.31) are sent from a government origination point
to broadcast stations and other entities participating in the National
Public Warning System, and are subsequently disseminated via EAS
Participants. Dissemination arrangements for EAN messages that are
formatted in the EAS Protocol (specified in Sec. 11.31) at the State
and local levels are specified in the State and Local Area plans
(defined at Sec. 11.21). A national activation of the EAS for a
Presidential National Emergency Message with the Event code EAN as
specified in Sec. 11.31 must take priority over any other message and
preempt it if it is in progress.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec. 11.16 by revising paragraph (a) and removing paragraph
(c) to read as follows:

Sec. 11.16 National Control Point Procedures.

* * * * *
(a) National Level EAS Activation. This section contains the
activation and termination instructions for the National Emergency
Message.
* * * * *

0
4. Revise Sec. 11.18 to read as follows:

Sec. 11.18 EAS Designations.

(a) A Primary Entry Point (PEP) is a private or commercial radio
broadcast station that cooperatively participates with FEMA to provide
EAS alerts to the public. PEPs are the primary source of initial
broadcast for a Presidential Alert. A PEP is equipped with back-up
communications equipment and power generators designed to enable it to
continue broadcasting information to the public during and after
disasters of national significance. The National Public Warning System
(formerly called the Primary Entry Point System) is a nationwide
network of broadcast stations and satellite operators used to
distribute EAS alerts formatted in the EAS Protocol. FEMA is
responsible for designating broadcast stations as PEPs.
(b) A National Primary (NP) is an entity tasked with the primary
responsibility of receiving the National Emergency Message from a PEP
and delivering it to an individual state or portion of a state. In
states without a PEP, the NP is responsible for receiving the National
Emergency Message from an out-of-state PEP and transmitting it to the
public and other EAS Participants in the state. Multiple entities may
be charged with primary responsibility for delivering the National
Emergency Message.
(c) A State Primary (SP) is an entity tasked with initiating the
delivery of EAS alerts other than the National Emergency Message.
(d) A State Relay (SR) is an entity not otherwise designated that
is charged with retransmitting EAS alerts for the purpose of being
monitored by a Local Primary or Participating National. SRs must
monitor or deliver EAS alerts as required by the State EAS Plan.
(e) A State Relay Network (SRN) is a network composed of State
Relay (SR) sources, leased common carrier communications facilities, or
any other available communication facilities. The network distributes
State EAS messages originated by the Governor or designated official.
In addition to EAS monitoring, satellites, microwave, FM subcarrier, or
any other communications technology may be used to distribute State
emergency messages.
(f) A Local Primary (LP) is an entity that serves as a monitoring
assignment for other EAS Participants within the state. LP sources may
be assigned numbers (e.g., LP-1, 2, 3) and are relied on as monitoring
sources by other EAS Participants in the Local Area. An LP may monitor
any other station, including another LP, as set forth in the State EAS
Plan, so long as doing so avoids creating a single point of failure in
the alert distribution hierarchy.
(g) A Participating National (PN) is an EAS Participant that
transmits national, state, or Local Area EAS messages, and is not
otherwise designated within the State EAS Plan. PNs monitor LPs or
other sources as set forth in the State EAS Plan.

0
5. Amend Sec. 11.21 by revising paragraphs (a)(2), (4), and (7) to
read as follows:

Sec. 11.21 State and Local Area plans and FCC Mapbook.

* * * * *
(a) * * *
(2) Procedures for state emergency management officials, the
National Weather Service, and EAS Participant personnel to transmit
emergency information to the public during an emergency via the EAS,
including the extent to which the state's dissemination strategy for
state and local emergency alerts differs from its strategy for the
National Emergency Message;
* * * * *
(4) A monitoring assignment matrix, in computer readable form,
clearly showing monitoring assignments and the specific primary and
backup path for the National Emergency Message (EAN) from the NPWS to
all key EAS sources (using the uniform designations specified in Sec.
11.18) and to each station in the plan, organized by operational areas
within the state. If a state's emergency alert system is capable of
initiating EAS messages formatted in the Common Alerting Protocol
(CAP), its EAS State Plan must include specific and detailed
information describing how such messages will be aggregated and
distributed to EAS Participants within the state, including the
monitoring requirements associated with distributing such messages;
* * * * *
(7) The SECC governance structure utilized by the state in order to
organize state and local resources to ensure the efficient and
effective delivery of a National Emergency Message, including the
duties of the SECC, the membership selection process utilized by the
SECC, and the administrative structure of the SECC.
* * * * *

0
6. Amend Sec. 11.31 by revising paragraph (d), and amending paragraph
(e) by revising the entries under the heading ``National codes
(Required)'' to read as follows:

Sec. 11.31 EAS protocol.

* * * * *
(d)(1) The only originator codes are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originator ORG code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAS Participant.............................. EAS

[[Page 67824]]

Civil authorities............................ CIV
National Weather Service..................... WXR
United States Government..................... PEP
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Use of the previously authorized NIC originator code (National
Information Center) must be discontinued by no later than December 12,
2023.
(e) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nature of activation Event codes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National codes (required):
National Emergency Message................. EAN
Nationwide Test of the Emergency Alert NPT
System.
Required Monthly Test...................... RMT
Required Weekly Test....................... RWT

* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec. 11.51 by revising paragraphs (d), (g)(3), (h)(3),
(j)(2), introductory text of paragraph (m), (m)(2), and (p) to read as
follows:

Sec. 11.51 EAS code and Attention Signal Transmission requirements.

* * * * *
(d) Analog and digital television broadcast stations, analog cable
systems, digital cable systems, wireless cable systems, wireline video
systems, and DBS providers shall transmit a visual message containing
the Originator, Event, and Location and the valid time period of an EAS
message. Visual messages derived from CAP-formatted EAS messages shall
contain the Originator, Event, Location and the valid time period of
the message and shall be constructed in accordance with Sec. 3.6 of
the ``ECIG Recommendations for a CAP EAS Implementation Guide, Version
1.0'' (May 17, 2010).
(1) The visual message portion of an EAS alert, whether video crawl
or block text, must be displayed:
(i) At the top of the television screen or where it will not
interfere with other visual messages
(ii) In a manner (i.e., font size, color, contrast, location, and
speed) that is readily readable and understandable,
(iii) In a manner that does not contain overlapping lines of EAS
text or extend beyond the viewable display (except for video crawls
that intentionally scroll on and off of the screen), and
(iv) In full at least once during any EAS message.
(2) The audio portion of an EAS message must play in full at least
once during any EAS message.
(3) On and after December 12, 2023,
(i) The portion of the required visual message corresponding with
the Originator Code shall use the term in the first column in the table
in Sec. 11.31(d) corresponding to the ORG code in the second column of
that table.
(ii) The portion of the required visual message corresponding with
the Event Code shall use the term in the first column in the table in
Sec. 11.31(e) corresponding to the Event code in the second column of
that table, except as set forth in paragraphs (d)(3)(iii) and (d)(5) of
this section.
(iii) Notwithstanding paragraphs (d)(3)(i) and (ii) of this
section, if the header codes of the received EAS message specify the
NPT Event code and the ``All U.S.'' location code, and if the received
EAS message is formatted in the EAS protocol, then the required visual
message shall consist of the following text instead of replicating the
terms of the Originator, Event, and Location codes: ``This is a
nationwide test of the Emergency Alert System, issued by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, covering the United States from [time]
until [time]. This is only a test. No action is required by the
public.'' The ``from [time] until [time]'' portion of the text required
in the preceding sentence shall be determined from the alert's release
date/time and valid time period header codes specified at Sec.
11.31(c).
(4) Prior to December 12, 2023, the required visual message shall
either conform to paragraph (d)(3) or, in the alternative, shall
display--
(i) The term ``Emergency Action Notification'' as the portion of
the visual message corresponding to the EAN Event code if the header
codes of the received EAS message specify the EAN Event code.
(ii) The term ``National Periodic Test'' as the portion of the
visual message corresponding to the NPT Event code if the header codes
of the received EAS message specify the NPT Event code.
(iii) The term ``Primary Entry Point'' as the portion of the visual
message corresponding to the PEP Originator code if the header codes of
the received EAS message specify the PEP Originator code.
(5) If the EAS Participant is an analog or digital cable system
subject to paragraphs (g) or (h) of this section, then--
(i) If, with respect to a particular subscriber, the portion of the
required visual message corresponding to the EAN event code can be
altered by means of software upgrades or other changes that do not
require replacement of the subscriber's navigation device, then, prior
to March 12, 2024, the portion of the required visual message displayed
to the subscriber corresponding to the EAN Event code shall comply with
either paragraph (d)(3)(ii) or (d)(4)(i) of this section; after that
date, the portion of the required visual message displayed to the
subscriber corresponding to the EAN Event code shall comply with
paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section.
(ii) If, with respect to a particular subscriber, no alterations to
the portion of the required visual message corresponding to the EAN
event code can be implemented unless the subscriber's navigation device
is replaced with a device that is capable of displaying the visual
message corresponding to the EAN event code as set forth in paragraph
(d)(3)(ii) of this section then, prior to December 12, 2028 or the date
when the subscriber's navigation device is replaced, whichever occurs
earliest--
(A) The portion of the required visual message displayed to the
subscriber corresponding to the EAN Event code shall comply with either
paragraph (d)(3)(ii) or paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section;
thereafter, the portion of the required visual message displayed to the
subscriber corresponding to the EAN Event code shall comply with
paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this section.
(B) If the operator of the cable system makes the navigation device
available to the subscriber as ``associated equipment'' in connection
with a cable service, as the term ``associated equipment'' is used in
part 76, subpart N of this chapter, and a subscriber who is deaf or
hard of hearing requests that the cable system operator provide a
navigation device that is capable of displaying a visual message that
complies with paragraph (d)(1) of this section, to replace a navigation
device that lacks such capability, then the cable system operator shall
provide and, if necessary, install such replacement navigation device
within a reasonable period of time, to the same extent required and on
the same terms and conditions as set forth at Sec. 79.108 of this
chapter. This paragraph (d)(5)(ii)(B) applies only to subscribers who
state that they are deaf or hard of hearing or a household member who
is deaf or hard of hearing.
(iii) Prior to December 12, 2028, the cable system operator must
prominently display on its website information regarding the
availability of replacement navigation devices to eligible subscribers
as set forth in paragraph (d)(5)(ii)(B) of this section, in the same
manner as provided at Sec. 79.108(d)(2) of this chapter.
(iv) For purposes of this paragraph (d)(5), the term ``navigation
device''

[[Page 67825]]

means equipment that is located at a subscriber's premises and
satisfies the definition of ``navigation device'' in Sec. 76.1200(c)
of this chapter.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(3) Shall transmit a visual EAS message on at least one channel.
The visual message shall comply with the requirements in paragraph (d)
of this section.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(3) Shall transmit the EAS visual message on all downstream
channels. The visual message shall comply with the requirements in
paragraph (d) of this section.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(2) The visual message shall comply with the requirements in
paragraph (d) of this section.
* * * * *
(m) EAS Participants are required to transmit all received EAS
messages in which the header code contains the Event code for National
Emergency Message (EAN), Nationwide Test of the Emergency Alert System
(NPT), or Required Monthly Test (RMT), and when the accompanying
location codes include their State or State/county. These EAS messages
shall be retransmitted unchanged except for the LLLLLLLL-code which
identifies the EAS Participant retransmitting the message. See Sec.
11.31(c). If an EAS source originates an EAS message with any of the
Event codes listed in this paragraph, it must include the location
codes for the State(s) and counties in its service area. When
transmitting the required weekly test, EAS Participants shall use the
event code RWT. The location codes are the state and county for the
broadcast station city of license or system community or city. Other
location codes may be included upon approval of station or system
management. EAS messages may be transmitted automatically or manually.
* * * * *
(2) Manual interrupt of programming and transmission of EAS
messages may be used. EAS messages with the National Emergency Message
(EAN) Event code or the Nationwide Test of the Emergency Alert System
(NPT) Event code must be transmitted immediately. Monthly EAS test
messages must be transmitted within 60 minutes. All actions must be
logged and include the minimum information required for EAS video
messages.
* * * * *
(p) The material listed in this paragraph (p) is incorporated by
reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the
Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce
any edition other than that specified in this section, the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) must publish notice of change in the
Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All
approved material is available for inspection at the FCC and at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact FCC at:
the address indicated in 47 CFR 0.401(a) of this chapter (Reference
Information Center). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e88e9ac681869b988d8b9c818786a886899a89c68f879e">[email&#160;protected]</a>, or go to:
<a href="http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html">www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html</a>. The material
may be obtained from the following source in this paragraph (p).
* * * * *

0
8. Amend Sec. 11.52 by revising paragraphs (d)(2) and (e) to read as
follows:

Sec. 11.52 EAS code and Attention Signal Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) With respect to monitoring EAS messages formatted in accordance
with the specifications set forth in Sec. 11.56(a)(2), EAS
Participants' EAS equipment must regularly poll the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS)
EAS alert distribution channel to detect and acquire Common Alert
Protocol (CAP)-formatted alert messages from the IPAWS system to EAS
Participants' EAS equipment.
* * * * *
(e) EAS Participants are required to interrupt normal programming
either automatically or manually when they receive an EAS message in
which the header code contains the Event codes for National Emergency
Message (EAN), the Nationwide Test of the Emergency Alert System (NPT),
or the Required Monthly Test (RMT) for their State or State/county
location.
* * * * *

0
9. Amend Sec. 11.55 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (c) and paragraphs
(c)(1) and (2);
0
b. Removing paragraph (c)(3);
0
c. Redesignating paragraph (c)(4) as paragraph (c)(3) and revising it;
0
d. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(5) through (8) as paragraphs (c)(4)
through (7), respectively; and
0
e. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (d) and paragraph
(d)(2).
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 11.55 EAS operation during a State or Local Area emergency.

* * * * *
(c) An EAS Participant that participates in the State or Local Area
EAS, upon receipt of a State or Local Area EAS message that has been
formatted in the EAS Protocol and that has event and location header
codes indicating that it is a type of message that the EAS Participant
normally relays, consistent with the procedures in the State or Local
Area EAS Plan, must do the following:
(1) Prior to December 12, 2023, the EAS Participant shall follow
the procedures set forth in the State EAS Plan and paragraphs (c)(3)
through(7) of this section.
(2) On and after December 12, 2023,--
(i) CAP Prioritization. If a message formatted in the Common
Alerting Protocol is available that is a duplicate of the received
message formatted in the EAS Protocol, then the EAS Participant shall
not transmit the received message formatted in the EAS Protocol but
shall follow the procedures in paragraph (d) of this section to
transmit the message formatted in the Common Alerting Protocol.
(ii) Polling. At least ten (10) seconds after detecting the initial
header code of a received message formatted in the EAS protocol, if the
EAS Participant has not by that time determined that a duplicate
message formatted in the Common Alerting Protocol is available, it
shall poll the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Integrated Public
Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) at least once to determine whether a
duplicate CAP-formatted alert message is available.
(A) If a duplicate CAP-formatted alert message is available, the
EAS Participant shall proceed according to paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (d)
of this section.
(B) If no duplicate CAP-formatted alert message is available, or if
the alert contents, including the audio message, cannot be acquired
within a reasonable timeframe, the EAS Participant shall proceed
according to paragraphs (c)(3)-(7) of this section.
(iii) For purposes of this paragraph (c)(2), two EAS messages are
``duplicates'' if the originator codes, event codes, location codes,
and date-time codes in the validated headers of both messages are all
identical, and the valid time-period codes in the headers of both
messages cover approximately the same periods of time, with allowances
for the different manners in

[[Page 67826]]

which messages in CAP and legacy EAS formats express valid time
periods.
(3) EAS Participants participating in the State or Local Area EAS
must discontinue normal programming and follow the procedures in their
State and Local Area Plans. Analog and digital television broadcast
stations must transmit all EAS announcements visually and aurally as
specified in Sec. 11.51(a) through (e) and 73.1250(h) of this chapter,
as applicable; analog cable systems, digital cable systems, wireless
cable systems, and wireline video systems must transmit all EAS
announcements visually and aurally as specified in Sec. 11.51(d), (g),
and (h); and DBS providers must transmit all EAS announcements visually
and aurally as specified in Sec. 11.51(d) and (j). EAS Participants
providing foreign language programming should transmit all EAS
announcements in the same language as the primary language of the EAS
Participant.
* * * * *
(d) An EAS Participant that participates in the State or Local Area
EAS, upon receipt of a State or Local Area EAS message that has been
formatted in the Common Alerting Protocol and that has event and
location header codes indicating that it is a type of message that the
EAS Participant normally relays, must do the following:
* * * * *
(2) Analog and digital television broadcast stations must transmit
all EAS announcements visually and aurally as specified in Sec.
11.51(a) through (e) and 73.1250(h) of this chapter, as applicable;
analog cable systems, digital cable systems, wireless cable systems,
and wireline video systems must transmit all EAS announcements visually
and aurally as specified in Sec. 11.51(d), (g), and (h); and DBS
providers must transmit all EAS announcements visually and aurally as
specified in Sec. 11.51(d) and (j). EAS Participants providing foreign
language programming should transmit all EAS announcements in the same
language as the primary language of the EAS Participant.
* * * * *

0
10. Amend Sec. 11.56 by revising the introductory text of paragraph
(d) to read as follows:

Sec. 11.56 Obligation to process CAP-formatted EAS messages.

* * * * *
(d) The material listed in this paragraph (d) is incorporated by
reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the
Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce
any edition other than that specified in this section, the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) must publish notice of change in the
Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All
approved material is available for inspection at the FCC and at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact FCC at:
the address indicated in 47 CFR 0.401(a) of this chapter (Reference
Information Center). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f49286da9d9a87849197809d9b9ab49a958695da939b82">[email&#160;protected]</a>, or go to: <a href="http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html">http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html</a>. The material
may be obtained from the following sources in this paragraph (d).
* * * * *

0
11. Amend Sec. 11.61 by adding paragraph (a)(1)(iv) and revising the
paragraph heading to paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:

Sec. 11.61 Tests of EAS procedures.

(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Upon receipt of an EAS message in the EAS Protocol format with
the Required Monthly Test (RMT) event code, an EAS Participant shall
follow the steps set forth in Sec. 11.55(c)(1) through(3).
* * * * *
(3) Nationwide Tests of the Emergency Alert System (NPT) (national
tests).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-23408 Filed 11-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on November 10, 2022.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.