Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Review of the Emergency Alert System
)
)
)
)
)
EB Docket No. 04-296
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Adopted:  June 25, 2014 Released: June 26, 2014
Comment Date:  (30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register)
Reply Comment Date:  (45 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register)
By the Commission:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1
II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 3
A. The Broadcast-Based EAS Architecture.......................................................................................... 3
B. First Nationwide EAS Test .............................................................................................................. 4
III. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING.......................................................................................... 8
A. Scope................................................................................................................................................ 8
B. Proposed Rule Changes Affecting Header Code Elements ........................................................... 11
1. Use of a National Location Code ............................................................................................ 11
2. Use of the National Periodic Test Code (NPT) ....................................................................... 15
C. Updated EAS Test Reporting System (ETRS) .............................................................................. 22
1. Mandating ETRS..................................................................................................................... 24
2. State Plan Data Tables............................................................................................................. 29
D. Visual Crawl and Audio Accessibility........................................................................................... 31
1. Visual Crawl............................................................................................................................ 31
2. Audio Accessibility ................................................................................................................. 39
E. Proposed Effective Dates............................................................................................................... 41
F. Cost Benefit Analysis .................................................................................................................... 42
IV. OTHER ISSUES .................................................................................................................................. 51
A. Acknowledgement of all EAS Header Codes ................................................................................ 52
B. Retransmission of EAN Immediately Upon Receipt ..................................................................... 55
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS................................................................................................................ 58
A. Ex Parte Rules ............................................................................................................................... 58
B. Comment Filing Procedures .......................................................................................................... 59
C. Accessible Formats ........................................................................................................................ 60
D. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ..................................................................................................... 61
E. Paperwork Reduction Analysis...................................................................................................... 62
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES....................................................................................................................... 63
APPENDIX A - Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
2
APPENDIX B - Rules
APPENDIX C - Commenting Parties
APPENDIX D - Electronic Test Reporting System (ETRS) Forms
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Today we take steps to strengthen the Emergency Alert System (EAS) by proposing
revisions to our EAS rules to address problems encountered during the first nationwide test of the EAS.  
Specifically, in light of the lessons learned from the nationwide EAS test, which occurred on November 
9, 2011,
1
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to: (1) establish a national location code for EAS 
alerts issued by the President; (2) amend our rules governing a national EAS test code for future 
nationwide tests; (3) require broadcasters, cable service providers, and other entities required to comply 
with the Commission’s EAS rules (EAS Participants)
2
to file test result data electronically; and (4) require 
EAS Participants to meet minimal standards to ensure that EAS alerts are accessible to all members of the 
public, including those with disabilities.
3
2. The actions we take today are the first in a series of steps to enhance the existing 
paradigm for the testing, exercise and use of the EAS in a way that maximizes its overall effectiveness as 
a public alert and warning system.
4
  The above-referenced rule changes are necessary to facilitate another 
nationwide EAS test in the near future.
5
  We believe these proposals also establish key components of the 
EAS in a manner that provides maximum flexibility and minimal regulatory burden for EAS Participants, 
emergency managers, government alert originators, communications service providers and other alerting 
stakeholders who are responsible for testing the reliability of the EAS.  In the future, we plan to consider 
further enhancements to the EAS, such as standardizing the waiver process for EAS “live code” 
exercises,
6
as well as considering and taking action on recent and future recommendations of the 
                                                     
1
See FEDERALCOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION PUBLIC SAFETY AND HOMELAND SECURITY BUREAU,
STRENGTHENING THE EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM (EAS): LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE FIRST NATIONWIDE EAS
TEST 13-15 (2013) available at http://www.fcc.gov/document/strengthening-emergency-alert-system (EAS 
Nationwide Test Report). 
2
See 47 C.F.R. § 11.1(c) (including analog radio and television stations, and wired and wireless cable television 
systems, DBS, DTV, SDARS, digital cable and DAB, and wireline video systems among the entities required to 
comply with the Commission’s EAS Rules, and defining them as “EAS Participants”). 
3
As explained below, we also decline to propose changes to, or otherwise seek comment on, the Commission’s rules 
regarding the processing of header codes and the time of release of Presidential alerts.  The current rules are clear,
and we find no reason to propose amendments to, or to seek further comment on those issues.  See infra ¶¶ 51-57.
4
The FCC, in conjunction with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Weather 
Service (NWS), implements EAS at the federal level.  FEMA has been delegated responsibility for the initial 
transmission of Presidential alerts and is responsible for the overall administration of the system.  NWS develops 
emergency weather information to alert the public of imminent, dangerous weather conditions.  The FCC adopts, 
administers and enforces rules governing communications service provider participation in the EAS and ensures that 
EAS state and local plans developed by industry conform to the FCC EAS rules and regulations.  SeeMemorandum, 
Presidential Communications with the General Public During Periods of National Emergency, The White House 
(Sept. 15, 1995) (1995 Presidential Statement).
5
FEMA has expressed a desire to test the EAS “in the near future.”  See infra ¶ 7 and note 33.
6
“Live codes,” as compared to “test codes,” are used as public readiness exercises in areas where particular 
emergencies (e.g., tornadoes, tsunamis, and other natural and weather-related emergencies) can be expected to 
occur.  See Public Safety & Homeland Security Bureau Provides Guidance Regarding Live Code Testing of the 
Emergency Alert System, DA 09-694, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 3701 (2009) (providing guidance to assist EAS 
Participants seeking to participate in live code testing).  EAS alerts containing live codes produce visual and audio 
messages that indicate that an actual emergency event is imminent, whereas test codes such as the Required Monthly 
Test (RMT) are used only to evaluate the readiness of the EAS for an actual alert, and produce audio and visual 
messages that indicate that “This is only a Test.”  See 47 C.F.R. § 11.61.  The Commission has granted conditional 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
3
Commission’s Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council (CSRIC)
7
regarding 
the streamlining of the EAS State Plan process,
8
the addition of other elements of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA)’s Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) to the testing 
paradigm, and basic EAS security guidelines.
9
  Today’s action is consistent with the Commission’s long-
standing goals of ensuring that the EAS is an effective component of a system that provides the public 
with timely and accurate emergency alerts over as many communications platforms as possible.
II. BACKGROUND
A. The Broadcast-Based EAS Architecture
3. The EAS provides the President and other government alert originators with the 
capability to send critical alerts and warnings to the public over broadcast and other media 
communications facilities.  Under the Commission’s rules, EAS Participants must be able to receive and 
retransmit EAS alerts initiated by the President.
10
EAS Participants may receive and transmit EAS alerts 
issued by other government agencies on a voluntary basis.
11
Under the traditional architecture, EAS alerts 
are distributed via the so-called “daisy chain,” a hierarchical, broadcast-based alert message distribution 
architecture in which a message originator at the local, state, or national level formats a message in the 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
waivers of 47 C.F.R. § 11.45, prohibiting false or deceptive EAS transmissions, to entities seeking to use live EAS 
tones in a non-misleading manner.  See Letter, Tom Beers, Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, 
Policy Division, Federal Communications Commission, to Frank Jazzo, Attorney for the Alaska Broadcasters 
Association (Mar. 18, 2013); see alsoWaiver of Section 11.45 of the Commission's Rules to Allow Broadcast of 
Public Service Announcements Produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to Educate the Public on 
the Wireless Emergency Alert System, PS Docket No. 07-287, Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 8176 (2013) (granting a 
waiver of Section 11.45 for a Public Safety Announcement educating the public on the Wireless Emergency Alert 
(WEA) tones).  On May 21, 2014, this waiver was extended for an additional 18 months, until November 21, 2015.  
See Waiver of Section 11.45 of the Commission’s Rules to Allow Broadcast of Public Service Announcements 
Produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to Educate the Public on the Wireless Emergency Alert 
System, EB Docket 04-296, Order, DA 14-689 (rel. May 21, 2014).  The waiver is granted pursuant to 11 C.F.R. § 
1.3 and 11 C.F.R. § 0.392.
7
The CSRIC is a federal advisory committee charged with providing recommendations to the FCC to ensure, among 
other things, the optimal security and reliability of communications systems, including telecommunications, media, 
and public safety systems, subject to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).  See 5 
U.S.C.A. § 10. 
8
Last year, the Bureau released a Public Notice reminding State Emergency Communications Committees (SECCs) 
to review and update their state EAS plans.  See Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Encourages State 
Emergency Communications Committees to Review and Amend State Emergency Alert System Plans to Ensure Up-
To-Date Monitoring Assignments, EB Docket No. 04-296, Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 6239 (2013).  In addition, 
earlier this year, the Commission received recommendations on ways to improve the state EAS plan process from 
CSRIC.  See CSRIC IV, WORKING GROUP THREE, EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM, STATE EAS PLANS SUBCOMMITTEE,
FINAL REPORT 9 (2014), available at 
http://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/pshs/advisory/csric4/CSRIC_IV_WG3_FINAL_03252014.pdf (recommending a 
standardized tabular matrix for all EAS State Plan filings); see also id. at 12 (recommending that EAS Participants’ 
filing information be cross-referenced with the FCC’s Universal Licensing System (ULS), including each filer’s 
unique FCC Facility ID). 
9
We note that the CSRIC, at its June 18, 2014 meeting, adopted recommendations regarding many of the issues 
discussed here.  We will place CSRIC’s report in the docket and consider its recommendations as part of the record 
in this proceeding.
10
See 47 C.F.R. § 11.2(a).
11
See 47 C.F.R. § 11.41(b)(2).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
4
“EAS Protocol.”
12
The message originator then initiates the transmission of the alert at a designated entry 
point, after which the alert is relayed from one designated station to another until all affected EAS 
Participants have received the alert and delivered it to the public.
13
Figure 1. EAS Architecture
B. First Nationwide EAS Test
4. At 2:00 p.m., EST, on Wednesday, November 9, 2011, FEMA initiated the first 
nationwide test by delivering an Emergency Action Notification (EAN), the live code that would be used 
by the President in an actual emergency,
14
to the EAS Primary Entry Point (PEP) stations,
15
which, in 
                                                     
12
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 11.31(a) (describing the EAS protocol as a four-part message: (1) preamble and EAS header 
codes, which contain information regarding the identity of the sender, the type of emergency, its location, and the 
valid time period of the alert); (2) audio attention signal; (3) message; and (4) preamble and “end of message” 
(EOM) codes, and describing the required format for each part).
13
See infra Figure 1; see also Review of the Emergency Alert System; Independent Spanish Broadcasters 
Association, The Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ, Inc., and the Minority Media and 
Telecommunications Council, Petition for Immediate Relief, EB Docket No. 04-296, Fifth Report and Order, 27 
FCC Rcd 642, 647, ¶ 7 (2012) (Fifth Report and Order) (stating that, “[a]t the national level, EAS message 
distribution starts at Primary Entry Point (PEP) stations,” which are a group of geographically diverse, high-power 
radio stations designated and tasked by FEMA to transmit “Presidential Level” messages initiated by FEMA); id. 
(stating that the PEP stations broadcast the EAN to the public and encode the EAN to be rebroadcast by “Local 
Primary” (LP) stations that monitor the PEP and, in turn, rebroadcast the EAN and encode it for rebroadcasting by 
all other EAS Participants); id. (“This process of relaying EAS messages from station to station is often referred to 
as the “daisy chain”).
14
See 47 C.F.R. § 11.2(a).  The defining characteristics of an EAN are that it automatically takes precedence over all 
other EAS alerts and can be of indefinite duration, as opposed to all other EAS alerts that are limited to two minutes 
in length.  See 47 C.F.R. §§ 11.33(a)(9), (11).
15
See 47 C.F.R. § 11.2(b) (defining PEP stations as the private or commercial radio broadcast stations that cooperate
with FEMA to provide emergency alert and warning information to the public prior to, during, and after incidents 
and disasters); see also id. (stating that the PEP stations serve as the primary source of initial broadcast for a 
Presidential or National EAS message, and noting that this select group of geographically disparate, independently 
powered, and electromagnetic pulse (EMP) hardened radio stations collectively can reach over 90% of the American 
populace).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
5
turn, initiated the distribution of the EAN throughout the nation.
16
The purpose of the test was to allow 
FEMA and the Commission to assess how the broadcast-based national EAS architecture would perform 
in practice, and to develop and implement any necessary improvements to ensure that the national EAS, if 
activated in a real emergency, would perform as designed.
17
5. On April 12, 2013, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) released a 
report summarizing the findings from the test as well as recommendations for strengthening the EAS.
18
The Bureau concluded that, based on the results of the test, the national EAS distribution architecture was
fundamentally sound.
19
However, the report highlighted various problems that impeded the ability of 
some EAS Participants to receive and/or retransmit the EAN during the test.  These problems included 
poor audio quality, lack of PEP stations, and short test length,
20
as well as inconsistencies in EAS 
equipment programming.
21
With respect to equipment inconsistencies the report indicated that 
manufacturers had made different assumptions about the EAS rules that pertain to the receipt, processing, 
and retransmission of EAS header codes.
22
As a result, alerting information was not processed and 
retransmitted in a uniform manner throughout the EAS ecosystem.
23
For example, some EAS Participants 
reported an inability to process the Washington, D.C. location code that was used for the test.
24
Other
EAS Participants reported that there was a three-minute delay in their rebroadcast of the EAN due to one 
EAS equipment manufacturer’s interpretation of the Commission’s rules regarding the Time of Release 
code.
25
Finally, some EAS Participants and consumers reported that “the language in the text crawl that 
EAS equipment generates from the EAN differs among manufacturers, and many EAS Participants’ 
                                                     
16
See supra paragraph 3 and note 15 (describing the daisy chain distribution architecture).
17
See EAS Nationwide Test Report, supra note 1, at 3. The first nationwide EAS test did not test CAP or the EAS 
IPAWS-based delivery system. See id. at 17, n.45. 
18
EAS Nationwide Test Report, supra note 1.
19
See id. at 3.
20
See id. at 13.  Poor audio quality, lack of PEP stations, and short test length are all issues that fall within FEMA’s 
purview as administrator of the EAS.  As the Bureau notes in its report, FEMA has taken steps to address these 
issues.  See id. at 14.
21
See id. at 13.
22
See id. at 15 (describing anomalies in the way that EAS equipment handled various aspects of the first nationwide 
EAS test alert).
23
See id.
24
See id. The EAS rules define the term “location code” as the six digits “PSSCCC” of the EAS header indicating 
the geographic area affected by the EAS alert. See 47 C.F.R. § 11.31(c). The location code uses the Federal 
Information Processing Standard (FIPS) numbers as described by the U.S. Department of Commerce in National 
Institute of Standards and Technology publication FIPS PUB 6-4. Each state is assigned an SS number. Each 
county and some cities are assigned a CCC number. A CCC number of 000 refers to an entire state or territory. P 
defines county subdivisions as follows: 0 = all or an unspecified portion of a county, 1 = Northwest, 2 = North, 3 = 
Northeast, and so on around the compass rose. See id. Thus, an alert containing “six zeroes” as the location code 
would specify all states and counties in the U.S. by default. See Review of the Emergency Alert System, EB Docket 
No. 04-296, Third Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 1460, 1473, ¶ 31 (2011) (Third Report and Order). Other 
numbers may be designated later for special applications.
25
See EAS Nationwide Test Report at 13, 15-16; see also 47 C.F.R. § 11.31(c) (stating that, under Coordinated 
Universal Time (UTC), the day, JJJ, is 0 to 365 (366 for leap year), and the time is HH on a 24 hour clock and 
minutes, MM, 1 to 60, abbreviated JJJHHMM); Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) Explained, 
TIMEANDDATE.COM, http://www.timeanddate.com/time/aboututc.html (explaining UTC) (last visited Mar. 6, 2014).  
In its Ex Parte, Monroe characterizes this code element as “time of transmission.” SeeMonroe Ex Parte, at 2. We 
refer to this element as the “Time of Release” code.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
6
equipment generated a text crawl that went by too quickly or was in a difficult to read font.”
26
6. On September 23, 2013, the Bureau released the EAS Operational Issues Public Notice 
seeking comment on recommendations it should make to the Commission regarding steps the 
Commission could take to address the problems raised by the November, 2011 test.
27
In particular, the 
EAS Operational Issues Public Notice sought comment on whether the Commission should adopt a 
national location code,
28
and whether, as an alternative to the use of the live EAN code, the National 
Periodic Test (NPT) code should be used as the national test event code for future tests.
29
The EAS 
Operational Issues Public Notice also sought comment on how the Commission could ensure that the text 
crawl and audio portions of EAS messages convey equivalent information, such that members of the 
public, including those who may have sensory disabilities, would be able to have equal access to 
emergency information and, specifically, whether the Commission should adopt display specifications to 
ensure that EAS alerts would be fully accessible to the public.
30
  Finally, the EAS Operational Issues 
Public Notice sought comment on whether stakeholders believed that the Commission’s rules governing 
EAS equipment processing of header codes and time of release associated with Presidential EAS 
messages should be revised.
31
7. Over 20 parties responded to the EAS Operational Issues Public Notice. Most 
commenters support the adoption of a national location code and use of the NPT in future nationwide 
EAS tests.
32
Of particular note, FEMA expresses a desire to test not only the EAS, but the entire IPAWS 
“in the near future.”
33
Although FEMA does not provide test specifics in its comments, it does state that 
it wishes to use an NPT that simulates EAN operation in future testing.
34
Other comments and ex parte
discussions with EAS stakeholders, including EAS equipment manufacturers, suggest that there are 
significant technical and operational issues that must be resolved before the NPT is used as part of a 
future test.  Accordingly, in the discussion below we discuss two alternative methods for implementing 
the NPT.
III. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
A. Scope
8. Since the first nationwide EAS test in 2011, there have been technological advances and 
deployments of new systems in the alerting landscape.  Most relevant to EAS has been the changeover to 
alerting that uses the Internet-based Common Alerting Protocol (CAP).
35
In addition to CAP 
                                                     
26
EAS Nationwide Test Report, supra note 1, at 16.
27
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Seeks Comment Regarding Equipment and Operational Issues 
Identified Following the First Nationwide Test of the Emergency Alert System, EB Docket No. 04-296, Public 
Notice, DA 13-1969 (rel. Sept. 23, 2013) (EAS Operational Issues Public Notice), at 3-13.
28
See supra note 24 (defining the location code).
29
The “event code” describes the type of event triggering the alert.  See EAS Operational Issues Public Notice, at 
11.
30
See id. at 10.
31
See id. at 3-7.
32
See Appendix C for a list of commenters responding to the EAS Operational Public Notice.
33
FEMA Comments at 2.
34
See id. The Commission’s rules reference the NPT. See 47 C.F.R. §11.31(e). However, the rules do not provide 
guidelines on how the NPT is to be used or how EAS equipment is to respond when the code is transmitted.
35
CAP is an open, interoperable, XML-based standard developed by the Organization for the Advancement of 
Structured Information Standards (OASIS).  See OASIS, COMMON ALERTING PROTOCOL, V. 1.2 USA INTEGRATED 
PUBLIC ALERT AND WARNING SYSTEM PROFILE VERSION 1.2 (2009), http://docs.oasis-
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
7
implementation, beginning in April 2012, FEMA, the Commission and the wireless industry deployed the 
Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) system, which allows the public to receive geographically-targeted 
alerts over WEA-capable cell phones and other mobile devices.
36
Further, the Nation’s communications 
networks are in the midst of technology transitions which will entail fundamental and comprehensive 
changes in how data and voice are communicated end to end (involving virtually all aspects of the routing 
and coding of such communications).
37
  Many stakeholders, realizing the impact that this transition will 
have on the way in which consumers will be able to receive timely and accurate emergency alerts, express 
the need and desire to routinely test and exercise not only the EAS, but also the WEA and the entire 
IPAWS to ensure that Americans continue to have access to an effective emergency alert system.
38
9. While we agree with this assessment and understand the desire for prompt testing of these 
systems, we believe it is imperative first to establish at the national level overarching parameters for such 
testing.  Such an alerting paradigm would allow alert originators at the federal, state and local levels, as 
well as other stakeholders, to ensure that these systems are an effective and viable tool for alerting the 
public.  Consequently, with this Notice, we continue our dialogue with federal government partners, state 
and local governments, communications service providers and other alerting stakeholders to achieve this 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
open.org/emergency/cap/v1.2/ipaws-profile/v1.0/cs01/cap-v1.2-ipaws-profile-cs01.doc (CAP 1.2 Standard).  CAP-
formatted alerts can include multimedia such as streaming audio or video. CAP messages contain standardized 
fields that facilitate interoperability between and among devices. CAP is backwards-compatible with the EAS 
Protocol. See Fifth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 642, 648, ¶ 10. Since June 30, 2012, the Commission’s rules 
have required EAS Participants to receive CAP-formatted EAS alert messages from the IPAWS and convert them 
into EAS-protocol compliant messages so that they can then be successfully distributed over the legacy EAS via the 
daisy chain process in compliance with the EAS-CAP Industry Group (ECIG) Implementation Guide. See 47 C.F.R. 
§ 11.56(a); see also Tom Wood, ECIG Recommendations for a CAP EAS Implementation Guide, Version 1.0, EB 
Docket 04-296 (2010), http://eas-cap.org/ECIG-CAP-to-EAS_Implementation_Guide-V1-0.pdf (ECIG 
Implementation Guide or Guide).  An EAS Participant that receives a CAP-formatted message can utilize its 
contents to generate messages in visual and audio formats, which can then be broadcast to its local viewers and 
listeners. 47 C.F.R. §§ 11.51(d), (g)(3), (j)(2).
36
WEA is a national emergency alert system intended to complement the EAS that uses CAP to send 90-character, 
text-like messages with a unique audio signal and vibration cadence to WEA-capable mobile devices. See Your 
Wireless Life: Wireless Emergency Alerts, CTIA.COM (November, 2013), http://www.ctia.org/your-wireless-
life/consumer-tips/wireless-emergency-alerts. Since becoming available in April 2012, WEA has already begun 
saving lives. See id. (citing, for example, the first WEA AMBER Alert that prompted a teenager to call 911, leading 
police to safely recover the abducted child within minutes; an East Windsor, CT alert that helped save the lives of a 
camp counselor and her students; and an Elmira, NY alert that warned residents about an impending tornado); see 
also Mark Trujillo, Schock: Warning System Saved Lives, THEHILL.COM, (Nov. 18, 2013, 10:53 AM), 
http://thehill.com/video/house/190551-schock-warning-system-saved-lives (stating the opinion of Rep. Aaron 
Schock that the death toll from recent Midwestern tornadoes would have been higher if not for WEA); Leslie 
Stimson, Report: Boston Did Use Wireless Alerts; RADIOWORLD.COM, (Apr. 24, 2014), 
http://www.radioworld.com/article/report-boston-diduse-wireless-alerts/219096#sthash.DDQk4Cmj.dpbs (stating 
that WEA alerts were effective in reminding people to tune to their local station for an EAS alert containing detailed 
information about how to respond to the bomb threat); Your Wireless Life: Wireless Emergency Alerts: AMBER 
Alerts via WEA, CTIA.COM (December, 2013), http://www.ctia.org/your-wireless-life/consumer-tips/wireless-
emergency-alerts/amber-alerts-via-wea (“Southern California residents first received an AMBER Alert via WEA for 
an abducted teen. Thanks to tips from individuals who saw the alerts on their wireless devices as well as from 
televisions and radio stations, the alert was expanded to the rest of California as well as other states. Several days 
later, the teen was safely recovered in Boise, ID.”).
37
See Technology Transitions, et al., GN Docket No. 13-5 et al., Order, Report and Order and Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, Report and Order, Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Proposal for 
Ongoing Data Initiative, FCC 14-5 (rel. Jan. 31, 2014).
38
See GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, REPORT TO CONGRESSIONAL REQUESTERS: EMERGENCY ALERTING 
CAPABILITIES HAVE IMPROVED, BUT ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE AND TESTING ARE NEEDED 26 (2013) (“[R]egular 
nationwide EAS testing is essential to ensure that the system will work as intended during an emergency.”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
8
result.
10. As we continue this discussion, it is crucial that we first take steps to address known 
vulnerabilities in the EAS. In this Notice, the Commission seeks comment on proposed rule changes 
designed to address two of the problems identified by the 2011 Nationwide EAS Test, specifically the 
lack of a national location code, and the lack of minimum comprehensibility and accessibility guidelines 
to ensure that the public, including those with disabilities, can clearly understand alerts provided to them.  
The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should adopt an electronic EAS Test Reporting 
System (ETRS), and how the Commission should define use of the NPT code for future nationwide tests.
B. Proposed Rule Changes Affecting Header Code Elements
1. Use of a National Location Code
11. Section 11.31(c) of the Commission’s rules requires, among other things, that all EAS 
alert messages include a geographic location code to indicate the affected area of an emergency.
39
  The 
EAS rules contain a list of location codes for the States, Territories and offshore Marine Areas that EAS 
equipment are required to recognize.
40
  The EAS rules do not contain a location code for the entire United 
States.  In the Third Report and Order, the Commission declined to adopt a national location code for the 
first nationwide EAS test out of concern that to do so would require significant reprogramming of EAS 
equipment.
41
  Rather, for the first test, the Bureau and FEMA elected to use the Washington, D.C. 
location code.
42
  Use of this code resulted in inconsistent results across the country.  As detailed in the 
EAS Nationwide Test Report, although many EAS Participants outside of Washington, D.C. were able to 
process the Washington, D.C. code, some EAS Participants reported that their EAS and other network 
equipment rejected the “out of area” alert, and terminated the test alert partway through the 
transmission.
43
  In the EAS Operational Issues Public Notice, the Bureau noted the difficulties arising 
from the use of the Washington D.C. location code and sought comment on whether the Commission 
should adopt a national location code for future testing, and if so, what that code should be.
44
12. Most commenters, including FEMA, support adoption of a national location code to 
facilitate national activations and testing of the EAS. In particular, commenters overwhelmingly support 
the adoption of “six zeroes” (000000) as the national location code.
45
Commenters provide an array of 
                                                     
39
The location code is a six-digit, standardized code conforming to the National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard 
ANSI INCITS 31-2009 that utilizes six character numbers assigned to various states, counties, cities and portions of 
counties. See 47 C.F.R. § 11.31(c).
40
See 47 C.F.R. § 11.31(f).
41
See Third Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 1460, 1473, ¶ 31-32.
42
See Public Safety & Homeland Security Bureau Provides Additional Information to EAS Participants for the 
November 9, 2011 Nationwide Test of the Emergency Alert System, DA 11-1444, Public Notice, 26 FCC Rcd 
11461, 11462 (2011).
43
EAS equipment is programmed to retransmit only such alerts that pertain to the geographic location in which the 
encoder/decoder is located.  Although the Bureau believed that all EAS equipment was programmed to receive and 
retransmit an alert with the Washington, D.C. location code as though it pertained to the entire nation, some EAS 
equipment ignored the EAN during the first nationwide EAS test because the Washington, D.C. code was processed 
as though it only pertained to Washington, D.C..  See, e.g., EAS Nationwide Test Report, supra note 1, at 14 (citing 
Emergency Alert System Didn’t Work in Oregon, KVAL.COM (Nov. 9, 2011, 10:06 AM), 
http://www.kval.com/news/national/133545908.html).
44
EAS Operational Issues Public Notice, at 8-9.
45
See supra note 24 (defining location code); see also FEMA Comments at 2 (supporting the use of “six zeroes” as 
the national location code); NCTA Comments at 4 (supporting the use of “six zeroes” as the national location code 
because this would “ensure that the national EAN alert is activated the same by all EAS equipment across the 
country.”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
9
justifications for their position. FEMA asserts that use of the “six zeroes” location code will further 
harmonize the Commission’s EAS rules with CAP standards, which already recognize “six zeroes” as the 
national location code.
46
  Trilithic adds that the addition of the “six zeroes” code for general use is a 
prerequisite for geo-targeting of the EAN, as EAS equipment would otherwise ignore the location codes if 
the event code is an EAN.
47
  NCTA states that use of “six zeroes” as the national location code will 
ensure that the EAN is processed and retransmitted in the same format throughout the EAS ecosystem.
48
Sage also supports the use of “six zeroes” as the national location code, but concedes that the “DC code 
may have a smaller total system cost.”
49
Only DirecTV does not support the “six zeroes” location code, 
stating its belief that “[r]ather than embark upon an untested approach that would rely upon a new 
nationwide location code . . . the Commission would be better served by continuing to use the approach 
taken for the Nationwide EAS Test.”
50
13. With regard to the steps that equipment manufacturers need to take to integrate a “six 
zeroes” location code into their equipment, Monroe and Trilithic note that most equipment is already 
capable of processing “six zeroes” as the national location code either because the code is resident in the 
equipment, or because the software in the equipment can be upgraded to accommodate the location 
code.
51
Other manufacturers note that equipment that reaches the end of its lifecycle will need to be 
replaced because manufacturers no longer support such equipment and will not provide the type of 
software upgrade necessary to activate the “six zeroes” national location code.
52
NCTA comments that, 
notwithstanding the fact that the software in most of its members’ EAS equipment can be upgraded to 
accommodate the “six zeroes” national location code, cable and other multichannel video programming 
distributors (MVPD) will have to upgrade various “downstream” portions of their networks to 
accommodate the “six zeroes” code and accurately deliver alerts.
53
14. Based on the comments received in response to the Bureau’s EAS Operational Issues 
Public Notice, we propose that EAS Participants be required to have the capability to receive and process 
a national location code, and that “six zeroes” be designated as that code.
54
We believe that the addition 
of this national location code will bring additional consistency to the operation of EAS equipment in both
national and local activations.  In addition, the equipment and network upgrades that will enable the use
of a national location code, taken in conjunction with the Commission’s rules requiring that EAS 
equipment recognize all header codes, will prevent EAS equipment from programmatically ignoring
location header codes when used with an EAN event code,
55
thus enabling FEMA to use other specific 
                                                     
46
See FEMA Comments at 2; see also CAP 1.2 Standard, supra note 35, at 11 (“000000” refers to ALL United 
States territories).
47
Trilithic Ex Parte at 2.
48
See NCTA Comments at 4.
49
Sage Reply Comments at 6.
50
DirecTV Comments at 2.
51
See Monroe Reply Comments at 4 (concurring with NCTA that the “six zeroes” code should be used and stating 
that its equipment can readily allow the use of “six zeroes”); see also Trilithic Comments at 4 (“[O]ur 
Encoder/Decoders already process the ‘000000’code and identify it as the entire United States.”); Sage Ex Parte at 5 
(stating that the software update required for processing the “six zeroes” location code “can be done by the user 
remotely via the internet if their firewall is set up to allow it, some users will need to go on site); id. (“Some will 
have in-house engineering or other station staff install the update, others will need a contract engineer to be 
involved.”).
52
See Sage Ex Parte at 6 (stating that the use of the “six zeroes” code would obsolete many legacy devices).
53
See Second NCTA Ex Parte at 1-2.
54
See 47 C.F.R. § 11.34; see also proposed revision to §11.31(f) in Appendix B attached hereto.
55
See infra ¶¶ 52-54 (requiring that EAS equipment recognize all EAS header codes).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
10
location codes for a geo-targeted EAN should the President wish to address a particular part of the 
country rather than the nation as a whole.
56
We also agree with FEMA that adoption of “six zeroes” as 
the national location code has the additional long-term benefit of ensuring consistency between the 
Commission’s EAS rules and industry CAP standards, which, in turn, will facilitate the integration of the 
EAS into IP-based alerting systems such as IPAWS.
57
We seek comment on our proposal and rationale.
2. Use of the National Periodic Test Code (NPT)
15. In the Third Report and Order, the Commission chose to use the EAN for the first 
nationwide EAS test primarily because an EAN-based test most closely mirrored an actual alert.
58
At that 
time, the Commission also acknowledged that there was value to testing the national-level EAS without 
using a live code, and concluded that it would consider an alternative to live code testing such as the NPT 
in the future.
59
For that first test, in order to minimize confusion from the use of the live EAN code and 
its attendant video text crawl announcing a national emergency,
60
EAS Participant stakeholder 
organizations provided “This is only a Test” slides for broadcast and MVPD EAS Participants to display 
during the test.
61
Not all cable service providers were able to display the slide,
62
and as noted in the EAS 
Nationwide Test Report, while the use of the EAN had been successful, some deaf and hard of hearing 
people had reported confusion caused by the inability of some EAS Participants to visually display the 
“This is only a Test” slide.
63
The EAS Nationwide Test Report noted that one way to avoid such 
confusion in the future would be to use the NPT, and that “use of the NPT would allow FEMA and the
FCC to conduct nationwide EAS tests without the need for an extensive public outreach campaign such as 
that necessary for the first nationwide EAS test.”
64
16. In the EAS Operational Issues Public Notice, the Bureau sought comment on whether it 
should consider amending its rules to facilitate use of the NPT code instead of the EAN for future 
testing.
65
The Bureau also sought guidance on the technical feasibility and operational requirements of an
NPT activation, and whether the Commission’s rules should “require that EAS messages containing the 
NPT code be promulgated throughout the EAS just like an EAN.”
66
In its comments, FEMA expresses a 
desire to use the NPT code for the next nationwide test of the EAS component of IPAWS – a test that 
FEMA also notes that it wishes to conduct “in the near future
67
– but acknowledges that the EAS rules do 
                                                     
56
See Trilithic Ex Parte at 2, FEMA Comments at 2.  See also Amendment of Part 73, Subpart G, of the 
Commission's Rules Regarding the Emergency Broadcast System, FO Docket No. 91-301, Memorandum Opinion 
and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 11494, 11500 ¶ 41(1995) (contemplating the use of the EAN on a regional basis, stating 
that “alerting the nation on a regional basis would be much more manageable and reliable but would retain effective 
and timely warning capability.”).
57
See FEMA Comments at 2.
58
See Third Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 1460, 1469-70, ¶ 24.
59
See id. at 1469-70, ¶ 23.
60
The audio clearly announced that the event was “only a Test.”
61
EAS Nationwide Test Report, supra note 1, at 10.
62
Id. at 10, n.20.
63
Id.
64
Id. at 18, n.47.
65
See EAS Operational Issues Public Notice at 11.
66
Id. at 12.
67
See FEMA Comments at 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
11
not provide enough guidance on how EAS equipment must process the NPT.
68
  Accordingly, FEMA 
requests that the Commission provide such guidance, and notes its preference that the NPT be “relayed 
and forwarded in the same fashion and with the same immediacy as an EAN.”
69
Other commenters agree 
that the NPT should be used for most nationwide EAS tests, but also believe that the NPT does not need 
to fully emulate the EAN duration function to be an effective test code.
70
17. Commenters support the use of the NPT,
71
but most agree that requiring the NPT to 
emulate the EAN’s priority and duration qualities will entail significantly more substantial software and 
hardware upgrades for EAS Participants than those required for the national location code we propose 
today.
72
Commenters also state that use of an NPT that fully emulates the EAN will require testing, and 
updates to software and standards for downstream equipment such as cable set top boxes and Digital 
Network Control Systems (DNCS).
73
NCTA, in particular, notes that requiring an NPT coded test to 
trigger automatically, immediately upon receipt, and to last longer than two minutes would require 
                                                     
68
See FEMA Comments at 2 (“NPT is currently listed as a required event without specified relay performance 
parameters.”); see also EAS Operational Issues Public Notice at 11.
69
See FEMA Comments at 2.
70
See NCTA Comments at 7-8 (adding that the test should only be as long as is necessary to test this bypass 
function, keeping in mind the cost imposed by the interruption of cable broadcast due to force tuning); Monroe 
Comments at 7 (“it may be inadvisable for a ‘test’ message to potentially delay or preclude an actual local alert 
message related to life and safety”); Monroe Comments at 7 (noting that while in its equipment the NPT is 
programmed as a two minute alert, a shorter NPT “would suffice principally to test the robustness of the monitoring 
relay system and the ability to switch back to normal programming”); but see NCTA Comments at 7 (“the ability to 
test the reliability and effectiveness of nationwide alerting requires the test to simulate a real event (an EAN) as 
closely as possible.”); id. (urging that the “bypass feature should be tested to ensure that it works as designed for 
national alerting”); Trilithic Comments at 7 (“If the NPT is the event code used to test the operation of an EAN then 
the rules need to specify that the NPT operates identically to an EAN, including the priority, with the exception that
an EAN has higher priority than an NPT.”).
71
See BWWG Comments at 3; see also NCTA Comments at 6 (“NCTA member companies believe that the NPT 
code may be suitable for nationwide testing, provided the two key attributes of the EAN are incorporated into the 
NPT code protocol.”); Trilithic Comments at 7 (“EAS Encoder/Decoders would require software updates to make 
the NPT follow the same operation as an EAN. Cost would be minimal.”); Monroe Second Ex Parte at 3 (“[T]he 
DASDEC and One-Net EAS solutions already support use of an NPT event code for a national test.”).
72
See NCTA Ex Parte at 2 (“[A]ny rule changes involving the use of the NPT event code would necessitate even 
longer lead time for evaluation because the NPT has never been used and EAS encoder/decoders and downstream 
systems and equipment would need to be tested and likely updated. This is particularly so if the NPT is of unlimited 
duration and/or used in conjunction with the national six-zero location code.”); see also Sage Ex Parte at 4 
(“Making the NPT work just like an EAN, with special handling and no time limit would require a software update 
for all Sage devices, and based on discussions with other vendors, all EAS devices . . . The decision [also] would 
obsolete much of the legacy equipment in the field.”); Monroe Second Ex Parte at 4 (“If the rules were modified to 
specify that the NPT must also support unlimited audio, a significant software update would need to be developed 
and provided by the manufacturer”); cf. Trilithic Ex Parte at 3 (stating that it is “possible to make the NPT behave 
like the EAN, including raising its priority to over-ride other messages” and that “[t]his would require more 
extensive firmware changes than simply adding the 000000 FIPS code,” but not stating the extent of additional costs 
implicated by such an upgrade).
73
See Monroe Second Ex Parte at 4 (“a change of this nature in altering the NPT with unlimited audio could imply a 
profound economic impact in terms of change to embedded plant.”); see also Sage Ex Parte at 4 (“In the cable and 
IPTV case, that feature will require changes to equipment downstream of the EAS equipment.”); NCTA Comments 
at 6 (“important EAS standards, such as the JSTD-042A-2007: A Joint Standard Developed by the Society of Cable 
Telecommunications Engineers (SCTE) and the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) – Emergency Alert 
Messaging for Cable, would need to be updated”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
12
changes to the SCTE 18 2013 standard,
74
as well as to corresponding product specifications and system 
design changes that would affect the entire MVPD industry.  According to NCTA, this process would 
take as long as three years to complete, and would be significantly more expensive than requiring the “six 
zeroes” location code alone.
75
18. According to commenters, a less expensive and more rapidly deployable method of 
utilizing the NPT for a national EAS test would simply be to enable the NPT as it is currently 
programmed in most, if not all, EAS equipment.
76
Specifically, Sage recommends that programming 
EAS equipment to treat the NPT as a “normal” EAS alert would be a simpler and equally effective way to 
test the integrity of the links in the EAS distribution hierarchy.
77
  As the Commission noted in the Third 
Report and Order, although such use of the NPT would be limited to two minutes, EAS Participants 
could ensure mandatory carriage of the NPT by manually reprogramming their EAS equipment to 
automatically respond to the NPT.
78
19. The Commission agrees with the majority of commenters that there should be a non-EAN 
option for future EAS testing, and that the NPT is the obvious alternative.
79
The Commission is aware 
that it must balance the need for regular testing of the EAS with a clear standard by which such tests 
should be conducted, and that any EAS testing rules should offer FEMA maximum flexibility to test the 
EAS and the other IPAWS elements that FEMA administers.  At the same time, we want to ensure that 
our rules provide a benefit that fully justifies the costs that implementing any proposed rules would 
impose on EAS Participants. Accordingly, we propose to amend our rules to create an option to use the 
NPT for EAS testing.  That being said, we are cognizant that the NPT can be tailored in different ways, 
with different costs and benefits. We therefore seek comment on the manner in which the NPT should be 
deployed for any upcoming EAS tests.
20. We first seek comment on whether we should require that the NPT be activated like any 
other EAS alert.  This option, according to commenters, offers almost all the benefits of full EAN 
emulation.
80
However, it would not test the reset functionality of EAS equipment by lasting longer than 
two minutes, and it would not override all other EAS alerts.
81
  An NPT event code that does not exceed 
two minutes in length is consistent with the existing Part 11 rules,
82
as the EAN is the only event code that 
                                                     
74
SCTE 18 2013, also known as ANSI J-STD-42B-2013, is a standard that defines an emergency alert signaling 
method for use by cable systems to signal emergencies to digital receiving devices.  See CEA/SCTE Standard 
Emergency Alert Messaging for Cable J-STD-42-B (2013), available at 
http://www.scte.org/FileDownload.aspx?A=3512.
75
NCTA Second Ex Parte at 2.
76
See Monroe Second Ex Parte at 3 (“We reconfirmed that the DASDEC and One-Net EAS solutions already 
support use of an NPT event code . . . Users can enable that location setting simply through the device user 
interface.”); see also Trilithic Ex Parte at 3 (“Customers will need to enable the NPT in their event filters. Typically 
this involves logging in to [sic] the Encoder from a PC and modifying the configuration.”).
77
See Sage Ex Parte at 4 (recommending that the NPT be “kept as a ‘normal’ EAS alert, i.e., within the normal time 
limit, FEMA can use the NPT to verify transport of messages through various parts of the system.”).
78
See Third Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 1460, 1469-70, ¶ 23.
79
See supra note 73.
80
See, e.g., Sage Ex Parte at 4; Monroe Reply Comments at 4-5.
81
See 47 C.F.R. § 11.33(a)(9) (“Operators shall be able to select a time interval, not less than two minutes, in which 
the decoder would automatically reset if it received an EAS header code but not an end-of-message (EOM) code.  
Messages received with the EAN Event Codes shall disable the reset function so that lengthy audio messages can be 
handled.”); 47 C.F.R. § 11.33(a)(11) (“A header code with the EAN Event code specified in § 11.31(c) that is 
received through any of the audio inputs must override all other messages.”).
82
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 11.61(1), (2) (requiring that EAS Participants conduct regular weekly and monthly EAS tests).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
13
does not limit the duration of the alert.
83
  The Bureau currently has the delegated authority to require that 
EAS Participants use the NPT for future national testing, and the Bureau may exercise this authority at 
any time to require the NPT to be used in a nationwide EAS test in a manner consistent with the current 
rules, i.e., that it be treated like any other event code.
84
  Treating the NPT like any other EAS activation 
also would satisfy FEMA’s stated desire for a test in near future, and would do so in a manner that 
imposes minimal costs on EAS Participants.  Thus, should FEMA decide to schedule a nationwide EAS 
test that does not exceed two minutes in length, the Bureau may, should this issue still be pending before 
the Commission, require that EAS Participants reprogram their EAS equipment to automatically process 
the NPT.
21. We also seek comment on whether the Commission should revise the Commission’s rules 
to define the NPT as a test code that fully emulates the EAN in all of its characteristics – particularly its 
priority over any other message, and its indefinite length.  We note that an NPT that fully emulates the 
EAN would create a test environment that closely approximates real emergency conditions, thereby
maximizing the information that can be derived from testing the EAS with a non-EAN option.  On the 
other hand, it would be a far more costly option for EAS Participants, and the extra time that it would take 
for EAS Participants to implement an EAN-emulating NPT would preclude FEMA’s ability to use such 
an NPT for a test conducted in the near future.  Thus, would the benefits of full emulation outweigh the 
costs?  We also seek comment on whether a test that lasts more than two minutes is necessary.  Can the 
question of whether EAS equipment will reset after the first two minutes of an EAN alert (or an EAN-
emulating NPT test) be answered in a test bed, or does such a test require that the entire “daisy chain” 
linkage be involved?  If a test of more than two minutes is needed, could FEMA avoid the expense of 
such a test by using the EAN option instead?  How would the cost of conducting another EAN-based 
nationwide test compare with the costs of conducting a test with an NPT that fully emulates the EAN?  
What were the costs to EAS Participants to participate in the first nationwide EAS test, including any 
efforts to conduct public outreach in advance of the test?  Would the costs of a new EAN-based test differ 
from those of the first nationwide EAS test?  How would such costs compare to a test using the NPT that 
operates within a two minute duration, the approach suggested by some commenters?  Commenters 
should offer specific figures and data to support their comments and should include costs of any public 
outreach that would be required with each type of test.  We also seek comment on whether the three-year 
time period for full implementation of an EAN-emulating NPT, suggested by some commenters, is 
reasonable or necessary.  Can an EAN emulating NPT be deployed in a shorter period of time?  Would 
deploying an NPT that fully emulates the EAN increase costs fourfold, as some commenters suggest?
85
Parties should offer specific technical and cost-based support to their comments.
C. Updated EAS Test Reporting System (ETRS)
22. In the Third Report and Order, the Commission adopted a new Section 11.61(a)(3)(iv) to 
require that EAS Participants submit nationwide test result data to the Commission within 45 days 
following the test (i.e., by December 27, 2011, for the first test).
86
EAS Participants had the option of 
                                                     
83
See 47 C.F.R. § 11.33(a)(9); see also 47 C.F.R. § 11.13.
84
See 47 C.F.R. § 11.61(a)(3) (“All EAS Participants shall participate in national tests as scheduled by the 
Commission in consultation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)”); see also id. (“The coded 
message shall utilize EAS test codes as designated by the Commission’s Rules.”); Third Report and Order, 26 FCC 
Rcd 1460, 1471, ¶ 25 (“Accordingly, we delegate authority to PSHSB, in consultation with other stakeholders, to 
determine whether to use the EAN or another code such as the NPT for national testing following the first national 
test.”).
85
NCTA Second Ex Parte at 2.
86
See Third Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 1460, 1486, ¶ 68; see also 47 C.F.R. § 11.61(a)(3)(iv) (“Test results as 
required by the Commission shall be logged by all EAS Participants and shall be provided to the Commission’s 
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau within forty five (45) days following the test”); FCC Reminds EAS 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
14
complying with the reporting requirements either with a paper filing or through an electronic reporting 
system.
87
23. As the Bureau reported in the EAS Nationwide Test Report, over 16,000 EAS Participants
submitted test result data; the vast majority chose to file electronically rather than submit paper filings.
88
The data available from the electronic reporting system allowed the Commission to generate reports that 
would not have been feasible with paper filings alone.  As a result of the positive response to the 
electronic filing system employed in the first nationwide EAS test, the EAS Nationwide Test Report
recommended that the Commission develop a new electronic reporting system and related database to 
expedite filing of test result data by EAS Participants.
89
Subsequently, at its March 20, 2014 meeting, the 
CSRIC also recommended that the Commission adopt a federal government database to contain EAS 
Participants’ monitoring assignments.
90
1. Mandating ETRS
24. EAS Participants and other stakeholders support use of an electronic reporting system to 
facilitate filing of EAS test result data.
91
NAB suggests improvements, primarily the addition of a filing 
receipt to provide verification that the EAS Participant has successfully and timely submitted its report.
92
25. Based on the preference shown for the electronic filing option prior to and during the first
nationwide EAS test, and on the largely positive responses to a permanent electronic filing system in 
general,
93
we propose to designate in the Commission’s EAS rules the ETRS (as defined below) as the 
primary EAS reporting system, and to require that all EAS Participants submit nationwide EAS test result 
data electronically via the ETRS for any future national EAS tests.
94
As we discuss in further detail 
below, we also propose to require EAS Participants to file ETRS Form One, the self-identifying portion 
of the ETRS, within one year of the effective date of the rules we ultimately adopt, and to update the 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
Participants About November 9, 2011 Nationwide EAS Test, DA 11-1788, Public Notice, 1 (rel. Oct. 26, 2011) 
(Nationwide EAS Test Reporting System Public Notice).
87
See Third Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 1460, 1485, ¶ 67 (announcing that the Commission would institute a 
voluntary, electronic reporting system as a reporting alternative closer to the test date); see also Nationwide EAS 
Test Reporting System Public Notice, at 1-2 (establishing the voluntary electronic reporting system).
88
See EAS Nationwide Test Report, supra note 1, at 11 (containing a table illustrating the number and kind of post-
test reports received).
89
See id. at 19.
90
See CSRIC IV, WORKING GROUP THREE, EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM, STATE EAS PLANS SUBCOMMITTEE, FINAL 
REPORT  (2014), available at 
http://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/pshs/advisory/csric4/CSRIC_IV_WG3_FINAL_03252014.pdf (“The subcommittee 
concludes that State Emergency Communications Committees (SECC) need the resource of a federal government 
database to assure EAN dissemination”); see also Hearst Reply Comments at 6 (describing the post-nationwide test 
reporting requirements as “an important and meaningful way for the Commission to collect and compile information 
about the performance of the EAS during the nationwide test.”); NAB Comments at 4; EAS Nationwide Test Report, 
supra note 1, at 19.
91
See NAB Comments at 4 (noting that the lack of filing receipt caused confusion among broadcasters and 
proposing “that a receipt for filing be incorporated in the online reporting system for future nationwide EAS 
testing”).
92
Id.
93
See supra note 90. 
94
See infra ¶ 26 (defining ETRS).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
15
information that EAS Participants are required to supply in Form One on a yearly basis, and as required 
by any updates or waivers to EAS State Plans.
95
26. The ETRS adopted for the 2011 Nationwide EAS Test is comprised of the following 
three web-based forms: Form One asked each EAS Participant for identifying and background 
information, including EAS designation, EAS monitoring assignments, facility location, equipment type, 
and contact information, and other relevant data. Form Two asked each EAS Participant whether it 
received the Nationwide EAS Test alert code and, if required to do so, whether the EAS Participant 
propagated the alert code downstream. Form Three asked each EAS Participant to submit detailed 
information regarding its receipt and propagation, if applicable, of the alert code, including an explanation 
of any complications in receiving or propagating the code. We propose that we adopt the identical format 
for the permanent ETRS, subject to the revisions we propose below regarding filing receipts and the pre-
population of the forms with identifying data already in the Commission’s possession.
96
We seek 
comment on this proposal and the proposed forms.
97
27. Based on the Bureau’s experience during the first nationwide EAS test, and on 
stakeholder comments, we also agree that the next iteration of the ETRS should give filers the capability 
to review filings prior to final submission and to retrieve previous filings to correct errors. We seek 
comment on this proposal.
28. We further propose that EAS Participants not be required to input into the ETRS data that 
EAS Participants may have previously provided to the Commission elsewhere. We agree with the recent 
CSRIC Report that pre-populating the ETRS with data such as transmitter location, call signs, etc., that 
are already in the possession of the Commission would lessen the burden of filing and make the reporting 
process more cost effective for EAS Participants.
98
We seek comment on what data should be included in 
this category. We further propose that data drawn from other systems, such as a licensing database, not 
be editable in the ETRS by the filer.
99
We seek comment on these proposals.
2. State Plan Data Tables
29. We next propose that we revise our rules to integrate the identifying information 
provided by Form One of the new ETRS into the EAS State Plans filed pursuant to Section 11.21 of the 
Commission’s EAS rules.
100
This rule requires that EAS State Plans include “a data table, in computer 
readable form, clearly showing monitoring assignments and the specific primary and backup path for 
EAN messages that are formatted in the EAS Protocol (specified in Section 11.31), from the PEP to each 
                                                     
95
See Proposed Form One attached in Appendix D.  The information that EAS Participants would input into Form 
One does not include any information pre-populated into the form from other databases, such as the Commission’s 
broadcast license database.
96
See the proposed forms attached as Appendix D.
97
We note, however, that ETRS filing would not obviate the requirement that EAS Participants otherwise comply 
with Part 11, particularly the requirements in Section 11.35 that during an FCC inspection, EAS Participants will be 
able to demonstrate that monitoring and transmission functions are available and operational, and will be able to 
produce any required logs with entries that note whether any EAS tests were not received and the cause of any 
failure to receive required tests or activations.  See 47 C.F.R. § 11.35(a).
98
See supra note 8.
99
For example, although some licensing information may be used to pre-populate certain ETRS fields, any changes 
to that licensing information must be made through the modification process outlined in the licensing rules for the 
relevant service.  See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 73.1690 (procedures and restrictions for broadcast transmission system 
license modification).
100
47 C.F.R. § 11.21. EAS State Plans contain guidelines which must be followed by EAS Participants' personnel, 
emergency officials, and NWS personnel to activate the EAS.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
16
station in the plan.”
101
The rules further require that such tables be combined into an FCC Mapbook that 
“organizes all broadcast stations and cable systems according to their State, EAS Local Area, and EAS 
designation.”
102
The CSRIC endorses the use of a tabular matrix for the collection of test data from EAS 
Participants.
103
To date, however, the State Emergency Communication Committees (SECCs) have not 
been able to supply the Commission with the data necessary to populate the data tables or Mapbook.
30. In our review of the data from the first nationwide EAS test, we noted that the data from
Form One of the ETRS could be used to create the required data table and the FCC Mapbook, and that 
both could be maintained in a dynamic, consistently updated manner. We believe that using the data from 
the ETRS in this fashion has great value, as it transforms the ETRS from a one-time burden into a 
permanently useful tool that will allow the Commission and authorized state authorities to see how an 
EAN (or any other EAS alert) is actually propagated through the EAS architecture, and see any 
vulnerabilities and single points of failure in the distribution architecture before such a failure could cause 
real harm. Accordingly, we propose that the ETRS be maintained on a permanent basis to act as a 
complement to the EAS State Plans that are filed with the Commission.
104
D. Visual Crawl and Audio Accessibility
1. Visual Crawl
31. It is the Commission’s statutory obligation,
105
as well as longstanding Federal 
government
106
and Commission policy,
107
to ensure that all members of the public, including those with
disabilities, have access to emergency alerts. The Commission’s EAS rules are designed to provide such 
                                                     
101
See 47 C.F.R. § 11.21(a) (citing 47 C.F.R. § 11.31(c)).
102
47 C.F.R. § 11.21(c).
103
See supra note 8.
104
See supra ¶ 28 (discussing how pre-populating data into ETRS will alleviate a portion of the reporting burden 
that would otherwise be placed on EAS Participants). 
105
See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 613 (video programming accessibility); Twenty-First Century Communications and Video 
Accessibility Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-260 (requiring, among other things, that the Commission promulgate 
rules to require video programming providers, distributors, and owners to convey emergency information in a 
manner accessible to people who are blind or visually impaired) and Pub. L. No. 111-265 (containing technical 
amendments to the CVAA); Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-112, as amended, § 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794 
(prohibiting discrimination against individuals with disabilities under any program or activity that either receives 
Federal financial assistance or is conducted by any Executive agency or the United States Postal Service); § 508, 29 
U.S.C. § 794(d) (requiring Federal electronic and information technology to be accessible to people with disabilities, 
including employees and members of the public).
106
See, e.g., Exec. Order No. 13347, 69 Fed. Reg. 44573 (July 26, 2004) (creating the Interagency Coordinating 
Council on Emergency Preparedness and Individuals with Disabilities “to ensure that the Federal Government 
appropriately supports safety and security for individuals with disabilities in situations involving disasters, including 
earthquakes, tornadoes, fires, floods, hurricanes, and acts of terrorism”); Exec. Order No. 13407, 71 Fed. Reg. 
36975 (June 26, 2006) (including in the public alert and warning system the capability to alert and warn all 
Americans, including those with disabilities).
107
See, e.g., Fifth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 642, 653, ¶ 2 (stating that for the past fifty years the Commission 
has implemented its mandate to promote the safety of life and property “by adopting rules that set technical and 
other requirements to provide the public with an effective national public alert and warning system.”); Reminder 
Regarding Video Programming Distributors' Obligation to Make Emergency Information Accessible to Persons who 
are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and/or Blind or Visually Impaired, DA 13-1983, Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 13865 
(2013) (annual reminder to comply with the Commission’s rules to make televised emergency information 
accessible); The Commercial Mobile Alert System, PS Docket No. 07-287, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC 
Rcd 21975, 21983, ¶ 23 (2007) (seeking comment on how to make the Commercial Mobile Alert System, now 
known as WEA, accessible to the elderly).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
17
accessibility by requiring that EAS Participants deliver EAS alerts in both audio and visual form.
108
The 
visual form of an EAS alert generally takes the form of a text crawl that is displayed at the top of the 
screen.
109
32. According to several comments and other feedback we received, the test message 
transmitted during the first nationwide test was inaccessible to many consumers.
110
For example,
stakeholders note that the visual message in some of the text crawls generated for the EAN scrolled across 
the screen too quickly, or its font was difficult to read.
111
Others state that “the national EAS test message 
did not consistently present the alert in both audio and visual formats.”
112
33. In the EAS Operational Issues Public Notice, the Bureau noted that although the EAS 
rules require that EAS alerts be presented visually, the rules do not specify font size or text crawl 
speed.
113
The Bureau sought comment on whether and how the Commission should address this lack of
guidance.
114
Specifically, the Bureau asked whether the Commission should encourage the development 
of industry best practices, amend its EAS rules to establish minimum specifications for the presentation of 
EAS text crawls, or propose other solutions.
115
The Bureau invited suggestions for how specifications 
could be crafted for all text crawl elements.
116
                                                     
108
See 47 C.F.R. § 11.51(d) (stating that broadcast stations must transmit a visual message containing the 
Originator, Event, Location and the valid time period of an EAS message. The Section also states that effective 
June 30, 2012, visual messages derived from CAP-formatted EAS messages shall contain the Originator, Event, 
Location and the valid time period of the message and shall be constructed in accordance with §3.6 of the ECIG 
Implementation Guide); see also 47 C.F.R. § 11.51(c) (stating that analog and digital radio and television stations 
must transmit EAS messages in the main audio channel; DAB stations on all audio streams; and DTV broadcast 
stations on all program streams); 47 C.F.R. § 11.61(a)(1) (stating that EAS Participants must conduct RMTs that 
includes script content developed by SECCs in cooperation with affected EAS Participants).
109
See 47 C.F.R. § 11.51(d).
110
See, e.g., EAS Nationwide Test Report, supra note 1, at 14-15 (noting poor audio nationwide).
111
See Ex Parte Letter from Helena Mitchell, Ph.D., Executive Director, Center for Advanced Communications 
Policy, and Principal Investigator, Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center for Wireless Technologies (Wireless 
RERC), Georgia Institute of Technology, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (Mar. 22, 2012), and accompanying 
“Report on the National EAS Test On-line Survey and Focus Group Findings” at 19, 23-24 (Mar. 20, 2012) 
(Wireless RERC 2012 EAS Report). Survey respondents and focus group participants also noted the lack of audible 
and visual attention signals, and use of unfamiliar acronyms such as “EAS.” Id. at 17, 23. Survey respondents who 
listened to the EAN test by radio reported difficulty understanding the audio message, when provided, because the 
voices used in the message were either themselves unclear or obscured by background noise.  Id. at 20-21.
112
See Wireless RERC 2012 EAS Report at 19. The Wireless RERC also reported that 35.8% of 229 individuals 
with disabilities who responded to a survey conducted prior to the nationwide EAS test indicated that they had 
problems understanding EAS messages: 39.8% did not hear the alert attention signal and missed part of the on-
screen information; 18.3% heard the attention signal but there was no audio describing the emergency; and 41.9% 
had other problems, including no captions, blocked text, text too small, text crawl too fast, audio unclear, and no 
additional information. See id. at 9-10. When questioned about EAS alerts prior to the nationwide EAS test, focus 
group participants discussed the “need to have both audio and visual formats for the alert message” and on the lack 
of access by individuals who are blind or have low vision. Id. at 26.
113
EAS Operational Issues Public Notice, at 9.
114
See id.
115
See id. at 10.
116
See id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
18
34. Most commenters agree that EAS alert accessibility must be improved.
117
Some 
commenters emphasize the importance of equal access to information, and assert that information 
provided visually also should be provided audibly, and vice versa.
118
Despite this general agreement, no 
party provides detailed recommendations for achieving this goal. In addition, EAS Participants and other
stakeholders argue that, rather than “one size fits all” rules, the Commission should address this issue by 
encouraging the development of voluntary best practices either through an initiative spearheaded by the 
CSRIC, or by encouraging consumer groups and industry organizations to engage in joint efforts 
themselves.
119
Industry stakeholders argue that text crawls are generated in multiple fashions and by 
various pieces of equipment other than EAS encoder/decoders.
120
As a result, these commenters argue,
the process is too “decentralized” to be encompassed within the EAS rules.
121
Commenters also claim –
without supplying specific cost data – that any Commission “one size fits all” rules would lead to 
“astronomical” costs because such rules would necessitate replacement of much of the multi-use 
hardware involved in message display.
122
35. We are mindful of EAS Participants’ concerns about cost and the desire for flexibility in 
managing their technical systems. However, all members of the public should be able to receive timely 
and accurate EAS alerts so that they can take quick action to protect their lives as well as those of family 
members. It is critical, therefore, that the EAS be accessible to all members of the public, including those
with disabilities. Moreover, as noted above, FEMA expresses a desire to test the EAS again in the near 
future.
123
Even more importantly, a national emergency requiring activation of the EAS by the President 
                                                     
117
See, e.g., Wireless RERC Comments at 4 (quoting a survey finding that “television broadcasters were 
inconsistent in their use of audio; there was no audio accompanying the TV crawl; and the text crawl was too small 
or too fast to decipher”); Consumer Groups & RERC-TA Reply Comments at 2 (highlighting the importance of 
timely information during emergencies for the deaf and hard of hearing community); ACA Reply Comments at 5 
(“ACA fully supports efforts to ensure the readability of EAS alerts.”); but see DirecTV Comments at 2 
(“DIRECTV does not see the need for the Commission to establish minimum specifications for the manner in which 
EAS Participants must present text crawls.”).
118
See Wireless RERC Comments at 7 (recommending “audio and visual formats of alert content for all types of 
alerts”); see also Consumer Groups & RERC-TA Reply Comments at 2 (“We recommend a simple rule: that all 
auditory information in alerts must be provided visually and vice versa.”).
119
See, e.g., NAB Comments at 1 (urging the Commission “to focus on industry collaboration to guide resolution of 
many of the technical issues raised in the Notice, particularly the formatting of EAS visual crawls”); ACA 
Comments at 5 (recommending that “the Commission consider alternatives, such as working through industry 
groups, before imposing a mandate”); Wireless RERC Comments at 8 (recommending “an iterative research, 
development and evaluation process that includes input from people with a variety of disabilities”); but see Sage 
Reply Comments at 5 (proposing that, “in most instances, the text presentation can be fine-tuned with weekly and 
monthly tests”).
120
See Sage Comments at 10; see also Trilithic Comments at 5.
121
See Sage Comments at 9 (stating that “[i]n the case of radio-based text presentation, such as Ibiquity’s Active 
Radio, the text is always generated by the end user’s radio”); see also id. (“Many TV stations use existing character 
generator capability somewhere in the video chain.”); Trilithic Comments at 5.
122
Trilithic Comments at 6 (“Specifying fonts, crawl speeds, font sizes, or even (for example) left to right crawls 
could result in astronomical costs to the cable, and wireline industries, and significant costs to broadcasters.”); see 
also Sage Comments at 10 (“the cost of a character generator is typically three to six times the cost of an 
encoder/decoder for centralized text insertion”); but see id. (pointing out that “the number of set top boxes is larger 
than the number of encoder/decoders by a few orders of magnitude,” militating for such costs to be imposed 
centrally on encoder/decoder manufacturers, if they are to be imposed at all, rather than on the more ubiquitous end 
user devices used to display alerts broadcast over TV and radio); ACA Comments at 5 (commenting that these costs 
could be reduced by adopting changes “through typical equipment lifecycles”).
123
See supra ¶ 7.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
19
could come at any time. In light of this, we believe it is imperative that the Commission consider the 
option of establishing minimum accessibility requirements now. In so doing, our goal is to ensure that 
EAS alerts are delivered in a format that is readily understood by the public and therefore can accomplish
their intended impact, i.e., to warn the public about impending threats to life and property.  Accordingly, 
as discussed below, we propose to amend our EAS rules to require minimum standards for EAS visual 
crawls, specifically with respect to crawl speed, completeness and placement. We seek comment on these 
proposals. In addition, we encourage parties representing industry and consumers, including those with 
disabilities to work together to develop alternative recommendations and to submit them promptly in the 
record for the Commission’s consideration in this proceeding. 
36. Crawl Speed:  We believe that the Commission’s closed captioning rules provide a useful 
guide in addressing the visual crawl speed issue. Those rules require that “captions be displayed on the 
screen at a speed that can be read by viewers.”
124
We believe that such a standard should apply to EAS 
alerts and thus propose to revise Section 11.51(d) of the Commission’s EAS rules to require that an EAS 
text crawl be displayed on the screen at a speed that can be read by viewers. We seek comment on this 
proposal.  In addition, we seek comment on what might constitute “a speed that can be read by viewers,”
and whether we should include a specific crawl speed in our rules.  Is there research demonstrating
whether text crawls of certain word or character lengths and speeds are more or less challenging to read or
comprehend? We also seek comment on a standard for non-English alerts.
125
37. Completeness:  Under the closed captioning rules, “completeness” requires that closed 
captions must run from the beginning to the end of the program, to the fullest extent possible.
126
We 
believe that a text crawl describing the nature of the EAS alert or test should continue throughout the 
duration of the EAS activation. Thus, we propose to revise Section 11.51(d) of the Commission’s EAS 
rules to require that an EAS text crawl must be displayed continuously throughout the duration of any 
EAS activation. We seek comment on this proposal.
38. Placement:  Under the Commission’s closed captioning rules, captions must be “well-
placed.”
127
In other words, they “shall not block other important visual content on the screen,” caption 
font should be sized appropriately for legibility, lines of captions should not overlap one another, and 
                                                     
124
See Closed Captioning of Video Programming Telecommunications for the Deaf & Hard of Hearing, Inc. Petition 
for Rulemaking, CG Docket No. 05-231, Report and Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, FCC 14-12, n.120 (rel. Feb 24, 2014) (Closed Captioning Quality Report and Order) (“While we 
recognize that everyone reads at a different speed, captions should not blink on and off at a speed that is too quickly 
to read or otherwise be paced at a speed that is difficult to read.”).  
125
See Petition for Immediate Interim Relief filed by the Independent Spanish Broadcasters Association, the Office 
of Communications of the United Church of Christ, Inc., and the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, 
EB Docket 04-296 (filed Sept. 22, 2005) (requesting that the Commission “ensure that populations that do not speak 
English as a primary language will have access to readily understandable EAS alerts and non-EAS emergency 
information.”); Comment Requested to Refresh the Record in EB Docket No. 04-296, on Petition Filed by the 
Minority Media & Telecommunications Council Proposing Changes to Emergency Alert System (EAS) Rules to 
Support Multilingual EAS & Emergency Information, EB 04-296, Public Notice, DA 14-336 (rel. Mar. 11, 2014).
This proceeding is pending with the Commission.
126
See Closed Captioning Quality Report and Order, ¶ 31 (defining the standard for program completeness); see 
also Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video Programming, Implementation of Section 305 of the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Video Programming Accessibility, MM Docket No. 95-176, Report and Order, 
13 FCC Rcd 3272, 3368, ¶ 211 (1997) (requiring that “all video programming providers, regardless of distribution 
technology, to ensure that programming with closed captions is delivered to viewers in a complete manner.”).
127
See Closed Captioning Quality Report and Order, ¶ 32 (defining the standard for placement).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
20
captions should be adequately positioned so that they do not run off the edge of the video screen.
128
We 
believe that the EAS rules already contain a portion of this requirement, stating that an EAS text crawl 
“shall be displayed at the top of the television screen or where it will not interfere with other visual 
messages.”
129
We believe that adding the remainder of the closed caption placement standard to our rules 
would address the difficulties that certain members of the public had understanding the text crawls during 
the first nationwide EAS test,
130
and would do so in a manner that provides EAS Participants and other 
EAS stakeholders with sufficient flexibility to accommodate various broadcast and MVPD ecosystems.  
Accordingly, we propose that we revise Section 11.51(d) of the Commission’s EAS rules to incorporate 
the language of the closed captioning rules with respect to text crawl placement.  In other words, an EAS 
text crawl must be displayed in a manner that (1) does not block other important visual content on the 
screen, (2) utilizes a text font that is sized appropriately for legibility, (3) prevents overlap of lines of text
with one another, and (4) positions the text crawl adequately so it does not run off the edge of the video 
screen.  Similarly, we propose prohibiting MVPD EAS Participants from placing crawls or other 
information on the video screen in a manner that would interfere with the ability of the public to read 
EAS crawls.  We seek comment on these proposals. 
2. Audio Accessibility
39. At the outset, we note that FEMA has already addressed and corrected the primary audio 
quality problems experienced during the first nationwide EAS test, i.e., a technical malfunction that 
occurred at the National Primary level that affected the underlying quality of EAS audio nationwide.
131
Thus, our primary concern in this Section is to seek comment on how the Commission may improve the 
accessibility of EAS audio by taking steps to ensure that the audio and visual elements of an EAS alert 
convey the identical, or at a minimum, comparable text.  Currently, the visual element of an EAS alert 
(i.e., the text crawl) is generated from header codes (location, event, etc.) that are preprogrammed into 
EAS equipment, whereas the audio portion may be recorded by the alert originator (e.g., the National 
Weather Service). Because the audio and visual elements of an EAS alert are generated from two 
different sources, they can differ significantly in language and detail, notwithstanding that they are 
describing the same event. We believe that for an EAS alert to be fully accessible, the audio and visual 
elements should convey the same message.  What steps would need to be taken to achieve this goal?  For 
example, how would the Commission ensure that the public is able to receive the same, i.e., comparable, 
information, irrespective of whether they receive the alert in an audio or visual format?  In furtherance of 
this goal, we note that the implementation of the CAP standard enables alert message originators to 
include enhanced text in their messages, and that the Commission’s rules require EAS Participants to 
utilize enhanced text, when available, for the generation of text crawls.
132
We note that the ECIG 
                                                     
128
See id.; see also FCC CONSUMER ADVISORY COMMITTEE, REPORT: IN THE MATTER OF DTV CONSUMER 
EDUCATION INITIATIVE, 6-7 (2007) (raising concerns about these caption features as a result of technical changes 
that were implemented as part of the transition to digital television).
129
47 C.F.R. §11.51(d).
130
See Wireless RERC 2012 EAS Report at 19; see also EAS Nationwide Test Report, supra note 1, at 14-15 (noting 
poor audio nationwide).
131
See EAS Nationwide Test Report, supra note 1, at 14.
132
See Fifth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 642, 655, ¶ 30. Similarly, beginning May 26, 2015, the Commission’s 
Section 79.2 rules require emergency information that is provided visually during programming that is neither a 
regularly scheduled newscast, nor a newscast that interrupts regular programming, to be made accessible to 
individuals who are blind or visually impaired through the use of a secondary audio stream to provide the 
emergency information aurally. See 47 C.F.R. § 79.2(b)(2)(ii); see also ECIG Implementation Guide, at 17 (“The 
originator SHOULD take into account that the text may be the only text displayed to the user, or passed to an 
announcer as a script, and SHOULD include all important information, and the information required in the EAS 
regulations. This information should include the type of event, effected audience and area, expiration time, 
description, call to action, etc.”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
21
Implementation Guide states that “[i]t is a recommended practice that the recorded audio message match 
the alert text display message.”
133
Should the Commission take further steps to achieve this goal?
40. We also note that text to speech (TTS) may also offer a mechanism to provide audio-
visual alert message parity.  TTS refers to an artificial process of converting text into human speech.
134
Although the Commission initially declined to allow EAS equipment to use TTS software to generate the 
visual crawl element of an EAS alert,
135
in the Fifth Report and Order on Reconsideration, in response to 
a strong record of support for TTS solutions,
136
the Commission revised its earlier position and allowed
EAS Participants to deploy text-to-speech solutions to generate the audio portion of EAS alerts.
137
To 
what extent are EAS Participants currently using TTS technology to generate EAS audio? Has it proven 
to be an effective manner of ensuring parity between the audio and visual elements of an EAS alert? We 
seek comment on whether text-to-speech is sufficiently technologically advanced to become a mandatory 
element of the Commission’s EAS Rules.
E. Proposed Effective Dates
41. Based on the record, we propose that a reasonable, minimally burdensome time for all 
EAS Participants to replace unsupported equipment and to perform necessary firmware upgrades and 
required testing to implement the rules we propose today regarding the national location code, the ETRS 
and our proposed accessibility rules would be six months from the effective date of any rules we may 
adopt as a result of this Notice.  We believe that the public safety benefits of our proposed rules, plus 
FEMA’s stated desire to conduct a further test, militates for a more rapid implementation period than 
commenters request.
138
  As the record indicates, most equipment and systems already have the capability 
to implement our proposed rules.  We believe that a six month period will allow EAS Participants and 
equipment manufacturers to schedule any required equipment replacement, software or certification 
upgrades and necessary testing, and that this schedule will have minimal impact on the costs discussed in 
this Section.
139
  We seek comment on this proposal. We note that the record indicates that an NPT that 
                                                     
133
ECIG Implementation Guide, at 15.
134
See Paul Taylor, Text-to-Speech Synthesis, UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE 1 (2006). 
135
See Fifth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 642, 658, ¶ 38.
136
See, e.g., CSRIC III, WORKING GROUP NINE, CAP IMPLEMENTATION, FINAL REPORT 11-14 (2014), available at 
http://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/pshs/advisory/csric3/CSRIC-III-WG9-Final-Report.pdf.; Federal Emergency 
Management Agency Petition for Reconsideration, EB Docket 04-296 (filed March 12, 2012).
137
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, EB Docket No. 04-296, Fifth Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC 
Rcd. 4429, 4432, ¶ 8 (2012) ( Fifth Report and Order on Reconsideration) (revising 47 C.F.R. § 11.56(a)(2) to 
replace the parenthetical phrase “except that any and all specifications set forth therein related to using text-to-
speech technology and gubernatorial ‘must carry’ shall not be followed” with the phrase “except that any and all 
specifications set forth therein related to gubernatorial ‘must carry’ shall not be followed, and that EAS Participants 
may adhere to the specifications related to text-to-speech on a voluntary basis”).
138
See, e.g., Second NCTA Ex Parte at 2 (“our companies uniformly reported that at least one year is needed to 
deploy the new location code effectively once it is adopted by the Commission”); Comcast Ex Parte at 1 (“it would 
take at least one year from adoption of the rules to fully upgrade impacted systems to implement a Nationwide 
Location header code”); cf. Trilithic Ex Parte at 3 (“Testing and deployment of firmware/software updates typically 
take about six months for some of the larger Cable and IPTV providers.”).
139
We consider these changes to be Class I permissive changes, not requiring further equipment certification.  See 
47 C.F.R. § 11.34(f) (“Modifications to existing authorized EAS decoders, encoders or combined units necessary to 
implement the new EAS codes . . . will be considered Class I permissive changes that do not require a new 
application for and grant of equipment certification under part 2, subpart J of the chapter.”); see also Fifth Report 
and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 642, 697-706, ¶ 155-180 (containing a thorough description of the Commission’s 
equipment certification requirements).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
22
fully emulates an EAN cannot be implemented in six months and that, if FEMA wants to have a test in 
such a near term, a test of more than two minutes using an NPT would not be an option.  We seek 
comment on this view.  We also seek comment on what would be a reasonable date for compliance with 
our proposed rule requiring the NPT fully to emulate the EAN. For example, would a three year period 
from the effective date of any rules adopted as a result of this notice be appropriate?
140
F. Cost Benefit Analysis
42. In this Section, we compare the expected costs that would be imposed by our proposed 
rules to their expected benefits and seek comment on the accuracy of these estimates.  We believe that the 
significant public safety benefit of the rules we propose today far outweighs the costs associated with 
those rules.
141
  In particular, we believe that by proposing rules that require EAS equipment to distribute 
alerts consistently, accessibly, and in a manner that can be accurately measured, we ensure that the public 
is provided with the most effective alerting system currently possible.  Our cost estimates are based on 
industry figures submitted in response to questions raised in the EAS Operational Issues Public Notice.
142
According to these figures, we anticipate that our proposed requirements would impose costs on EAS 
Participants in three affected areas:  (1) EAS national location code and NPT in lieu of EAN for tests,
143
(2), Electronic Test Reporting System,
144
and (3) visual and audio accessibility.
145
As we discuss in 
greater detail in below, we seek comment on estimates that put the total cost for EAS Providers to 
implement the requirements we propose today between $7.0 million and $13.6 million.
146
  With regard to 
benefits, we estimate that the minimum expected benefit common to all of our proposed changes is 
$9.1M.
147
  We believe all three proposed changes are essential for the EAS to function properly and thus 
share the common benefit of saving human lives, reducing injuries, mitigating property damage, and 
minimizing the disruption of our national economy.
43. Our proposed rules pertaining to the national location code and NPT, as well as those 
pertaining to test reporting and accessibility, will establish the baseline for a rigorous program of EAS 
testing and use that will allow the Commission to continue to improve the EAS. Further, our proposed 
rules will allow us to quantify the EAS’s effectiveness as a lifesaving tool, as well as its progress towards 
CAP compatibility, an improvement that will enhance the overall efficacy of the EAS in the future.  We 
therefore request comment that will enable us to weigh the costs and benefits associated with these 
proposed rules.  We request that commenters provide specific data and information, such as actual or 
estimated dollar figures for each specific cost or benefit addressed, including a description of how the 
data or information was calculated or obtained and any documentation or other support.
44. Proposed National Location Code Rules.  Commenters claim that the costs associated 
with implementing our proposed rules regarding the national location code will include both operational 
costs associated with the installation, configuration, and testing of necessary software updates in EAS and 
                                                     
140
See Second NCTA Ex Parte at 2 (“The whole process [of adopting an NPT that mimics the EAN]–from 
standards update to implementation– could take up to three years.”).
141
See infra ¶ 50 (weighing the total cost of our proposed rules against their anticipated benefit).
142
See generally EAS Operational Issues Public Notice.
143
See supra ¶¶ 11-14.  The costs of the national location code and the NPT would be $1.1 million. According to 
NCTA, costs associated with full emulation of the EAN by the NPT increase the $1.1 million fourfold, totaling $4.4 
million.  See Second NCTA Ex Parte at 2. 
144
See supra ¶¶ 22-30.
145
See supra ¶¶ 31-40.
146
The $6.6M difference depends on the manner in which the Commission implements the NPT.  See infra ¶ 50.
147
See infra ¶ 50.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
23
related equipment,
148
as well as capital costs associated with hardware replacement, where necessary.
149
According to Sage and Trilithic, operational costs for most broadcaster EAS Participants will be 
minimal.
150
According to NCTA, cable provider EAS Participants face additional operational costs
associated with programming middleware, set-top boxes and other downstream equipment to accept the 
new code.
151
Commenters agree that the costs associated with implementing our proposed rules can be 
reduced by bundling all required upgrades into a regularly scheduled system update.
152
  Further, EAS 
Participants in both the cable and broadcast industries may need to replace older EAS equipment if they
are using EAS equipment that has exceeded its useful life, is no longer supported by the manufacturer, 
and thus cannot be upgraded to comply with our proposed rules.
153
We seek comment on the 
reasonableness of this analysis and its underlying assumptions.
45. NCTA asserts that implementing our proposed rules regarding the national location code
will present cable service provider EAS Participants with approximately $1.1 million in aggregated 
capital and operational costs for the entire cable industry.
154
We seek comment on this assessment, and 
whether such costs are outweighed by the benefits of adopting the proposed national location code.  
While broadcasters would not experience the operational costs that cable providers would face, there are 
approximately three times as many broadcast-based EAS Participant facilities as there are cable EAS 
Participant facilities.
155
Accordingly, we seek comment on whether a similar $1.1 million figure would 
                                                     
148
See Second Monroe Ex Parte at 2; see also Trilithic Ex Parte at 2 (“Customers will need to apply the upgrade. 
Some customers will need to test changes and approve the new firmware in their labs.”); Comcast Ex Parte at 1 
(“Comcast would also incur operational costs in developing, testing, and deploying new code in our downstream 
equipment.”).
149
See Sage Ex Parte at 2 (stating that a software update would obsolete legacy equipment); see also id. at 3 
(“Allowing the user to enter a code of 000000 to use as a location for filters will require a software update.”); 
Comcast Ex Parte at 1 (“[N]ew equipment would be required in some circumstances, thereby resulting in sizable 
capital expense.”); Trilithic Ex Parte at 3.
150
See Sage Ex Parte at 5 (“The technical difficulty is not high, and the time required is not large. Given sufficient 
lead time, software updates and settings file changes can be made . . . For current Sage equipment, installing a 
software update takes less than 10 minutes to download the update, install it in the ENDEC, and verify that the 
update is in place. No design thought is required by the user. Changing settings files does require some thought, 
especially if the user’s filters are complex . . . The actual mechanics involved in uploading the settings is [sic] less 
than 10 minutes.”); see also Trilithic Comments at 5 (stating that the effort required to implement the software 
update associated with the new location code “would be negligible, with little if any impact or cost.”).
151
See Second NCTA Ex Parte at 2.
152
See ACA Comments at 5 (recommending that the Commission could minimize costs to EAS Participants by 
allowing them to adopt the specifications we propose today “through typical equipment lifecycles”); see also 
Comcast Ex Parte at 2 (stating that an accelerated compliance deadline would result in greater cost and risk of 
error); Second NCTA Ex Parte at 2 (“To minimize cost, the preference is to make this change during scheduled 
periodic annual equipment review/upgrade cycles.”).
153
Some EAS Participants may be using “intermediary devices,” i.e., stand-alone devices that monitor, receive, and 
decode CAP-formatted messages, and then convert such messages into a format that can be input into a separate, 
stand-alone legacy EAS device to produce an output that complies with the Part 11 rules. See Fifth Report and 
Order, 27 FCC Rcd 642, 670, ¶ 70. The Commission allows EAS Participants to use such devices to meet their 
CAP-related EAS obligations, provided that such devices otherwise comply with the Part 11 EAS rules. See id. at 
672, ¶ 74. To the extent that EAS Participants can use intermediary devices to comply with the rules we propose 
today, we would continue to allow their use.
154
See Second NCTA Ex Parte at 2.
155
See FCC, Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2013, 
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db0108/DOC-325039A1.pdf (stating that there were 
20,332 radio broadcasters in the United States as of the end of 2013, not including FM, VHF and UHF translators); 
see also The Number of Cable Headends in the United States, STATISTA.COM (2014),
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
24
apply to the broadcast industry, including the reasonableness of this analysis and its underlying 
assumptions.
46. Proposed NPT rules.  The costs associated with implementation of the rules we propose 
today regarding the NPT would vary, depending on whether the NPT is deployed as a “normal” EAS 
alert,
156
or whether we revise our rules to implement the NPT in a manner that fully emulates an EAN.  In 
the case of the former, we seek comment on whether the costs would be de minimis.  The NPT is already 
present in the Part 11 rules and programmed into EAS equipment.  As Sage notes, costs would largely be 
limited to those incurred by EAS Participants having to manually reprogram their EAS equipment to 
automatically respond to the NPT,
157
a cost which could further be mitigated by bundling any 
reprogramming with that required for the national location code.  Should the Commission revise its rules 
to define the NPT as an event code that would fully emulate the EAN, NCTA asserts that such a 
requirement would add approximately $3.3 million to the cost, thus totaling $4.4 million to accommodate 
all rules changes, and would require approximately three years, as opposed to one year, to complete.
158
  
According to NCTA, these additional costs would be necessary because requiring the NPT to emulate the 
EAN would require the underlying SCTE 18 standard to be revised, sub-standards rewritten, EAS and 
MVPD downstream equipment reprogrammed, and significant testing to be undertaken.
159
  Although 
broadcasters in general do not have as extensive downstream facilities as do cable facilities, they do 
possess such facilities, and this also will be affected by the necessary standards revision.  Thus, we seek 
comment whether the same three year time frame would also be borne by the broadcast industry.  Further, 
and as we discuss above, the greater number of broadcasters may increase their overall cost to an amount 
that could approximate the $4.4 million dollar cost for cable.  We note, however, that costs associated 
with use of the NPT could be offset by savings elsewhere.  For example, as we discuss in paragraph 15
above, EAS Participant stakeholder organizations provided “This is only a Test” slides for broadcast and 
MVPD EAS Participants to display during the test, a requirement that would be obviated were the NPT to 
be used.  Further, as noted in the EAS Nationwide Test Report, the various stakeholders engaged in 
significant outreach to avoid any public confusion associated with the use of the live code EAN.
160
We 
seek comment on whether all parties would incur cost savings associated with not having to conduct such 
“live code” test outreach, and if so, what such cost savings might be.  We otherwise seek comment on the 
reasonableness of this analysis and its underlying assumptions.
47. Proposed ETRS Rules. Regarding our proposed ETRS rules, we seek comment on 
whether any costs that arise from the adoption of the ETRS, either for test reporting purposes or for 
integration into Commission’s EAS State Plan rules will be minimal.  Most of the information that we 
propose EAS Participants submit to the ETRS has already been populated in other FCC databases, and 
thus compliance with this requirement may require little further action beyond a simple review for 
accuracy.  For the few data fields that EAS Participants would need to supply, the Commission has 
already determined that compliance would entail a one-time cost of approximately $125.00 per EAS 
Participant, a figure that has already been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
http://www.statista.com/statistics/186996/number-of-cable-headends-in-the-united-states-since-1998/ (stating that in 
2011 there were 7,136 cable headends in the United States).
156
See Sage Ex Parte at 4 (recommending that the NPT be “kept as a ‘normal’ EAS alert, i.e., within the normal 
time limit, FEMA can use the NPT to verify transport of messages through various parts of the system.”).
157
See infra note 150; see also Third Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 1460, 1470, ¶ 23 (expressing commenters’ 
concerns that use of the NPT in the first nationwide EAS test “could lead to a significant risk of errors because each 
EAS facility operator would have to manually alter its encoder/decoder programming configuration to recognize and 
accept the new code.”).
158
See id.
159
See Second NCTA Ex Parte at 2.
160
EAS Nationwide Test Report, supra note 1, at 9.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
25
Budget.
161
Accordingly, the cost associated with our proposed ETRS rules may be a one-time cost of 
$125.00 per EAS Participant, or approximately $3.4 million in the aggregate for all EAS Participants.
162
We seek comment on the reasonableness of this analysis and its underlying assumptions.
48. Accessibility Rules.  Finally, regarding the accessibility standards that we propose today, 
we break these down into their two constituent elements: the visual text crawl element and the audio 
element.  With regard to the visual text crawl element, one approach to estimating its cost would be the 
methodology adopted by the Commission in its Closed Captioning Order.
163
Using this approach, we 
calculate that text crawls might be necessary for approximately 50 hours of alerts.
164
  Thus, at a cost of 
$500 an hour, if we were requiring EAS closed captions, the aggregate costs of our proposed visual crawl 
rules for all EAS Participants under this methodology could be as much as $25,000.  However, EAS text 
crawls are not closed captions.  They are largely generated automatically and employ the same or similar 
language for the extreme weather and child abduction incidents that comprise the vast majority of EAS 
alerts, and thereby require far less time to produce.  Thus, the costs associated with that proposed rule 
change may be de minimis, potentially far less than $25,000.  We seek comment on this analysis.
49. Regarding our proposed audio accessibility rules, as we discuss above, we believe that an 
effective way to ensure that the audio and text portions of an EAS alert are equivalent is to use CAP-
based text to speech functionalities.
165
Thus, our cost estimate for our proposed audio equivalency rule is 
based on the aggregate cost for all EAS Participants to employ TTS.  We believe that the number of EAS 
Participants that would need to employ hardware and/or software TTS upgrades is approximately 
2,750.
166
Given that the TTS upgrade will cost, on average, $500,
167
the aggregate one-time cost for EAS 
Participants to comply with our proposed audio equivalency rules could be no more than approximately 
$1.4 million (i.e., 2,750 x $500 = $1,375,000). We seek comment on this analysis.
50. Comparison of total costs and benefits.  The EAS must remain a resilient public alert and 
warning tool if it is to save lives and protect property during times of national, state, regional, and local 
                                                     
161
Public Information Collections Approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB, 76 FR 68756-01 
(November 7, 2011).
162
See supra note 155 (stating that there are 20,332 total broadcaster EAS Participants and approximately 7,136 
total cable headend EAS Participants for a total of 27,468 entities). 
163
See Closed Captioning Quality Report and Order, ¶ 70.
164
Except for a Presidential alert (which has never been issued), the maximum time for an EAS alert is two minutes. 
See 47 C.F.R. §11.33(a)(9).  Approximately 1,500 EAS alerts are sent in a given year.  In the Fifth Report and 
Order, the Commission noted that “although the Commission does not require EAS Participants to report the 
number of EAS alerts they receive from the NWS or state agencies, the Partnership for Public Warning, in its EAS 
Assessments, noted that 1,448 alerts were generated in 1990; 1,309 in 1991; and 1,412 in 1992.” Fifth Report and 
Order, 27 FCC Rcd 642, 737, n.23 (citing “The Emergency Alert System (EAS); An Assessment,” Partnership for 
Public Warning, PPW Report 2004-1, February 2004).
165
See supra ¶ 40.
166
The Commission’s rules require EAS Participants to be CAP compliant, and that the vast majority of EAS 
Participants already use TTS in some form or other.  Thus, the cost of compliance with this proposed rule will be 
that borne by those EAS participants that are not currently fully CAP compliant.  Based on the Commission’s record 
of those EAS Participants currently seeking waiver of the CAP requirement, we believe that at least 90% of current 
EAS Participants have TTS installed and enabled.  See EB Docket No. 04-296 (containing 22 outstanding requests 
for waiver).
167
See, e.g., Monroe Electronics, Inc., Order Form, MONROE ELECTRONICS EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEMS (2014), 
http://monroe-electronics.com/EAS_pages/pdf/CAP_order_form.pdf; see also Digital Alert Systems TTS Premium 
Text-to-Speech Software Option, SCMS, Inc. (2012), https://www.scmsinc.com/shop-item/studio-products-eas-
equipment-and-systems/tts-digital-alert-systems-tts-premium-text-to-speech-tts-software-option/ (providing a list 
price of $470.25 for the DASDEC encoder/decoder).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
26
emergencies.
168
  We now seek comment on whether the costs associated with the proposals we make 
today are the most cost-effective solutions to accomplish the goal of ensuring that the EAS is sufficiently 
robust to perform its life saving task, or whether there are more effective means available.  By 
aggregating the three cost components discussed above, we estimate that the total cost of our proposed 
rules would at most be $13.6 million.
169
One measure against which we can balance this cost is the 
Department of Transportation model, which estimates the value of risk reduction, measured in terms of an 
expected life saved, to be $9.1 million.
170
  Under this yardstick, even two lives saved could more than 
offset the costs of the system upgrades imposed by our proposals.  We seek comment on whether the 
DOT statistic is the most appropriate yardstick to measure the benefits our proposals.  We seek comment 
on whether there is a better measure for our NPT and ETRS proposals, and if so, commenters should 
specify what specific measure should be used.  We do note, however, that none of the commenters’ 
responding to the EAS Operational Issues Public Notice objected on the grounds that the cost of our 
proposed rules would be prohibitive, or even burdensome. We encourage EAS Participants and 
equipment manufacturers to include with their comments any data relevant to our analysis of the costs and 
timing involved with the implementation of today’s proposals.
171
IV. OTHER ISSUES
51. The EAS Nationwide Test Report indicated that EAS equipment manufacturers had made 
inconsistent assumptions about whether the requirement in the EAS rules that the EAS header code must 
not be amended, extended or abridged without FCC authorization pertained to an EAN, and whether the 
“time of release” element in the header code had any impact on the requirement in the rules that an EAN 
be transmitted immediately upon receipt.
172
  In the EAS Operational Issues Public Notice, the Bureau 
sought comment on whether the unique nature of the EAN as a mandatory nationwide live alert code 
somehow obviated the above stated requirements.
173
  As we discuss in more detail below, we find no basis 
to propose rule revisions nor do we seek comment on these issues, as the rules are clear on their face and 
we see no reason for changing them.
                                                     
168
See The Emergency Alert System (EAS), Background, FEMA.GOV (2014), http://www.fema.gov/emergency-alert-
system.
169
This total is comprised of a combined maximum cost of $2.2 million for our proposed national location code
rules, $3.4 million for our proposed ETRS rules, $1.4 million for our proposed video and audio accessibility rules, 
and $6.6 million for implementing an NPT that fully emulates an EAN.
170
An accepted model developed by the United States Department of Transportation presently estimates the value of 
a statistical life (VSL) at $9.1 million. See Memorandum from Polly Trottenberg, Under Secretary for Policy, 
Office of the Secretary for Transportation, and Robert S. Rivkin, General Counsel, Department of Transportation, 
Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life in U.S. Department of Transportation Analyses, 
1 (2013), http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/VSL Guidance_2013.pdf. The Department of Transportation 
defines VSL as “the additional cost that individuals would be willing to bear for improvements in safety (that is, 
reductions in risks) that, in the aggregate, reduce the expected number of fatalities by one.” Id. at 2.
171
Although commenters agree that testing will be required prior to adoption of Commission rules, at least one 
commenter argues that the Federal government should take responsibility for such testing. See Sage Comments at 8 
(recommending that the “FEMA and the Joint Interoperability Test Command (JITC) use their test setup to verify 
the operation of an EAN with a 000000 code” prior to any FCC decision). Others state that any necessary testing 
can be handled by EAS Participants and equipment manufacturers. See NCTA Reply Comments at 3 (“cable 
operators would need to conduct further research, testing and evaluation with their EAS equipment manufacturers to 
ensure that the use of a new location code 000000 is properly supported by the embedded base of deployed EAS 
equipment.”); accord Monroe Reply at 4; Trilithic Ex Parte at 2 (“Some customers will need to test changes and 
approve the new firmware in their labs.”).
172
See supra ¶ 5; see also EAS Nationwide Test Report, supra note 1, at 13.
173
See EAS Operational Issues Public Notice, at 4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
27
A. Acknowledgement of all EAS Header Codes
52. Section 11.31 of the Commission’s EAS rules establishes the EAS protocol, a four-part 
message that contains the header code elements of an EAS alert.
174
Header codes contain basic 
identifying information about the alert, including the identity of the message originator, the event code, 
the location code, the valid time period for the message, the Time of Release code, and the identification 
of the entity transmitting or retransmitting the message.
175
Section 11.31(c) states that “[t]he EAS 
protocol, including any codes, must not be amended, extended or abridged without FCC authorization.”
176
  
There is no exception for EANs, and, indeed, the definition of “Emergency Action Notification (EAN)” 
clearly envisions that EANs can be formatted in the EAS protocol as defined in Section 11.31.
177
  
53. Despite this rule, some EAS manufacturers apparently programmed their EAS equipment 
to ignore some of the header codes by processing those codes as “wildcards.”
178
This action resulted in a 
lack of uniformity in EAS message dissemination across the nation.
179
In the EAS Operational Issues 
Public Notice, the Bureau sought comment on this practice, asking whether the unique nature of the EAN 
as a mandatory, nationwide, live alert obviated the need for EAS equipment to acknowledge header code 
elements such as the location code.
180
54. Based on our review, we find that Section 11.31 prohibits any amendment, extension or
abridgement of any part of the EAS protocol, except in cases where the FCC has authorized such action.  
As wildcards and other shortcuts serve to “abridge” the EAS protocol, they are prohibited by the FCC 
rules.  While we recognize that these shortcuts may have been taken to address gaps associated with the 
EAN (e.g., lack of a national location code), there is nothing in the rules that allows for a different result 
in the case of an EAN or any other type of EAS alert. Indeed, use of such programming shortcuts, in the 
absence of FCC authorization, undermines the effectiveness of the EAS.  As several commenters note, the 
presence of EAS header codes enhances the reliability of the EAS ecosystem
181
and is necessary for 
header validity checking, and duplicate detection.
182
According to commenters, even in equipment that 
uses wildcards, if any header code element is missing from an alert, equipment currently deployed in the 
field will discard otherwise valid messages.
183
Finally, the use of wildcards and other programming 
                                                     
174
See supra note 12 (defining the EAS Protocol).
175
Id.
176
See 47 C.F.R. § 11.31(c).
177
See 47 C.F.R. § 11.2(a) (discussing dissemination of EAN messages “that are formatted in the EAS Protocol 
(specified in § 11.31)” and originated from a governmental origination point or at the State or local level).
178
See EAS Nationwide Test Report, supra note 1, at 16.  A “wildcard” is a programming shortcut used in some 
EAS equipment whereby the encoder/decoder can be made to accept as valid any entry within a given header code 
field, no matter what data it contains. See Sage Ex Parte at 2-4. The Sage ENDEC currently ships with user-
settable parameters that use a wildcard setting for EANs. See id. at 2. Other EAS equipment may also use 
wildcards. See Second Monroe Ex Parte at 2 (“The PSSCCC (location) parameter must be present, though in the 
case of the EAN, can include any FIPS geocode.”); see also Trilithic Ex Parte at 2 (“[E]xceptions to location 
filtering that were added after early EAN tests will need to be removed.”).
179
See, e.g., EAS Nationwide Test Report, supra note 1, at 14 (citing Emergency Alert System Didn’t Work in 
Oregon, KVAL.COM (Nov. 9, 2011, 10:06 AM), http://www.kval.com/news/national/133545908.html).
180
EAS Operational Issues Public Notice, at 4.
181
See Sage Comments at 3; see also Trilithic Comments at 2 (“Making the EAN more consistent with other types 
of EAS messages will ultimately make it more reliable.”); Second Monroe Ex Parte at 1.
182
See Second Monroe Ex Parte at 1 (“[T]he DASDEC and R189 One-Net utilize several key elements in EAS 
message headers for validation, filtering and duplicate detection.”).
183
See Trilithic Comments at 2 (stating that if the header code fails to comply with the EAS protocol, the data may 
be discarded by downstream firmware or hardware).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
28
shortcuts also undermines EAS testing in that such actions can preclude the Commission, FEMA and 
other stakeholders from gaining an accurate picture of whether the EAS works in the manner 
contemplated by FCC rules and other standards.
B. Retransmission of EAN Immediately Upon Receipt
55. The Commission’s rules require that an EAN must be broadcast “immediately” upon 
receipt.
184
As the Bureau noted in its report, although FEMA initiated the alert at 2:00 p.m. EST,
185
some 
EAS equipment apparently held the test alert for release until 2:03 EST, apparently because FEMA 
erroneously included a Time of Release code indicating 2:03 pm EST,
186
three minutes after the 
scheduled start time of the test.
187
As the EAS Nationwide Test Report indicated, this caused further delay 
to EAS message propagation.
188
56. Several of our rules make clear that the EAN must be transmitted upon receipt.  No rule 
provides for the transmission based on the Time of Release.  Simply put, under the Commission’s rules, 
EAS equipment must transmit the EAN immediately upon receipt, regardless of the Time of Release 
provided by the alert originator.  We note that most EAS manufacturers understand this reading of the 
rule.  Indeed, one commenter notes that equipment manufacturers have integrated the “transmission upon 
immediate release” requirement into current EAS technical standards which apply to broadcast as well as 
CAP-based EAS.
189
57. Requiring transmission of EANs immediately upon receipt is consistent with our goal of 
ensuring that the public has access to timely and accurate EAS alerts.  As some commenters argue, any 
delay in processing an EAN undermines its value as a tool for the President of the United States to 
communicate with the American people in an emergency.
190
Moreover, retransmitting an EAN alert 
                                                     
184
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 11.51(m)(2), (n) (requiring that encoders air EANs “immediately” whether operating in 
automatic or manual mode); see also 47 C.F.R. § 11.52(e)(2) (requiring that EAS Participants interrupt “normal 
programming” when an EAN is received “immediately” when operating in manual mode (no time period is 
expressed for interrupting normal programming in automatic mode)); 47 C.F.R. § 11.33(a)(11) (requiring, with 
respect to decoders, that a “header code with the EAN event code specified in § 11.31(c) that is received through 
any of the audio inputs must override all other messages”); 47 C.F.R. § 11.54(a) (requiring immediate rebroadcast 
upon receipt for the EAN).
185
See EAS Nationwide Test Report, supra note 1, at 12.
186
See id. at 16.
187
SeeMonroe Ex Parte at 3 (“We observe that several versions of EAS equipment adhered to the ‘time of 
transmission’ of the alert, treating the EAN message as valid upon that time (1903 GMT).”); see also Chriss Scherer, 
Passing the EAS Test, RADIOMAGONLINE.COM, (Dec. 1, 2011, 2:00 AM), 
http://radiomagonline.com/viewpoint/passing_the_eas_test_1211 (noting that there were a “few EAS units that 
delayed relaying for three minutes”).
188
EAS Nationwide Test Report, supra note 1, 16.
189
See Sage Comments at 4 (stating that the Time of Release code only indicates “when the message was initially 
released by the originator” not when it should be retransmitted by an alert recipient) (citing 47 C.F.R. § 11.31(c)); 
see also CAP 1.2 Standard, supra note 35, at 10 (stating that both effect and onset times are “ignored if present. 
Alerts shall be effective upon issuance.”); SOCIETY OF CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS, AMERICAN 
NATIONAL STANDARD ANSI/SCTE 18 (2007) (evincing that immediate retransmission upon receipt is also required 
for downstream equipment such as set top boxes, stating that “[r]eceiving devices shall process 
cable_emergency_alert () messages upon their reception, even if the event_start_time field indicates a time in the 
future.”).
190
See Hearst Reply Comments at 4 (“Any delay in the processing of an EAN would effectively undermine the 
value of the EAN. The basic premise of a Presidential alert is that there has been an event serious enough to justify 
the President interrupting regular broadcast to deliver a message to the American public. Such a message would by 
definition be critical and would need to be communicated immediately to as many people nationwide as possible.”); 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
29
immediately upon receipt is the only possible method to transmit alerts uniformly and consistently within 
an EAS ecosystem that is not time synchronized.
191
Any divergence from the immediate release would 
have a ripple effect throughout the system that could affect the receipt of the EAN by other EAS 
Participants and the public.
192
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A. Ex Parte Rules
58. The proceeding initiated by this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking shall be treated as 
“permit-but-disclose” proceedings in accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
193
  Persons 
making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum 
summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different 
deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies).  Persons making oral ex parte presentations are 
reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must: (1) list all persons attending or otherwise 
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made; and (2) summarize all data 
presented and arguments made during the presentation.  If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of 
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter’s written comments, memoranda, 
or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or 
her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers 
where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum.  
Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex 
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 
1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte 
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must 
be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in 
their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should 
familiarize themselves with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
B. Comment Filing Procedures
59. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR §§ 1.415, 
1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments in response to this Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document.  Comments may be filed 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
see also BWWG Comments at 2 (stating that if messages were allowed to be held until a future time of release 
“[t]he negative impact of any delay, should a real EAN ever be issued, could be significant.”).
191
See Trilithic Comments at 3 (concluding that “the only synchronization method available . . . is to activate as 
soon as possible after receipt.”); see also BWWG Comments at 2 (offering that “[c]oordination, clarity and 
timeliness are keys to [the EAN’s] messaging goal.”). On the other hand, commenters agree that EAS alerts could 
be time synchronized with minimal effort. See Sage Comments at 7 (pointing out that the best way to reconcile any 
seeming discrepancy between immediate release of an EAN and information in the Time of Release code is simply 
for the alert originator to issue the message with the correct time stamp); see alsoMonroe Ex Parte at 6 (stating that 
there is “little reason why the current generation of EAS equipment cannot be time-synched automatically, using 
Network Time Protocol (NTP), GPS clock or other means.”). Although this solution would only require EAS 
Participants to properly maintain alert origination equipment, the initial decision to time-synchronize an EAN is 
entirely within FEMA’s purview, and thus outside of the scope of this proceeding.
192
Thus, the prohibition in Section 11.31(c) against altering the header codes not only applies to aspects of the codes 
that may not be entirely necessary, but also to aspects of the codes that may contain errors.  While a prohibition that 
bars the correction of header codes may seem counterintuitive, a flat prohibition against any alteration of these codes 
will yield better results than an approach that tolerates ad hoc tinkering throughout a national daisy chain message 
distribution system
193
47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200 – 1.1216.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
30
using the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).  See Electronic Filing of Documents 
in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
? Electronic Filers:  Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the 
ECFS:  http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
? Paper Filers:  Parties that choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing.  
If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail.  All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
1. All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission’s Secretary 
must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12
th
St., SW, Room TW-A325, 
Washington, DC 20554.  The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries 
must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners.  Any envelopes and boxes must be 
disposed of before entering the building.
2. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority 
Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD  20743.
3. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12
th
Street, SW, Washington DC  20554.
C. Accessible Formats
60. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
D. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
61. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5 U.S.C. § 604, the 
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this document.  The IRFA is set 
forth in Appendix A. Written public comments are requested in the IRFA. These comments must be 
filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments filed in response to this Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking as set forth on the first page of this document, and have a separate and distinct 
heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.
E. Paperwork Reduction Analysis
62. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contains proposed new or modified information 
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, 
invites the general public and OMB to comment on the information collection requirements contained in 
this document, as required by PRA.  In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 
2002,
194
we seek specific comment on how we might “further reduce the information collection burden 
for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”
195
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES
63. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(o), 301, 303(r), 
303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 624(g),706, and 715 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
                                                     
194
Pub. L. No. 107-198.
195
44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(4).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
31
U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 154(i), 154(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 544(g), 606, and 615, this 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS ADOPTED.
64. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking including the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
32
APPENDIX A
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
1
the 
Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 
significant economic impact of the proposals described in the attached Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 
small entities.  Written public comments are requested on this IRFA.  Comments must be identified as 
responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments in the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking.  The Commission will send a copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including this 
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
2
  In addition, the 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal 
Register.
3
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
2. Today’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes rules to resolve problems with the 
EAS uncovered in the first nationwide Emergency Alert System (EAS) test conducted on November 9, 
2011, and proposes further rules to evolve the paradigm for the future testing, exercise and use of the EAS
to enhance the effectiveness of the EAS as an alerting tool for the public.  In this Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, we propose that a national location code be adopted, that “six zeroes” should be that code; 
and that the National Periodic Test code be used to evaluate the readiness of the EAS for a live EAN.  We 
also propose to establish a reporting requirement using an updated, online EAS test reporting system 
(ETRS).  Finally, we propose to establish minimum standards for visual crawl speed, completeness and 
placement that will improve the accessibility of EAS alerts.  These proposed rules will help to ensure that
the EAS better protects the life and property of all Americans.
4
  
B. Legal Basis
3. Authority for the actions proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking may be found 
in Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 624(g),706, and 715 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 154(i), 154(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 
307, 309, 335, 403, 544(g), 606, and 615.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules Will 
Apply
4. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of, 
the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein.
5
  The RFA generally 
defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small 
organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”
6
  In addition, the term “small business” has the 
same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.
7
  A “small business 
                                                     
1
See 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
2
See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).
3
Id.
4
See Appendix B at ¶ 2 for description of rules the Commission adopted in the Second Report and Order.
5
5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).
6
5 U.S.C. § 601(6).
7
5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business 
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632).  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an 
agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
33
concern” is one which:  (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration 
(“SBA”).
8
5. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental Jurisdictions.  The 
rules proposed in the attached Notice of Proposed Rulemaking may, over time, affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present, beyond the list of representative entities listed in the subsequent 
paragraphs.  We therefore describe here, at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size 
standards.
9
  First, nationwide, there are a total of approximately 27.9 million small businesses, according 
to the SBA.
10
  In addition, a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”
11
  Nationwide, as of 2007, there were 
approximately 1,621,315 small organizations.
12
  Finally, the term “small governmental jurisdiction” is 
defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.”
13
  Census Bureau data for 2011 indicate that there 
were 89,476 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States.
14
  We estimate that, of this total, as 
many as 88,506 entities may qualify as “small governmental jurisdictions.”
15
  Thus, we estimate that most 
governmental jurisdictions are small.
6. Television Broadcasting.  The SBA has developed a small business sized standard for 
television broadcasting, which consists of all such firms having $13 million or less in annual receipts.
16
  
Business concerns included in this industry are those “primarily engaged in broadcasting images together 
with sound.”
17
  According to Commission staff review of BIA Publications, Inc. Master Access 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the 
agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”  5 U.S.C. § 601(3).
8
15 U.S.C. § 632.
9
See 5 U.S.C. §§ 601(3)–(6).
10
See SBA, Office of Advocacy, available at http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept_2012.pdf (last 
viewed Jan. 31, 2014).
11
5 U.S.C. § 601(4).
12
INDEPENDENT SECTOR, THE NEW NONPROFIT ALMANAC &DESK REFERENCE (2010).
13
5 U.S.C. § 601(5).
14
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES: 2011, Table 427 (2007). 
15
The 2007 U.S Census data for small governmental organizations are not presented based on the size of the 
population in each such organization. There were 89, 476 small governmental organizations in 2007. If we assume 
that county, municipal, township and school district organizations are more likely than larger governmental 
organizations to have populations of 50,000 or less, the total of these organizations is 52,125. If we make the same 
assumption about special districts, and also assume that special districts are different from county, municipal, 
township, and school districts, in 2007 there were 37,381 special districts. Therefore, of the 89,476 small 
governmental organizations documented in 2007, as many as 89,506 may be considered small under the applicable 
standard. This data may overestimate the number of such organizations that has a population of 50,000 or less. U.S.
CENSUS BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES 2011, Tables 427, 426 (Data cited therein are 
from 2007).
16
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 515120.
17
Office of Management and Budget, North American Industry Classification System:  United States, 1997, at 509 
(1997).  This category description continues, “These establishments operate television broadcasting studios and 
facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public.  These establishments also produce or 
transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the 
public on a predetermined schedule.  Programming may originate in their own studios, from an affiliated network, or 
from external sources.”  Separate census categories pertain to businesses primarily engaged in producing 
programming.  Id. at 502-05, NAICS code 512120, Motion Picture and Video Production; NAICS code 512120, 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
34
Television Analyzer Database, as of May 16, 2003, about 814 of the 1,220 commercial television stations 
in the United States had revenues of $12 million or less.  We note, however, that, in assessing whether a 
business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations
18
must be 
included.
19
  Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected 
by our action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues 
from affiliated companies.  There are also 2,127 low power television stations (“LPTV”).
20
  Given the 
local nature and power limits of this service, we will presume that all LPTV licensees qualify as small 
entities under the SBA size standard.
7. Radio Stations.  The revised rules and policies potentially will apply to all AM and 
commercial FM radio broadcasting licensees and potential licensees.  The SBA defines a radio 
broadcasting station that has $6.5 million or less in annual receipts as a small business.
21
  A radio 
broadcasting station is an establishment primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the 
public.
22
  Included in this industry are commercial, religious, educational, and other radio stations.
23
  
Radio broadcasting stations which primarily are engaged in radio broadcasting and which produce radio 
program materials are similarly included.
24
  However, radio stations that are separate establishments and 
are primarily engaged in producing radio program material are classified under another NAICS number.
25
  
According to Commission staff review of BIA Publications, Inc. Master Access Radio Analyzer Database 
on March 31, 2005, about 10,840 (95 percent) of 11,410 commercial radio stations have revenue of $6 
million or less.  We note, however, that many radio stations are affiliated with much larger corporations 
having much higher revenue.  Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that 
might be affected by our action. 
8. Cable and Other Program Distribution.  The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for cable and other program distribution, which consists of all such firms having $12.5 million or 
less in annual receipts.
26
  According to Census Bureau data for 1997, in this category there was a total of 
1,311 firms that operated for the entire year.
27
Of this total, 1,180 firms had annual receipts of under $10 
million, and an additional 52 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999.
28
  Thus, under this size 
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.  In addition, limited preliminary census data for 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
Motion Picture and Video Distribution; NAICS code 512191, Teleproduction and Other Post-Production Services; 
and NAICS code 512199, Other Motion Picture and Video Industries. 
18
“Concerns are affiliates of each other when one concern controls or has the power to control the other or a third 
party or parties controls or has to power to control both.”  13 C.F.R. § 121.103(a)(1).
19
“SBA counts the receipts or employees of the concern whose size is at issue and those of all its domestic 
concern’s size.”  13 C.F.R. § 121.103(a)(4).
20
Broadcast Station Totals as of September 30, 2002, FCC News Release (rel. Nov. 6, 2002).
21
See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 515112.
22
Id.
23
Id.
24
Id.
25
Id.
26
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517510.
27
U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:  Information, Establishment and Firm Size 
(including Legal Form of Organization), Table 4, NAICS code 513220. 
28
Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
35
2002 indicate that the total number of cable and other program distribution companies increased 
approximately 46 percent from 1997 to 2002.
29
9. Cable System Operators (Rate Regulation Standard).  The Commission has developed its 
own small business size standard for cable system operators, for purposes of rate regulation.  Under the 
Commission’s Rules, a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide.
30
  
We have estimated that there were 1,065 cable operators who qualified as small cable system operators at 
the end of 2005.
31
  Since then, some of those companies may have grown to serve over 400,000 
subscribers, and others may have been involved in transactions that caused them to be combined with 
other cable operators. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are now fewer than 1,065 small 
entity cable system operators that may be affected by the rules and policies proposed herein.
10. Cable System Operator (Telecom Act Standard).  The Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is “a cable operator that, 
directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the 
United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate 
exceed $250,000,000.”
32
  The Commission has determined that an operator serving fewer than 677,000 
subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual 
revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate.
33
  Industry data indicate that, of 
1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but ten are small under this size standard.
34
  We note that the 
Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated 
with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million,
35
and therefore we are unable to estimate 
more accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small under this size 
standard.
11. Broadband Radio Service (BRS).  The proposed rules apply to Broadband Radio Service 
(BRS), operated as part of a wireless cable system.  The Commission has defined “small entity” for 
purposes of the auction of BRS frequencies as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross 
annual revenues that are not more than $40 million for the preceding three calendar years.
36
  This 
definition of small entity in the context of BRS auctions has been approved by the SBA.
37
  The 
                                                     
29
See U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:  “Information,” Table 2, Comparative Statistics 
for the United States (1997 NAICS Basis):  2002 and 1997, NAICS code 513220 (issued Nov. 2004).  
30
47 C.F.R. § 76.901(e).  The Commission developed this definition based on its determination that a small cable 
system operator is one with annual revenues of $100 million or less.  Implementation of Sections of the 1992 Cable 
Act:  Rate Regulation, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393 (1995), 60 
FR 10534 (February 27, 1995).
31
Paul Kagan Associates, Inc., Cable TV Investor, February 29, 1996 (based on figures for Dec. 30, 1995).
32
  47 U.S.C. § 543(m)(2); see 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(f).
33
  47 C.F.R. § 76.901(f); see Public Notice, FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small 
Cable Operator, DA 01-158 (Cable Services Bureau, Jan. 24, 2001).
34
  These data are derived from:  R.R. Bowker, Broadcasting & Cable Yearbook 2006, “Top 25 Cable/Satellite 
Operators,” pages A-8 & C-2 (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications News, Television & 
Cable Factbook 2006, “Ownership of Cable Systems in the United States,” pages D-1805 to D-1857.
35
  The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local 
franchise authority’s finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to § 76.901(f) of 
the Commission’s rules.  See 47 C.F.R. § 76.909(b).
36
47 C.F.R. § 21.961(b)(1).
37
See Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission’s Rules With Regard to Filing Procedures in the 
Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and Implementation of Section 
309(j) of the Communications Act – Competitive Bidding, MM Docket No. 94-131 and PP Docket No. 93-253, 
Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9589 (1995).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
36
Commission completed its BRS auction in March 1996 for authorizations in 493 basic trading areas.  Of 
67 winning bidders, 61 qualified as small entities. At this time, we estimate that of the 61 small business 
BRS auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees.
12. Cable and Other Subscription Programming.  This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in operating studios and facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a subscription or 
fee basis.  The broadcast programming is typically narrowcast in nature (e.g., limited format, such as 
news, sports, education, or youth-oriented). These establishments produce programming in their own 
facilities or acquire programming from.  The programming material is usually delivered to a third party, 
such as cable systems or direct-to-home satellite systems, for transmission to viewers.
38
The SBA size 
standard for this industry establishes 
39
as small any company in this category which receives annual 
receipts of $15 million or less. Based on U.S. Census data for 2007, in that year 659 establishments 
operated for the entire year. Of that 659,197 operated with annual receipts of $10 million a year or more.  
The remaining 462 establishments operated with annual receipts of less than $10 million.  Based on this 
data, the Commission estimates that the majority of establishments operating in this industry are small.
40
13. The Educational Broadband Service (EBS).  The proposed rules would also apply to The 
Educational Broadband Service (EBS) facilities operated as part of a wireless cable system.  The SBA 
definition of small entities for pay television services also appears to apply to EBS.
41
  There are presently 
2,032 ITFS licensees.  All but 100 of these licenses are held by educational institutions.  Educational 
institutions are included in the definition of a small business.
42
  However, we do not collect annual 
revenue data for EBS licensees, and are not able to ascertain how many of the 100 non-educational 
licensees would be categorized as small under the SBA definition. Thus, we tentatively conclude that at 
least 1,932 are small businesses and may be affected by the established rules.
14. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (“LECs”). We have included small incumbent 
LECs in this present IRFA analysis.  As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter 
alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 
1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.”
43
  The SBA’s Office of 
Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of 
operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope.
44
  We have therefore included small 
incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has 
no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.  Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local 
exchange services.  The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers.  Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
                                                     
38
UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU, NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM, 
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=515210&search=2007.
39
See 13 C.F.R 121.201, NAICS Code 515210.
40
  AMERICAN FACT FINDER,
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ1&prod
Type=table.
41
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 515210.
42
5 U.S.C. § 601(3).
43
15 U.S.C. § 632.
44
Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 27, 
1999).  The Small Business Act contains a definition of “small-business concern,” which the RFA incorporates into 
its own definition of “small business.”  See 15 U.S.C. § 632(a) (Small Business Act); 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (RFA).  
SBA regulations interpret “small business concern” to include the concept of dominance on a national basis.  See 13 
C.F.R. § 121.102(b).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
37
employees.
45
  According to Commission data,
46
one-thousand three-hundred and three carriers have 
reported that they are engaged in the provision of incumbent local exchange services. Of these 1,303 
carriers, an estimated 1,020 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 283 have more than 1,500 employees. 
Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are 
small businesses that may be affected by our proposed rules.
15. Competitive (LECs), Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), “Shared-Tenant Service 
Providers,” and “Other Local Service Providers.” Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a 
small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate size standard under 
SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
47
  According to Commission data,
48
769 carriers have 
reported that they are engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services or 
competitive local exchange carrier services. Of these 769 carriers, an estimated 676 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees and 93 have more than 1,500 employees.  In addition, 12 carriers have reported that they are 
“Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and all 12 are estimated to have 1.500 or fewer employees.  In 
addition, 39 carriers have reported that they are “Other Local Service Providers.”  Of the 39, an estimated 
38 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees.  Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access 
providers, “Shared-Tenant Service Providers,” and “Other Local Service Providers” are small entities that 
may be affected by our proposed rules. 
16. Satellite Telecommunications and Other Telecommunications.  The Commission has not 
developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of satellite service. The appropriate 
size standards under SBA rules are for the two broad categories of Satellite Telecommunications and 
Other Telecommunications.  Under both categories, such a business is small if it has $12.5 million or less 
in average annual receipts.
49
  For the first category of Satellite Telecommunications, Census Bureau data 
for 1997 show that there were a total of 324 firms that operated for the entire year.
50
  Of this total, 273 
firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and an additional twenty-four firms had receipts of $10 
million to $24,999,999.  Thus, the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms can be considered 
small.
17. The second category – Other Telecommunications – includes “establishments primarily 
engaged in … providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities operationally connected with 
one or more terrestrial communications systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to or 
receiving telecommunications from satellite systems.”
51
  Of this total, 424 firms had annual receipts of $5 
million to $9,999,999 and an additional 6 firms had annual receipts of $10 million to $24,999,990.  Thus, 
under this second size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements for Small Entities
18. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes that EAS Participants submit data 
concerning their compliance with the EAS rules via a mandatory electronic reporting system, the 
                                                     
45
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
46
Trends in Telephone Service, Table 5.3.
47
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
48
Trends in Telephone Service, Table 5.3.
49
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 517410 and 517910.
50
U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:  Information, Establishment and Firm Size 
(Including Legal Form of Organization), Table 4, NAICS code 513340.
51
Office of Management and Budget, North American Industry Classification System, 513 (1997) (NAICS code 
517910.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
38
Electronic Test Reporting System (ETRS).  The Commission proposes that any reporting under the ETRS 
would be identical that required of all EAS Participants, including small entities, in the November, 2011 
Nationwide EAS Test, a collection that was approved by OMB.  The impact on small entities of the 
ETRS is consistent with their past OMB-approved practice under the EAS, and thus would impose no 
undue burden.
E. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 
Significant Alternatives Considered
19. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following 
four alternatives (among others):  “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting 
requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for 
small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) and exemption from 
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.”
52
20. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is technologically neutral in order to enable small 
entities flexibility to comply with our proposed rules using EAS equipment offered by a variety of 
vendors. Commenters are invited to propose steps that the Commission may take to minimize any 
significant economic impact on small entities. When considering proposals made by other parties, 
commenters are invited to propose significant alternatives that serve the goals of these proposals. We 
expect that the record will develop to demonstrate significant alternatives. In particular, we expect that 
the record will develop to indicate whether EAS Participants who otherwise would be required to replace 
their EAS equipment can comply with the rules we propose today by deploying an intermediary device.
F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules
21. None.
                                                     
52
5 U.S.C. §§ 603(c)(1)-(c)(4). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
39
APPENDIX B
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 C.F.R.
Part 11 to read as follows: 
PART 11 – EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM (EAS)
1. The authority citation for part 11 continues to read as follows: 
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154 (i) and (o), 303(r), 544(g) and 606.
2. Amend § 11.21 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows:
§ 11.21 State and Local Area plans and FCC Mapbook.
* * * * * 
(a) The State EAS Plan contains procedures for State emergency management and other State officials, 
the NWS, and EAS Participants’ personnel to transmit emergency information to the public during a State 
emergency using the EAS. EAS State Plans should include a data table, in computer readable form, 
clearly showing monitoring assignments and the specific primary and backup path for emergency action 
notification (“EAN”) messages that are formatted in the EAS Protocol (specified in §11.31), from the 
PEP to each station in the plan.  If a state’s emergency alert system is capable of initiating EAS messages 
formatted in the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP), its EAS State Plan must include specific and detailed 
information describing how such messages will be aggregated and distributed to EAS Participants within 
the state, including the monitoring requirements associated with distributing such messages.  Consistent 
with the requirements of paragraph 11.61(a)(3)(iv) of this Part, EAS Participants shall provide the 
identifying information required by Form One of the EAS Test Reporting System (ETRS) no later than 60 
days after the effective date of this Subsection, and shall renew the Form One information on a yearly 
basis or as required by any revision of the EAS Participant’s State EAS Plan filed pursuant to Section 
11.21 of this Part. 
* * * 
(c) The FCC Mapbook is based on the consolidation of the data table required in each State EAS plan 
with the identifying data contained in Form One of the ETRS.  The Mapbook organizes all EAS 
Participants according to their State, EAS Local Area, and EAS designation.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
40
* * * * * 
3. Amend § 11.31 by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:
§ 11.31 EAS protocol.
* * * * * 
(f) The State, Territory and Offshore (Marine Area) ANSI number codes (SS) are as follows. 
County ANSI numbers (CCC) are contained in the State EAS Mapbook.
ANSI#
All U.S.
State:
               00
AL 01
AK 02
AZ 04
AR 05
CA 06
CO 08
CT 09
DE 10
DC 11
FL 12
GA 13
HI 15
ID 16
IL 17
IN 18
IA 19
KS 20
KY 21
LA 22
ME 23
MD 24
MA 25
MI 26
MN 27
MS 28
MO 29
MT 30
NE 31
NV 32
NH 33
NJ 34
NM 35
NY 36
NC 37
ND 38
OH 39
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
41
OK 40
OR 41
PA 42
RI 44
SC 45
SD 46
TN 47
TX 48
UT 49
VT 50
VA 51
WA 53
WV 54
WI 55
WY 56
Terr.:
AS 60
FM 64
GU 66
MH 68
MH 68
PR 72
PW 70
UM 74
VI 78
Offshore (Marine Areas)
1
:
Eastern North Pacific Ocean, and 
along U.S. West Coast from 
Canadian border to Mexican 
border 57
North Pacific Ocean near Alaska, 
and along Alaska coastline, 
including the Bering Sea and the 
Gulf of Alaska 58
Central Pacific Ocean, including 
Hawaiian waters 59
South Central Pacific Ocean, 
including American Samoa 
waters 61
Western Pacific Ocean, including 
Mariana Island waters 65
Western North Atlantic Ocean, 
and along U.S. East Coast, from 
Canadian border south to 
Currituck Beach Light, N.C 73
Western North Atlantic Ocean, 
and along U.S. East Coast, south 
of Currituck Beach Light, N.C., 
following the coastline into Gulf 
of Mexico to Bonita Beach, FL., 
including the Caribbean 75
Gulf of Mexico, and along the 
U.S. Gulf Coast from the 77
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
42
Mexican border to Bonita Beach, 
FL
Lake Superior 91
Lake Michigan 92
Lake Huron 93
Lake St. Clair 94
Lake Erie 96
Lake Ontario 97
St. Lawrence River above St. 
Regis 98
  1 
Effective May 16, 2002, analog radio and television broadcast stations, analog cable systems and wireless cable 
systems may upgrade their existing EAS equipment to add these marine area location codes on a voluntary basis 
until the equipment is replaced. All models of EAS equipment manufactured after August 1, 2003, must be capable 
of receiving and transmitting these marine area location codes. EAS Participants that install or replace their EAS 
equipment after February 1, 2004, must install equipment that is capable of receiving and transmitting these location 
codes.
* * * * * 
4. Amend § 11.51 by revising paragraph (d) as follows:
§ 11.51 EAS code and Attention Signal Transmission requirements.
* * * * *
(d) Analog and digital television broadcast stations shall transmit a visual message containing the 
Originator, Event, Location and the valid time period of an EAS message.  Effective June 30, 2012, visual 
messages derived from CAP-formatted EAS messages shall contain the Originator, Event, Location and 
the valid time period of the message and shall be constructed in accordance with §3.6 of the “ECIG 
Recommendations for a CAP EAS Implementation Guide, Version 1.0” (May 17, 2010), except that if the 
EAS Participant has deployed an Intermediary Device to meet its CAP-related obligations, this 
requirement shall be effective June 30, 2015, and until such date shall be subject to the general 
requirement to transmit a visual message containing the Originator, Event, Location and the valid time 
period of the EAS message.  If the message is a video crawl, it shall be displayed:
(1) At the top of the television screen or where it will not interfere with other visual messages or 
otherwise block other important visual content on the screen,
(2) At a speed that can be read by viewers,
(3) Continuously throughout the duration of any EAS activation,
(4) In a font sized appropriately for legibility,
(5) In a manner where lines of any video crawl not overlap with one another, and are adequately 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
43
positioned so they do not run off the edge of the video screen.
6. Amend § 11.61 by revising paragraphs (a)(3)(iv) as follows:
§ 11.61 Tests of EAS procedures.
(iv) Test results as required by the Commission shall be logged by all EAS Participants into the 
EAS Test Reporting System (ETRS) as follows. 
(1) EAS Participants shall provide the identifying information required by Form One initially no 
later than 60 days after the effective date of this Subsection, and shall renew the Form One information on 
a yearly basis or as required by any revision of the EAS Participant’s State EAS Plan filed pursuant to 
Section 11.21 of this Part. 
(2) “Day of test” data as required by Form Two shall be filed in the ETRS within 24 hours of any 
nationwide test or as otherwise required by the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau. 
(3) Detailed post-test data as required by Form Three shall be filed in the ETRS within forty five 
(45) days following any nationwide test or as otherwise required by the Public Safety and Homeland 
Security Bureau.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
44
APPENDIX C
List of Commenters to the Operational Issues Public Notice
Comments in EB Docket No. 04-296
Commenters Abbreviation
Bell, Frank W. Bell
Broadcast Warning Working Group BWWG
Cohen, Dippell & Everist, P.C. CD&E
DIRECTV, LLC DirecTV
Donelan, Sean Donelan
Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA
Flores, Nicole Flores
National Association of Broadcasters NAB
National Cable and Telecommunications Association NCTA
National Public Radio NPR
Sage Alerting Systems, Inc. Sage
Trilithic, Inc. Trilithic
Wireless RERC Wireless RERC
Reply Commenters Abbreviation
American Cable Association ACA
Cohen, Dippell & Everist, P.C. CD&E 
Consumer Groups & Wireless RERC-TA CG & RERC-TA
Donelan, Sean Donelan
Hearst Television, Inc. Hearst
Monroe Electronics, Inc. Monroe
Named State Broadcasters Associations NSBA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National NOAA NWS 
     Weather Service
Ohio Association of Broadcasters, North Carolina Association of The Associations
     Broadcasters, Virginia Association of Broadcasters 
Sage Alerting Systems, Inc. Sage
Ex Parte Commenters Abbreviation
Comcast, Inc. Comcast
Monroe Electronics, Inc. Monroe
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
45
National Cable and Telecommunications Association NCTA
Nevada Broadcasters Association NBA
Sage Alerting Systems, Inc. Sage
Trilithic, Inc. Trilithic
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
46
APPENDIX D
Proposed Electronic Test Reporting System
Figure 1:  Login Screen
Figure 2:  Form One – part one
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
47
Figure 3:  Form One – part two
Figure 4:  Form One – part three
Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-93
48
Figure 5:  Form Two
Figure 6:  Form Three