Report:
September 27, 2017 Nationwide EAS Test
April 2018
Public Safety and 
Homeland Security 
Bureau
Federal Communications Commission ? 445 12th Street, SW ?Washington, DC  20554
Federal Communications Commission
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Page #
I. SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................3
II. BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................................4
III. THE 2017 NATIONWIDE EAS TEST ..................................................................................................4
A. The Parameters of the 2017 Nationwide EAS Test ..........................................................................4
B. Participation in the Nationwide EAS Test ........................................................................................5
C. Participants by EAS Designation......................................................................................................8
D. EAS Participant Monitoring of IPAWS............................................................................................9
IV. 2017 NATIONWIDE EAS TEST RESULTS.......................................................................................10
A. Breakdown of Test Performance by EAS Participant Type ...........................................................10
B. Source of Alert ................................................................................................................................11
C. Language of Alert ...........................................................................................................................12
V. ANALYSIS OF MOST SIGNIFICANT COMPLICATIONS..............................................................13
A. Equipment Performance Issues.......................................................................................................14
B. Equipment Configuration................................................................................................................14
C. Failure to Update Software .............................................................................................................15
D. Audio Issues....................................................................................................................................15
E. System Clock Errors .......................................................................................................................15
F. Accessibility Issues .........................................................................................................................16
VI. NEXT STEPS........................................................................................................................................16
A. Policy Action ..................................................................................................................................16
B. Operational Actions ........................................................................................................................16
VII. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................................17
APPENDIX: HOW EAS WORKS ..............................................................................................................18
Federal Communications Commission
3
I. SUMMARY
On September 27, 2017, at 2:20 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA), in coordination with the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) 
and the National Weather Service (NWS), conducted the third nationwide test of the Emergency Alert 
System (EAS) (2017 Nationwide EAS Test).  The 2017 Nationwide EAS Test was designed to assess the 
reliability and effectiveness of the EAS, with an emphasis on testing FEMA’s Integrated Public Alert and 
Warning System (IPAWS), the gateway through which common alerting protocol-formatted (CAP-
formatted) EAS alerts are disseminated to EAS Participants for transmission to the public.
1
 
Overall, the 2017 Nationwide EAS Test demonstrated that IPAWS continues to deliver high-quality, 
effective, and accessible EAS alerts, and that EAS Participants’ results show improvement in several 
areas.
 
 Specifically:  
? 95.8% of test participants successfully received the test alert, as compared to 95.4% in 2016.
? 91.9% of test participants successfully retransmitted the test alert, as compared to 85.8% in 
2016. 
Test data, however, also reveal that technical issues affect EAS Participants’ ability to receive EAS alerts 
effectively over IPAWS.  For example, 58.1% of test participants first received the test over-the-air rather 
than from IPAWS (as compared to 56.5% in 2016), and thus were unable to deliver the CAP-formatted 
digital audio, Spanish, and text files, which likely would have improved alert accessibility to non-English 
speakers and those with disabilities.  Additionally, filings from representatives of people with disabilities 
show that interference with closed captioning and other EAS Participant practices impeded the full 
accessibility of the test.
The following report provides an analysis of the 2017 Nationwide EAS Test results that both provides a 
gauge of EAS performance and can help EAS Participants understand how to improve their technical and 
operational performance.  The report includes recommended next steps that the Public Safety and 
Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) and EAS Participants can take to continue to improve the EAS.
1
 The Commission’s rules define EAS Participants as broadcast stations; cable systems; wireline video systems; 
wireless cable systems; direct broadcast satellite service providers; and digital audio radio service providers.  See 47 
CFR § 11.11(a).  Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) providers and cable resellers are not defined in Part 11 of the 
rules and are considered voluntary participants in the test in the EAS Test Reporting System (ETRS), the online 
system used by the Commission to collect and analyze the results of Nationwide EAS Tests.  See 47 CFR § 
11.61(a)(3)(iv).  As discussed in the Appendix, CAP is an XML language that is transmitted over the Internet.  See 
Appendix at 19-20, infra.   
Federal Communications Commission
4
II. BACKGROUND
The EAS provides the President with the capability to communicate with the public during a national 
emergency via live audio transmission.  FCC rules require EAS Participants to have the capability to 
receive and transmit Presidential Alerts disseminated over the EAS.  There are two methods by which 
EAS alerts may be distributed.  Under the traditional, broadcast-based “legacy” structure, the EAS 
transmits an alert through a pre-established hierarchy of broadcast, cable, and satellite systems using the 
EAS Protocol, a simple digital messaging protocol that delivers basic alert elements over the air.
2
  EAS 
alerts that are formatted in the more sophisticated CAP are distributed over the Internet through IPAWS.  
CAP-formatted alerts initiated through IPAWS can include audio, video or data files, images, non-
English translations of alerts, and links providing detailed information.
3
  The Appendix contains 
additional information about the EAS.  
III. THE 2017 NATIONWIDE EAS TEST
A. The Parameters of the 2017 Nationwide EAS Test
Like the 2016 Nationwide EAS Test,
4
 the 2017 Nationwide EAS Test was initiated by FEMA, which 
provided a “National Periodic Test” code (NPT) on its Internet-based feed for IPAWS.
5
  Each EAS 
Participant then received the alert either directly from IPAWS by polling the IPAWS Internet feed, or via 
a re-broadcast of the alert by the source that it monitors in the “daisy chain.”
6
  As in 2016, EAS 
Participants that first obtained the test alert via IPAWS received a CAP-formatted alert with high quality, 
pre-recorded digital audio message, a detailed text file that could populate a video crawl, as well as 
English and Spanish versions of the test alert that EAS Participants could transmit to the public in 
accordance with their equipment’s configuration.  EAS Participants that first obtained the alert over the 
air from a monitored broadcast station received the alert in the basic EAS Protocol, that lacked the 
capability of delivering separate audio and non-English text files, and was dependent on radio reception 
for the quality of the audio.
7
 
2
 See Appendix, infra, at 19.  See also 47 CFR § 11.31
3
 EAS Participants can deliver to the public the rich data contained in a CAP-formatted message received directly 
from the IPAWS Internet feed, but once the alert is rebroadcast over the daisy chain, the CAP data are lost, and EAS 
Participants receiving the alert for the first time over the air cannot deliver CAP-based features, such as digital audio 
or multiple languages, to the public.  
4
 FCC, PSHSB, Report: September 28, 2016 Nationwide EAS Test at 3 (2016), 
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-344518A1.pdf (2016 Nationwide EAS Test Report).  
5
 For the 2011 Nationwide EAS Test, FEMA did not use the test code but rather initiated the test by transmitting a 
live Emergency Action Notification (EAN), the EAS event code that the President would use in the event of a 
national emergency.  FEMA initiated the 2011 Nationwide EAS Test by transmitting a live EAN event code over a 
secure telephone connection to the Primary Entry Point (PEP) stations.  The PEPs then transmitted the EAN to the 
public over the broadcast-based “daisy chain.”  See FCC, PSHSB, Strengthening the Emergency Alert System 
(EAS): Lessons Learned from the Nationwide EAS Test at 5 (2013), http://www.fcc.gov/document/strengthening-
emergency-alert-system (2011 EAS Nationwide Test Report).
6
 Participants’ EAS equipment polls the IPAWS server to check for new alerts at regular intervals.  If an EAS 
Participant receives an over-the-air alert before it checks IPAWS, the over-the-air alert is retransmitted.
7
 The EAS Protocol uses a four-part message for an emergency activation of the EAS. The four parts are: Preamble 
and EAS Header Codes; audio Attention Signal; message; and Preamble and EAS End Of Message (EOM) Codes.  
See 47 CFR § 11.31.  These parts can inform the public as to the nature, location, effective times, and originator of 
the alert, but are not capable of including separate files for digital audio, text or for languages other than English.
Federal Communications Commission
5
B. Participation in the Nationwide EAS Test
There are approximately 25,922 EAS Participants in the United States and its territories.
8
  This estimate 
includes analog and digital radio broadcast stations (including AM, FM, and Low Power FM (LPFM) 
stations); analog and digital television broadcast stations (including Low Power TV (LPTV)); analog and 
digital cable systems; wireless cable systems; wireline video systems;
9
 Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) 
services; and Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS).
10
Table 1 summarizes the participation rate in the 2017 Nationwide EAS Test.
11
  EAS Participants 
submitted 24,460 filings in 2017.  More than 4,000 of these filings duplicated facilities for which EAS 
Participants had already filed.
12
  Excluding duplicate filings, EAS Participants made 19,738 filings with a 
participation rate of 76.2%.
13
  This result is a reduction from the 21,365 unique filings received for the 
2016 Nationwide EAS Test.  This reduction in filings may have resulted from several factors, including 
severe weather and wildfires during summer and fall of 2017.  Many EAS Participants that filed in 2016 
but failed to file in 2017 are located in states affected by the 2017 hurricanes.
14
  It is also possible that 
broadcasters participated but did not file in ETRS.  Radio broadcasters had an above-average participation 
rate of 78.5%, while television broadcasters had the lowest participation rate of 68.5%.  Cable system, 
IPTV, and wireline video system participants had an improved participation rate of 74.0%, which was 
significantly higher than the 2016 rate of 52.9%.
8
 This total consists of the 17,580 radio broadcasters and 4,096 television broadcasters in the FCC’s Consolidated 
Database System, the 4,242 headends active in the FCC’s Cable Operations and Licensing System, and the number 
of Direct Broadcast Satellite and Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS) facilities.  This methodology likely 
overestimates number of radio and television broadcasters that participate in the EAS, as some are exempted from 
the Commission rules that govern EAS.  For example, if a hub station satisfies the EAS requirements, an analog or 
digital broadcast satellite station that rebroadcasts 100% of the hub station’s programming would not be required to 
file in ETRS.  See 47 CFR § 11.11(b).
9
 Wireline video systems are the systems of a wireline common carrier used to provide video programming service.  
47 CFR § 11.2(e).
10
 47 CFR § 11.11(a).
11
 A small number of EAS Participants provided their EAS Participant type incorrectly.  Those errors have been 
corrected for purposes of this report.  
12
 Unique filings are non-duplicate filings.  Most duplicate filings were submitted for cable systems.  To the extent 
that EAS Participants’ filings indicate that a headend serves alerts using multiple, independent sets of EAS 
equipment, each set of equipment is considered as a unique headend in this report.  The numbers of Radio 
Broadcasters cited in this report are lower than those reported in the December 2017 Initial Public Notice to account 
for additional analysis and elimination of duplicates (See Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Releases Its 
Initial Findings Regarding the 2017 Nationwide EAS Test, Public Notice, 32 FCC Rcd 10272 (PSHSB 2017)).
13
 For purposes of this report, participation rate is defined as the number of unique filings received from a specified 
EAS Participant type divided by the total number of EAS Participants of that type.
14
 For example, there were: (1) 876 ETRS filings from Florida-based test participants in 2016 versus 708 of the 
same in 2017; (2) 800 ETRS filings from Florida-based broadcasters in 2016 versus 631 of the same in 2017.  See 
also ETRS Filing Dates for EAS Participants Affected by Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, or Maria Extended to Monday, 
November 13, 2017, Public Notice, 32 FCC Rcd 7015 (PSHSB 2017).   
Federal Communications Commission
6
Table 1. Overview of Filings Received in ETRS
15
EAS 
Participant 
Type
# of EAS 
Participants Filings Received
Unique Filings 
Received
16
 Filing Rate
Radio 
Broadcasters 17580 14696 13794 78.5%
Television 
Broadcasters 4096 2912 2806 68.5%
Cable Systems 6512 2845
IPTV Provider 234 232
Wireline Video 
System
4242
96 51
74.0%
Other
17
n/a 10 10 n/a
All Total 25918 24460 19738 76.2%
Table 2 provides an overview of the completeness of the filings submitted to ETRS.
18
  86.1% of filers 
completed Forms One, Two, and Three, as required by the Commission’s rules.  10.5% of filers submitted 
“day of test” results, but failed to submit the detailed test results required by Form Three.  3.4% of filers 
failed to submit any test results, filing only their identifying information required by Form One.  Cable 
systems filers had a high form completion rate of 96.8%, while Other filers had a lower form completion 
rate of 70.0%.
15
 Under FCC rules, the Commission treats test result data submitted by EAS Participants as presumptively 
confidential.  Accordingly, Table 1 and others in this report reflect aggregated test result data to the extent doing so 
does not result in disclosure of confidential information.  As referenced later in this report, PSHSB does not provide 
data for very small groups of EAS Participants and does not include them among the total number of filings.  The 
omission of this data does not change the assessment of the test in any significant way.
16
 “Unique” filings are defined as a set of filings that represent the report of a single EAS Participant facility, such as 
a radio station or a cable headend.
17
 “Other” includes “non-cable multichannel video programming distributors” and other entities reported in the 
ETRS but not defined as EAS Participants in the EAS rules.
18
 Tables 2 through 13 exclude EAS Participants that report to be silent pursuant to a special temporary authorization 
granted by the Commission.
Federal Communications Commission
7
Table 2.  Overview of Filings Received in ETRS by Form Type
Form One Filed 
Only
Forms One and 
Two filed Only
Forms One, Two, 
and Three Filed
EAS 
Participant 
Type
Unique 
Filings
Unique 
Filings %
Unique 
Filings %
Unique 
Filings %
Radio 
Broadcasters 13794 551 4.0% 1810 13.1% 11433 82.9%
Television 
Broadcasters 2806 72 2.6% 197 7.0% 2537 90.4%
Cable Systems 2845 37 1.3% 53 1.9% 2755 96.8%
IPTV Provider 232 5 2.2% 6 2.6% 221 95.3%
Wireline Video 
System 51 3 5.9% 5 9.8% 43 84.3%
Other 10 1 10% 2 20% 7 70.0%
All Total 19738 669 3.4% 2073 10.5% 16996 86.1%
Table 3 compares the filing rate of Low Power broadcasters to that of all broadcasters.  LPFM 
participation in the test (48.5%) was significantly lower than that of radio broadcasters overall (78.5%), 
and LPTV participation (63.3%) was lower than that of television broadcasters overall (68.5%).  Further, 
the low participation rate of Low Power broadcasters appears to have significantly reduced the overall 
participation rate of all broadcasters.  Of the 3,786 radio broadcasters that were expected to file but failed 
to do so, 1,070 were LPFM Broadcasters.  Of the 1,290 television broadcasters that were expected to file 
but failed to do so, 712 were LPTV broadcasters.
Table 3. Overview of Filings Received From Low Power Broadcasters
Form One 
Filed
Forms One 
and 
Two Filed
Forms One, 
Two, and 
Three Filed
Filers 
Expected
 Filings 
Rec’d
19
Filing
Rate  #
%
 #
%
 #
%
All Radio 
Broadcasters 17580 13794 78.5% 551 4.0% 1810 13.1% 11433 82.9%
LPFM 
Broadcasters 2077 1007 48.5% 112 11.1% 124 12.3% 771 76.6%
All 
Television 
Broadcasters 4096 2806 68.5% 72 2.6% 197 7.0% 2537 90.4%
LPTV 
Broadcasters 1938 1226 63.3% 40 3.3% 104 8.5% 1082 88.3%
19
 Unique Filings Received.
Federal Communications Commission
8
C. Participants by EAS Designation
ETRS Form One asked EAS Participants to identify the EAS designations assigned to them by their State 
EAS Plan.  Table 4 provides the reported EAS designations of all test participants by participant type.
20
  
Although a large number of test participants continue to incorrectly report their participant type, this 
number decreased from that reported after the 2016 Nationwide EAS Test.  For example, 543 test 
participants reported that they served as National Primary (Primary Entry Point or PEP) stations, which 
are the source of EAS Presidential messages,
21
 which is down from the 567 test participants that reported 
as such in 2016.
22
  However, according to FEMA, there are only 77 Primary Entry Point stations 
nationwide.  237 test participants reported that they served as state primary stations, while 344 test 
participants reported as such at the time of the 2016 EAS Nationwide test.
23
  This data suggests that test 
participants better understand their role in the EAS than they did in 2016, but there is still room for 
improvement.
Table 4.  EAS Designation by Participant Type
EAS 
Participant 
Type
National 
Primary 
(NP)
State 
Primary 
(SP)
State 
Relay 
(SR)
Local 
Primary 1 
(LP1 )
Local 
Primary 2 
(LP2 )
Participating 
National 
(PN)
Radio 
Broadcasters 297 142 906 1064 796 11047
Television 
Broadcasters 57 32 156 96 86 2482
Cable Systems 167 59 55 250 149 2458
IPTV Provider 13 4 1 29 8 191
Wireline Video 
System 8 0 1 3 2 38
Other 1 0 2 0 1 5
All Total 543 237 1121 1442 1042 16221
20
 For this report, a “test participant” is a unique EAS Participant that completed, at a minimum, ETRS Forms One 
and Two.  Unless otherwise specified, the analyses hereafter only consider filings made by test participants.
21
 47 CFR § 11.18(a).
22
 See 2016 Nationwide EAS Test Report at 9.
23
 See id.  In 2011, PSHSB estimated that there were 94 state primary stations.  See 2011 EAS Nationwide Test 
Report at 8.
Federal Communications Commission
9
D. EAS Participant Monitoring of IPAWS
All EAS Participants are required to monitor IPAWS.
24
  ETRS Form One asked EAS Participants to 
confirm whether their facility’s equipment complied with this requirement.  Table 5 shows that 96.7% of 
test participants report that they are complying with the IPAWS monitoring requirement ? an increase 
from 94.0% in 2016.
25
  Notably, wireline video systems increased their IPAWS monitoring rate from 
68.5% in 2016 to 91.7% in 2017.  
Table 5. IPAWS Monitoring by Participant Type
Monitoring IPAWS
EAS Participant 
Type Test Participants # %
Radio Broadcasters 13243 12860 97.1%
Television 
Broadcasters 2734 2662 97.4%
Cable Systems 2808 2657 94.6%
IPTV Providers 227 217 95.6%
Wireline Video 
System 48 44 91.7%
Other 9 8 88.9%
All Total 19069 18448 96.7%
24
 47 CFR § 11.52(d)(2).
25
 2016 Nationwide EAS Test Report at 10.  Possible explanations for test participants reporting that they do not 
monitor IPAWS include a lack of broadband access, lack of familiarity with EAS equipment functions, and 
noncompliance with the Commission’s rules.  PSHSB is checking its current waivers of the CAP requirement and 
reaching out to test participants to investigate the issue.
Federal Communications Commission
10
IV. 2017 NATIONWIDE EAS TEST RESULTS
A. Breakdown of Test Performance by EAS Participant Type
ETRS Form Two asked EAS Participants whether they had successfully received and retransmitted the 
test alert on September 27, 2017.  Table 6 shows test participants’ success rates for alert receipt and 
retransmission.
26
  This data indicates that 95.8% of test participants successfully received the alert.  This 
is a slight improvement over the 95.4% success rate that was observed in 2016.
27
  Test participants 
experienced additional complications with retransmitting the alert to the public and other EAS 
Participants, but still achieved a success rate of 91.9%.  97.3% of radio broadcasters successfully received 
the alert, and 94.0% successfully retransmitted it.  The least successful participant types were television 
broadcasters, of which 88.6% successfully received the alert and 83.5% successfully retransmitted; this 
shows a significant decrease as compared to 2016 where 97.3% successfully received the alert and 85.3% 
were able to retransmit.
28
Table 6. Test Performance by Participant Type
Successfully 
Received Alert
Successfully 
Retransmitted Alert
EAS Participant 
Type
Test 
Participants # % # %
Radio 
Broadcasters 13243 12883 97.3% 12450 94.0%
Television 
Broadcasters 2734 2421 88.6% 2283 83.5%
Cable Systems 2808 2688 95.7% 2535 90.3%
IPTV Providers 227 221 97.4% 197 86.8%
Wireline Video 
System 48 47 97.9% 45 93.8%
Other 9 9 100% 9 100%
All Total 19069 18269 95.8% 17519 91.9%
Table 7 shows the performance of Low Power broadcasters in the 2017 Nationwide EAS Test.  LPFM 
broadcasters had an alert receipt success rate of 92.5%, approximately 5% less than the rate of all radio 
broadcasters, and an alert retransmission success rate of 83.8%, approximately 10% less than the rate of 
all radio broadcasters.  This is an improvement as compared to 2016 Nationwide EAS Test results, in 
which LPFM broadcasters had an alert receipt success rate of 89.0% and a retransmission alert success 
rate of 74.2%.
29
  LPTV broadcasters had lower success rates than television broadcasters generally.  
76.6% of LPTV broadcasters successfully received the alert, approximately 12% less than the rate of all 
television broadcasters.  This is a significant decrease compared to 2016, when 94.6% of LPTV 
broadcasters reported successfully receiving the alert.
30
  72.3% of LPTV broadcasters successfully 
26
 See note 20, supra (defining “test participant”).
27
 2016 Nationwide EAS Test Report at 10-11.
28
 Id.
29
 Id. at 11-12.
30
 Id.
Federal Communications Commission
11
retransmitted the alert, approximately 11.5% less than the rate of all television broadcasters.  This is a 
significant decrease compared to 2016, when 83.4% of LPTV broadcasters reported successfully 
retransmitted the alert.
31
Table 7. Test Results of Low Power Broadcasters
Successfully 
Received Alert
Successfully 
Retransmitted Alert
EAS Participant 
Type Test Participants # % # %
All Radio 
Broadcasters 13243 12883 97.3% 12450 94.0%
LPFM 
Broadcasters 895 828 92.5% 750 83.8%
All Television 
Broadcasters 2734 2421 88.6% 2283 83.5%
LPTV 
Broadcasters 1186 909 76.6% 857 72.3%
B. Source of Alert
On ETRS Form Three, EAS Participants identified the first source from which they received the test alert.  
Table 8 compares the sources from which the different types of test participants received the test alert.  A 
majority (58.1%) of test participants first received the alert over-the-air and a minority (41.9%) first 
received the alert from IPAWS.  IPTV providers reportedly first received the alert via IPAWS more 
frequently than other participant types (60.0%).
Table 8.  Source of Alert by Participant Type
First Received From 
IPAWS
First Received 
Over-the-Air
EAS Participant 
Type
Test Participants 
That Reported 
Source of Alert # % # %
Radio Broadcasters 11155 4749 42.6% 6406 57.4%
Television 
Broadcasters 2235 906 40.5% 1329 59.5%
Cable Systems 2636 1016 38.5% 1620 61.5%
IPTV Provider 215 129 60.0% 86 40.0%
Wireline Video 
System 42 19 45.2% 23 54.8%
Other 7 1 14.3% 6 85.7%
All Total 16290 6820 41.9% 9470 58.1%
31
 Id.
Federal Communications Commission
12
C. Language of Alert
Form Three asked EAS Participants to report the languages in which they received and retransmitted the 
test alert.  Table 9 shows the language of the alerts that were received and retransmitted by test 
participants.  Although the number of Spanish-only alerts decreased from 2016, the number of EAS 
Participants that retransmitted both the English and Spanish alerts increased.
Table 9.  Spanish Versus English Language Alerts by Participant Type
Received Alert Retransmitted Alert
EAS Participant Type English Spanish
English 
and 
Spanish English Spanish
English 
and 
Spanish
Radio Broadcasters 11133 7 11 10785 10 4
Television Broadcasters 2166 13 55 2023 16 64
Cable Systems 2530 0 106 2373 0 111
IPTV Provider 213 0 2 194 0 0
Wireline Video System 40 0 2 38 0 2
Other 7 0 0 7 0 0
All Total 16089 20 176 15420 26 181
This year, filers reported the primary languages in their service area.  Table 10 tallies the five highest 
reported service area languages.  Of the 14,799 responses received from EAS Participants, 13,620 
reported English, 852 reported both English and Spanish, and 295 reported Spanish only.  Navajo, 
Chinese, Korean, Punjabi, Russian, French, and Samoan were also reported in smaller numbers.
Table 10. Primary Language(s) in Service Area
English
English and 
Spanish Spanish Navajo Chinese
# % # % # % # % # %
13620 92% 852 5.8% 295 2.0% 8 0.05% 6 0.04%
Federal Communications Commission
13
V. ANALYSIS OF MOST SIGNIFICANT COMPLICATIONS
Test participants reported complications with the test that included equipment configuration issues, 
equipment failures, failure to update equipment software, audio quality issues, source issues, and clock 
errors.  As in 2016, EAS Participants reported the complications they experienced in two ways.  First, 
ETRS Form Three provided a series of checkboxes that allowed EAS Participants to assign categories to 
the issues they experienced.  These categories were based on the complications observed during the 2016 
Nationwide EAS Test, which included audio quality issues, receipt of duplicative EAS messages from the 
same source, equipment performance issues, and user error.  
Table 11 shows the categories of complications reported by test participants that completed Form Three 
and demonstrates that the EAS has strengthened overall since the 2016 Nationwide EAS Test.  88.3% of 
Form Three filers reported no complications in retransmission (up from 80.2% in 2016).  4% of filers 
reported experiencing audio quality issues, which is an increase from the 2.6% test participants that 
reported audio quality issues in 2016.
32
  0.4% of filers reported equipment performance issues on receipt, 
which is a significant decline from the 2.1% that reported similar issues in 2016.
33
 
Table 11.  Complications Experienced By Test Participants
34
Experienced During 
Receipt Experienced During Retransmission
Complication # % # %
No Complications 15138 89.0% 15016 88.3%
Audio Quality Issues 672 4.0% n/a n/a
Duplicate Messages 101 0.6% n/a n/a
Equipment 
Performance Issues 70 0.4% 51 0.3%
User Error 15       0.09% 15 0.1%
Other 384 2.3% 448 2.6%
32
 2016 Nationwide EAS Test Report at 13.
33
 Id.
34
 Table 11 reflects the percentage of Form Three filers that successfully received or retransmitted the alert and 
offered explanations of their complications.
Federal Communications Commission
14
Second, Form Three allowed EAS Participants to report complications by describing them in 
“explanation” text fields.  Table 12 categorizes the responses received in those text fields.  The most 
notable complications reported by test participants include equipment configuration issues, equipment 
failures, failure to update equipment software, and audio quality issues.  
Table 12.  Explanations Reported By Test Participants.
35
Explanations in Receipt and Retransmission
Specific Cause of 
Complication # %
Audio quality (incorporates 
no audio) 1056 6.2%
Equipment failure 499 2.9%
Configuration issue 206 1.2%
Software update required 98 0.58%
Clock error 136 0.80%
User error 9 0.21%
Middleware 9 0.21%
Force Tuning 
Retransmission Issue 11 0.06%
Equipment struck by 
lightning 18 0.01%
A. Equipment Performance Issues
There were 499 test participants that reported equipment performance issues involving antenna, reception, 
and source issues particular to the station (apart from EAS equipment or software).  Of these explanations 
of equipment failure issues, 338 were on alert receipt, and 161 on retransmission.  Of those explaining 
issues on receipt, 279 were radio broadcasters, 34 television broadcasters, 22 cable providers, and 3 IPTV 
providers.  Of those explaining issues on retransmission, there were 57 radio stations, 43 television 
stations, 44 cable providers, and 17 IPTV providers.  Participants cited comb generator failure, receiver 
and tuner issues, failure of an Emergency Management network, and damage from a lightning strike.  
B. Equipment Configuration
There were 206 test participants that provided detailed explanations of EAS equipment configuration 
issues.  This result represents a significant reduction from the 773 reported equipment configuration 
issues from the previous year, which were the most commonly reported complications in that year.
36
  Of 
these explanations of equipment configuration, 37 were on alert receipt, and 169 on retransmission.  Of 
those explaining issues on receipt, 24 were radio broadcasters, 4 television broadcasters, and 9 cable 
providers.  Of those explaining issues on retransmission, 50 were radio broadcasters, 34 television 
broadcasters, 80 cable providers, 2 IPTV providers, and 3 wireline service providers.  Participants cited 
failure to configure the nationwide location code or the NPT code and message forwarding issues.  Many 
35
 Table 12 reflects the percentage of Form Three filers that offered explanations of their complications.
36
 2016 Nationwide EAS Test Report at 15.
Federal Communications Commission
15
test participants that reported complications related to equipment configuration also reported that they had 
successfully identified and corrected the cause of those complications.
C. Failure to Update Software
There were 99 test participants that provided detailed explanations of complications related to failure to 
update EAS equipment software.  Of these failures to update software explanations, 26 were on alert 
receipt, and 73 on retransmission.  On receipt, there were explanations from 12 radio broadcasters, 5 
television broadcasters, and 9 cable providers.  On retransmission, there were explanations from 31 radio 
broadcasters, 28 television broadcasters, and 14 cable providers.  The impact of failing to install recent 
software updates varied.  Some test participants reported that failure to install a software update prevented 
their equipment from receiving the alert, while others reported that they were unable to successfully 
retransmit the alert.  Most test participants that reported needing updates also reported that they have 
since made the necessary updates.
D. Audio Issues
There were 1,056 test participants that provided information about audio quality complications upon alert 
receipt and/or retransmission.  Of these audio issue explanations, 749 were on alert receipt, and 307 on 
retransmission.  On receipt, there were explanations from 649 radio broadcasters, 86 television 
broadcasters, 7 cable providers, 1 IPTV provider, and 6 wireline video system providers.  On 
retransmission, there were explanations from 156 radio broadcasters, 65 television broadcasters, 81 cable 
providers, 1 IPTV provider, and 4 wireline video system providers.  Many test participants reported audio 
quality issues that included background noise, static, distortion, echoing, low volume, and slow audio 
playback.  Some test participants attributed their issues to a weak signal from the over-the-air sources 
they were monitoring.  Many test participants that first received the alert via IPAWS reported that the 
alert featured excellent audio quality.
Some test participants reported that they could not take advantage of the high quality digital audio 
provided by the CAP-formatted alert from IPAWS because they received the over-the-air alert first.  
Table 13 shows the sources from which the alert was received by those test participants that reported 
audio quality issues using the appropriate checkbox on Form Three.  Of a total 672 filers that reported 
complications in that checkbox, 90% of these test participants received the alert from an over-the-air 
source.  This is disproportionate to the number of test participants that received the alert from an over-the-
air source (58.1%).  This suggests that EAS Participants are much less likely to experience audio quality 
complications if they receive and retransmit the CAP-formatted version of the alert that is provided via 
IPAWS. 
Table 13.  Audio Quality Issues by Source of Alert
First Source Received
# of Participants Experiencing 
Audio Quality Issues % of All Audio Quality Issues
Broadcast 605 90.0%
IPAWS 50 7.4%
Other (e.g. Satellite, 
Weather Radio)
17 2.5%
E. System Clock Errors
There were 136 test participants that provided detailed explanations of complications related to the system 
clocks of their EAS equipment.  Of these system clock errors explanations, 73 were on receipt, and 63 on 
Federal Communications Commission
16
alert retransmission.  Of those explaining issues on receipt, 41 were radio broadcasters, 10 television 
broadcasters, and 22 cable providers.  Of those explaining issues on retransmission, 32 were radio 
broadcasters, 6 television broadcasters, 24 cable providers, and one IPTV provider.   Some test 
participants reported that they did not succeed in retransmitting the alert because the clock and date on 
their EAS equipment were improperly set, causing the alert to either “expire on arrival” or retransmit 
much later in the day.  Most test participants reported that they corrected their system clocks following 
the test.
F. Accessibility Issues
Representatives of organizations representing people with disabilities were invited to electronically 
submit observations in PSHSB’s Public Safety Support Center portal regarding complications with 
accessible alerts.  Filers noted that the manner in which the EAS Test was displayed in some cases may 
not be accessible to people with disabilities.
37
  For example, some individuals observed that the 
emergency text crawls were absent or ran too fast across the screen, and the contrast for crawls was 
inadequate.  In some reported instances, the crawl of the alert overlapped with other captioning or text on 
the screen, which rendered the crawl unreadable.  Other filings indicate that a number of non-English-
language stations aired English-language alerts.  Other filings cited poor audio.
VI. NEXT STEPS 
A. Policy Action
Although more EAS Participants were able to monitor IPAWS for the 2017 test, the results of the 2017 
Nationwide EAS Test show no increase in the use of IPAWS as the first source from which EAS 
Participants receive the EAS alerts.
38
  This observation is important because when EAS Participants 
received the IPAWS alert first, they reported better quality audio and were able to deliver the Spanish 
language alert.  When they did not, they were much more likely to report audio problems.  
In the last year, the Commission took action to promote the use of IPAWS by clarifying that EAS 
Participants may use “triggered CAP polling,” to automatically poll IPAWS upon receipt of a broadcast 
EAS message to verify whether a corresponding CAP message exists, and if it does, use the CAP message 
instead of the broadcast EAS message.
39
  
PSHSB is currently working with EAS Participants and EAS equipment manufacturers to facilitate the 
adoption of triggered CAP polling for non-Presidential alerts and tests.  PSHSB will conduct outreach to 
EAS Participants and EAS equipment manufacturers and prepare options for the Commission regarding 
triggered CAP polling for Presidential alerts and tests.   
B. Operational Actions
The 2017 test results indicate that EAS Participants have improved in their ability to successfully alert the 
public using the EAS, and that most equipment is running current generation software, but more work 
needs to be done in these areas.  Accordingly, over the next year, PSHSB will:
37
 See 47 CFR §11.51.
38
 The 2016 Report noted that a slight majority of EAS Participants received the test alert over broadcast and 
recommended allowing EAS Participants to check IPAWS whenever they receive an over-the-air alert.  2016 
Nationwide EAS Test Report at 16.
39
 Amendment of Part 11 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Emergency Alert System, Report and Order, PS 
Docket No. 15-94, 32 FCC Rcd 10812, 10817, para. 11 (2017).
Federal Communications Commission
17
? Encourage EAS Participants to adopt best practices for the upkeep of EAS equipment, 
particularly regarding the updating of equipment software.
? Reach out to stations referenced in filings with the Public Safety Support Center and other 
Commission records to ensure future coordination of alert crawl with closed captioning.
? Revise ETRS Form Three to address accessibility of the test alert to people with disabilities and 
non-English speakers.
? Work with the SECCs and EAS equipment manufacturers to reach out to EAS Participants to 
encourage them to update their EAS equipment and software to ensure successful participation in 
tests and compliance with the Commission’s rules. 
VII. CONCLUSION
The 2017 Nationwide EAS Test largely was a success, demonstrating that the EAS has been strengthened 
since the 2016 Nationwide EAS.  This year EAS Participants reported: 
? A higher overall rate of both successfully receiving and successfully retransmitting the test alert 
(95.8% receipt, as compared to 95.4% in 2016; 91.9% retransmission, as compared to 85.8% in 
2016); 
? Increased success of LPFM stations in receiving and retransmitting the test alert (92.5% receipt, 
as compared to 89.0% in 2016; 83.8% retransmission, as compared to 74.2% in 2016);
? A better understanding of their roles in the EAS as demonstrated by more accurately reporting 
their EAS designations (e.g., 237 reported state primary stations, as compared to 344 in 2016); 
? Higher rates of configuring their equipment to monitor IPAWS (96.7%, as compared to 94.0% in 
2016) (although the percentage of EAS Participants that received the test through IPAWS 
actually dropped from 2016); 
? Higher rates of retransmitting the test alert with no complications (88.3%, as compared to 80.2% 
in 2016); and
? Fewer complications in participating in the test related to equipment configuration issues.  (203, 
as compared to 773 in 2016).
This year’s test also highlights several areas in which the EAS can continue to improve.  PSHSB will 
continue to work with FEMA, the SECCs, individual EAS Participants, and other EAS stakeholders to 
address the issues raised in the test and ensure that the EAS can deliver timely and accurate national alerts 
and critical emergency information to the public. 
Federal Communications Commission
18
APPENDIX: HOW EAS WORKS
The Emergency Alert System
The EAS is designed primarily to provide the President with the capability to communicate via a live 
audio transmission to the public during a national emergency.
40
  The EAS is the successor to prior 
national warning systems Control of Electromagnetic Radiation (CONELRAD), established in 1951; and 
the EBS, established in 1963.
41
  The FCC, in conjunction with FEMA and the NWS, implements EAS at 
the federal level.
42
  The respective roles these agencies play are defined by a 1981 Memorandum of 
Understanding between FEMA, NWS and the FCC;
43
 a 1984 Executive Order;
44
 a 1995 Presidential 
Statement of EAS Requirements;
45
 and a 2006 Public Alert and Warning System Executive Order.
46
  As a 
general matter, the Commission, FEMA and NWS all work closely with radio and television broadcasters, 
cable providers, and other EAS Participants and stakeholders – including state, local, territorial and tribal 
governments – to ensure the integrity and utility of the EAS.
FCC rules require EAS Participants to have the capability to receive and transmit Presidential alerts 
disseminated over the EAS, and generally govern all aspects of EAS participation.
47
  However, a 
Presidential alert has never been issued, and prior to the 2011 Nationwide EAS Test, the national alerting 
capability of the EAS had never been tested.  Although EAS Participants also voluntarily transmit 
thousands of alerts and warnings issued annually by the NWS and state, tribal, and local governments, 
these alerts typically address severe weather threats, child abductions, and other local emergencies.  As 
discussed in more detail below, non-Presidential EAS alerts do not require that EAS Participants open a 
live audio feed from the alerting source, but rather deliver alerts with prerecorded messages that can be 
40
 See, Review of the Emergency Alert System, Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 25 FCC Rcd 564, 
565 ¶ 2 (2010).
41
 CONELRAD was not an alerting system per se, but was rather a Cold War emergency system under which most 
radio and television transmission would be shut down in case of an enemy missile attack to prevent incoming 
missiles from homing in on broadcast transmissions.  The radio stations that were allowed to remain on the air, the 
CONELRAD stations, would remain on the air to provide emergency information.  See “Defense: Sign-off for 
CONELRAD,” Time Magazine, Friday, July 12, 1963.
42
 FEMA acts as Executive Agent for the development, operation, and maintenance of the national-level EAS.  See 
Memorandum, Presidential Communications with the General Public During Periods of National Emergency, The 
White House (September 15, 1995) (1995 Presidential Statement).
43
 See 1981 State and Local Emergency Broadcasting System (EBS) Memorandum of Understanding among the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Industry Advisory Committee (NIAC), 
reprinted as Appendix K to Partnership for Public Warning Report 2004-1, The Emergency Alert System (EAS):  
An Assessment.
44
 See Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Telecommunications Function, Exec. Order 
No. 12472, 49 Fed. Reg. 13471 (1984).
45
 See 1995 Presidential Statement.
46
 See Public Alert and Warning System, Exec. Order No. 13407, 71 Fed. Reg. 36975 (June 26, 2006) (Executive 
Order).  
47
 See 47 C.F.R. Part 11.
Federal Communications Commission
19
delivered at the discretion of the EAS Participant, rendering non-Presidential alerts (and their related 
testing procedures) inappropriate for end to end testing of a national alert. 
48
Legacy EAS Structure
There are two methods by which EAS alerts may be distributed.  Under the traditional “legacy” structure, 
illustrated in Figure 1 below, the EAS is designed to cascade the EAN through a pre-established hierarchy 
of broadcast, cable, and satellite systems.  FEMA initiates a nationwide, Presidential alert using specific 
encoding equipment to send the EAN code to the PEPs over a secure telephone (wireline) connection.
49
  
Upon receipt of the code, the PEPs open a live audio channel to FEMA and broadcast the EAN 
throughout their listening areas.  A group of selected EAS Participants in each PEP’s broadcast area, 
known as Local Primary (LP) stations, monitor these PEP stations.  When LP stations receive the EAN, 
they, in turn, open up an audio channel to FEMA via the PEP, and broadcast the EAN in their listening 
areas.  The remaining 22,500 broadcasters, cable television facilities and other EAS Participants located 
in each LP’s broadcast footprint receive the alerts from the LP stations, deliver the alerts to the public (or 
in the case of cable, to customers’ set top boxes), and open up the audio channel to FEMA through their 
PEP and LP.  
Figure 1. EAS Architecture
Alerting via IPAWS
EAS alerts also may be distributed over the Internet through the Integrated Public Alert and Warning 
System (IPAWS), illustrated in Figure 2 below.
50
  As of June 30, 2012, EAS Participants are required to 
be able to receive EAS alerts formatted in Common Alerting Protocol (CAP)
51
 from authorized 
48
 See 2011 EAS Nationwide Test Report at 7 n.13.
49
 The EAN and other EAS codes are part of the Specific Area Message Encoding (SAME) protocol used both for 
the EAS and NOAA weather radio.  See National Weather Service, “NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards,” available 
at http://www.nws.noaa.gov/nwr/same.htm.
50
 FEMA, Integrated Public Alert & Warning System, https://www.fema.gov/integrated-public-alert-warning-system 
(last visited Mar. 14, 2018).  
51
 See Review of the Emergency Alert System; Independent Spanish Broadcasters Association, the Office of 
Communication of the United Church of Christ, Inc., and the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission
20
emergency alert initiators over the Internet via IPAWS.  CAP-formatted alerts can include audio, video or 
data files, images, multilingual translations of alerts, and links providing more detailed information than 
what is contained in the initial alert (such as streaming audio or video).
52
  An EAS Participant that 
receives a CAP-formatted message can utilize the CAP-formatted content to generate messages in 
synchronous audio and visual formats, which then can be broadcast to local viewers and listeners.
53
  CAP 
also provides each alert with a unique alert identifier and supports alert authentication through the 
provision of a digital signature and an encryption field that enables greater protection of the CAP 
message.
54
  
(Continued from previous page)  
Petition for Immediate Relief; Randy Gehman Petition for Rulemaking, EB Docket 04-296, Fourth Report and 
Order, 26 FCC Rcd 13710, 13719, para. 20 (2011) (Fourth Report and Order).  CAP is an open, interoperable 
standard developed by the Organization for the Advancement of Structure Information Standards (OASIS), and it 
incorporates an XML-based language developed and widely used for web documents.  See Review of the Emergency 
Alert System; Independent Spanish Broadcasters Association, the Office of Communication of the United Church of 
Christ, Inc., and the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, Petition for Immediate Relief; Randy 
Gehman Petition for Rulemaking, Fifth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 642, 648, para. 10 (2012), pet. denied in 
Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council and the League of United Latin American Citizens, Petitioners, 
v. FCC, D.C. Cir., 873 F3d 932 (Oct. 17, 2017).  CAP messages contain standardized fields that facilitate 
interoperability between and among devices, and are backwards-compatible with the EAS Protocol.  See id.
52
 See id.  However, any data contained in a CAP-formatted message beyond the EAS codes and audio message (if 
present), such as enhanced text or video files, can be utilized locally by the EAS Participant that receives it, but 
cannot be converted into the EAS Protocol and thus cannot be distributed via the daisy chain process, as reflected in 
the part 11 rules.  See, e.g., 47 CFR §§ 11.51(d), (g)(3), (h)(3), (j)(2).
53
 See 47 CFR § 11.51(d), (g)(3), (j)(2).
54
 See OASIS, Common Alerting Protocol Version 1.2 (2010), available at http://docs.oasis-
open.org/emergency/cap/v1.2/CAP-v1.2-os.html (last visited Mar. 19, 2018).