WPCJJ 2B0R Z>3|o Times RomanTimes Roman BoldTimes Roman ItalicHP LaserJet 4 PostScriptHPLA4POS.PRSXP\  P6Qhhhh?uXP I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)X01Í ÍX0Í Í2LLn"S^2CRddCCCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`lC2CC!CCCCCCCCCCd8YYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddodYYYYYYdzYzYzYzYdddddddCdCdCCCdNCdz8zCzCzCz8dddddCCCoNoNoNoNzCzCzCdddddzYzYNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<$YYdCCddooCY|Gc B( 8o;@)RK+ PF *  ׃  2rfa2Document+ b‡cDocument Style>|Gc B( 8o;@)RK+ P*    a3Document+ b‡cDocument Style>|Gc B( 8o;@)RK+ P0     a4Document+ b‡cDocument Style>|Gc B( 8o;@)RK+ P   . a5Document+ b‡cDocument Style>|Gc B( 8o;@)RK+ P  2O f q q g a6Document+ b‡cDocument Style>|Gc B( 8o;@)RK+ P  a7Document+ b‡cDocument Style>|Gc B( 8o;@)RK+ P ` ` ` a8Document+ b‡cDocument Style>|Gc B( 8o;@)RK+ P ` ` ` Tech Initx(?t‡Initialize Technical StyleRK+ P‡c o;f—+ b  1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2  2  e a1Technical+ b‡cTechnical Document Stylec B( 8o;@+RK+ P 4"     a2Technical+ b‡cTechnical Document Stylec B( 8o;@+RK+ P *    a3Technical+ b‡cTechnical Document Stylec B( 8o;@+RK+ P'   a4Technical+ b‡cTechnical Document Stylec B( 8o;@+RK+ P&   2D,8a5Technical+ b‡cTechnical Document Stylec B( 8o;@+RK+ P&   . a6Technical+ b‡cTechnical Document Stylec B( 8o;@+RK+ P&!"  . a7Technical+ b‡cTechnical Document Stylec B( 8o;@+RK+ P&#$  . a8Technical+ b‡cTechnical Document Stylec B( 8o;@+RK+ P&%&  . 2*v#qPleadingx(?t‡Header for numbered pleading paper P‡c o;f—+ b'(   ,#&_B  PXP# X  y*dddyy*dddy H\1 H\2 H\3 H\4 H\5 H\6 H\7 H\8 H\9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28   Ӳa1Agendaf—+ b‡co;.|Gc B( 8o;@1RK+ P+)*` ` a2Agendaf—+ b‡co;.|Gc B( 8o;@1RK+ P++,` ` a3Agendaf—+ b‡co;.|Gc B( 8o;@1RK+ P-.2 qIqq+qa4Agendaf—+ b‡co;.|Gc B( 8o;@1RK+ P/0a5Agendaf—+ b‡co;.|Gc B( 8o;@1RK+ P12a6Agendaf—+ b‡co;.|Gc B( 8o;@1RK+ P34a7Agendaf—+ b‡co;.|Gc B( 8o;@1RK+ P562q?Ca8Agendaf—+ b‡co;.|Gc B( 8o;@1RK+ P78a1Right Par+ b‡cRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers 8o;@SRK+ P89:@   a2Right Par+ b‡cRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers 8o;@SRK+ PA;<@` `  ` ` ` a3Right Par+ b‡cRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers 8o;@SRK+ PJ=>` ` @  ` `  2 !d"#a4Right Par+ b‡cRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers 8o;@SRK+ P S?@` `  @  a5Right Par+ b‡cRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers 8o;@SRK+ P!\AB` `  @hh# hhh a6Right Par+ b‡cRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers 8o;@SRK+ P"eCD` `  hh#@( hh# a7Right Par+ b‡cRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers 8o;@SRK+ P#nEF` `  hh#(@- ( 2@$0fL<LZ>a8Right Par+ b‡cRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers 8o;@SRK+ P$wGH` `  hh#(-@pp2 -ppp RB  PQP"B `Bookman&_B  PXP"B `BookmanX&ZB  PQ&P"B `Bookman&RB  PQP"B `Bookman&ZB  PQ&P"B `Bookman&RB  PQP"B `Bookman&ZB  PQ&P"B `Bookman&&ZB  PQ&P"B `Bookman&RB  PQP"B `Bookman&ZB  P Q&P"B `Bookman&RB  P QP"B `Bookman&ZB  P Q&P"B `Bookman&&ZB  P Q&P"B `Bookman&&ZB  P Q&P"B `Bookman&&ZB  PQ&P"B `Bookman&&ZB  PQ&P"B `Bookman&&ZB  PQ&P"B `Bookman&&ZB  PQ&P"B `Bookman&&ZB  PQ&P"B `Bookman&&ZB  PQ&P"B `Bookman&RB  PQP"B `Bookman&ZB  PQ&P"B `Bookman&&ZB  PQ&P"B `Bookman&&ZB  PQ&P"B `Bookman&&ZB  PQ&P"B `Bookman&&ZB  PQ&P"B `Bookman&RB  PQP"B `Bookman&ZB  PQ&P"B `Bookman&RB  PQP"B `BookmanRB  PQP"B `BookmanRB  PQP"B `Bookman&ZB  PQ&P"B `Bookman&RB  P QP"B `BookmanRB  P!QP"B `Bookman&ZB  P"Q&P"B `Bookman&RB  P#QP"B `Bookman&ZB  P$Q&P"B `Bookman&RB  P%QP"B `Bookman&ZB  P&Q&P"B `Bookman&RB  P'QP"B `BookmanXX2P(QXP%2A`HelveticaXSw6X@)QS@<6X9`(CourierSd6X@*Q@<6X9`("Courier New (TT)Xx6X@+QX@<6X9`("Courier New (TT)X"S^2CoddȧCCCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,OhC2CC!CCCCCCCCCCo8dddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzoddYYYYoYYYYdddddooNoNoNCNodCo8CCC8oooddȐYYYoNoNoNoNCCCooooȐdYYNF2ldCddddddd<d<+oodCCddddCoU Xy-ԍ Id. at para. 1.> We see no reason for regulatory intervention in this developmental process. Third, incorporating standards for RBDS in our rules would have the effect of slowing technological advances and innovation in RBDS. Moreover, because substantive changes to our rules requires notice and comment, changes to the standard might be difficult and timeconsuming.  Xv-+a2Agendas 12.44In addition to the reasons set forth above, there are two other factors that we have considered in deciding not to incorporate RBDS standards into our rules. The Commission is committed to permit FM broadcast station licensees maximum flexibility to operate their subsidiary communications services. In 1986, the Commission adopted rules that permit the use of any type of modulation in the subsidiary services and do not restrict the type of service  X -that a station may offer. See, e.g., Report and Order, In the Matter of Review of Technical  X -and Operational Regulations of Part 73, Subparts B, C, and H, FM Broadcast Stations, FCC 86211, MM Docket 85325 (1986). As Sage says with reference to a "theoretical dual frontend RBDS receiver," "If such a receiver is viable in the market place . . . it will succeed and  X -if it is not correct for the market it will perish."E yU X-ԍ Id. at para. 12.E Should modifications of our technical rules in the FM Broadcast Service become necessary to allow evolution of the RBDS, that is best left to a separate proceeding. We believe that fundamental issues concerning the use of FM  Xb-subcarriers are beyond the scope of this proceeding.7vb*U X=-ԍ The National Radio Systems Committee's (NRSC) High Speed Data Committee plans field and laboratory testing this year on high speed data subcarrier technology. Additionally, the NRSC's Digital Audio Broadcasting subcommittee and the Electronic Industry Association's Digital Audio Radio subcommittee are currently testing digital audio systems. Because of the impact of existing subcarrier regulations on these new technologies, we will be conducting a comprehensive examination of rules prescribing FM technical parameters. 7  X4-+a2Agendas 13.44As mentioned above, DBC opposes the use of RBDS, asserting that it will interfere with their data transmissions on a different subcarrier. FM broadcasters may use their subcarriers for a variety of subsidiary communications services without additional authorization. 47 C.F.R.  73.293. As long as the licensee retains control over the material broadcast on the subcarrier, the provision of a subsidiary communications service is a  X-contractual one between the broadcaster and the provider of the material transmitted. See 47 C.F.R.  73.295. It follows that any impairment of the service provided by the broadcaster to the material provider (lessee) as a result of the broadcaster transmitting other subsidiary communications services should be resolved through the contractual arrangement. Informing FM broadcasters of the potential for interference to those who lease their subcarriers from addition of RBDS, and any devaluation of the subcarrier as a result, is in the interest of the lessees, and the responsibility is best left to the lessees of the subcarriers. The use of this spectrum should be left to negotiation between parties who have an economic interest in its" h 0*((z" use. Questions of receiver design are best left to the engineers and managers of the lessees as a factor in their business strategy.  X-+a2Agendas 14.44Accordingly, we deny DBC's petition to retract our endorsement of encouraging the use of RBDS in the EAS. We deny the petitions of Sage, Delco, and Federal Systems to incorporate RBDS standards in the Rules and to modify the FM Broadcast technical rules.  XH- B. CABLE TELEVISION OVERRIDE  X -+a2Agendas15.44The Report and Order, in implementing the Cable Communications Policy Act of  X -1984,Q U X| -ԍ Pub. L. No. 98549, 98 Stat.2780 (1984).Q imposes a new requirement on cable television systems that they participate in the  X -EAS. See 47 U.S.C.  544(g). Our Rules require that they "provide a video interruption and  X -an audio EAS message on all channels."D yU X-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  11.51(g)(2).D This is described in the Report and Order as an "all channel audio message override" and "momentary video interrupts of short duration on all  X -channels."e *U X-ԍ Report and Order, supra note 1, 60, at 1807.e Audio override refers to the replacement of audio messages with emergency  X-audio information.AU X-ԍ Id. at 1807 n. 66.A Video interrupt refers to "displacement of the television picture with a  Xy-black, blank or flashing screen for short periods."2yU X-ԍ Id.2  XK-+a2Agendas16.44NAB, in its petition,K? U X;-ԍ Petition for Partial Reconsideration, National Association of Broadcasters, Washington, D.C., January 27, 1995, at 10 14.NABNAB asserts that requiring or permitting cable preemption of  X4-broadcast signals for EAS is a violation of Section 111(c)(3) of the Copyright ActB 4 U X-ԍ 17 U.S.C.  111(c)(3).B and of  X-Section 614(b)(3)(A) and (B) of the Communications Act.L! U XX"-ԍ 47 U.S.C.  534(b)(3)(A)!(B).L It argues that our rules violate the compulsory copyright licensing provision that provides that an infringement occurs "if the content of the particular program . . . or any commercial advertising or station announcements transmitted by the primary transmitter . . . is in any way willfully altered by the cable systems through changes, deletions, or additions, . . . ." 17U.S.C.  111(c)(3). It further argues that the EAS rules violate the must carry provisions, which provide that when a cable operator";!0*((" carries a local station, it must carry the primary audio and video in their entirety and may not delete programming unless required by our rules. 47 C.F.R.  76.62, 47 U.S.C.  534(b)(3). The NAB also calls for us to void local franchise agreements which provide for deletion of  X-broadcast programming.w"U X4-ԍ Petition for Partial Reconsideration, supra note  NAB31 , at 13.w  X-+a2Agendas17.44 Time Warner Entertainment Company (Time Warner) in its opposition argues that selective override equipment, which would allow the Emergency Action Notification (EAN) to be put on selected channels rather than the entire system, is prohibitively expensive and  XH-would make many existing override systems obsolete.#H{U Xt -ԍ Opposition to Petition for Partial Reconsideration, Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P., Washington, D.C., February 23, 1995, at 24. It also states that not overriding broadcasters' signals would deprive outofarea and superstation network viewers of local  X -EAS alert information.:$ U X-ԍ Id. at 56.: Time Warner urges that we have already resolved the copyright and  X -mustcarry issues in our decision, Total Television of Amarillo, 65F.C.C. 2d 242 (1977), where we ruled that the must carry provisions of then Section 76.55 of the Rules were not intended to prohibit tests of a local emergency alert system which overrode audio and visual  X -signals.:% U X5-ԍ Id. at 67.: Time Warner also asserts that the copyright provisions relied on by NAB were, according to the legislative history of the Copyright Act, intended primarily to prevent cable television system operators from modifying broadcast programming for their own gain by  Xy-clipping out the broadcast commercials and replacing them with their own.8&ywU X-ԍ Id. at 7.8  XK-+a2Agendas18.44 The National Cable Television Association, Inc., and the Cable Telecommunications Association, Inc., (NCTA) oppose NAB's petition on the grounds that the Commission has already fully considered the matter and the NAB cannot raise it on  X-reconsideration.'( U X-ԍ Opposition to Petition for Partial Reconsideration, National Cable Television Association, Inc., and the Cable Telecommunications Association, Inc., Washington, D.C., February 23, 1995. NCTA  NCTA  NCTA further asserts that we have already examined the relationship between the Copyright Act and our jurisdiction over cable television programming and decided that the Copyright Act imposes no barriers to our adoption of rules that further  X-communications policy objectives,:( U X&-ԍ Id. at 34.: citing our program exclusivity decision.L)\U X-ԍ Amendment of Parts 73 and 76 of the Commission's Rules relating to program exclusivity in the cable and broadcast industries, Report and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 5299, 5320  Xb-(1988) (Exclusivity Order), aff'd United Video, Inc. v. FCC, 890 F.2d 1173 (D.C. Cir. 1989).LUNITED VIDEOEXCLUSIVEEXCLUSIVITYEXCLUSIVE NCTA also"M)0*(("  X-takes the position that the issues related to the must carry provisions were resolved in Total  X-Television of Amarillo, supra. b*MU X-ԍ NCTA Opposition, supra note  NCTA39 , at 4.b NCTA agrees with Time Warner that selective override  X-equipment would be too costly.8+U X -ԍ Id. at 5.8  X-+a2Agendas19.44NAB responds that Total Television of Amarillo has been superseded by the Cable  X-Act.,U X -ԍ National Association of Broadcasters Reply to Oppositions to Petition for Partial Consideration, March 6, 1995, at 6. NAB2 NAB REPLY NANOPP  It reasserts that the language of the Copyright Act is statutory and neither vague nor ambiguous, and, therefore, the legislative history is irrelevant.  XJ-+a2Agendas20.44Decision: Copyright Act. When we adopted our current program exclusivity rules, claims were made that it was outside of our jurisdiction to require deletion of programs from broadcast signals carried on cable television systems because of the compulsory  X -licensing scheme of the Copyright Act.w- K U X-ԍ Exclusivity Report and Order, supra note EXCLUSIVE41, at 5320.w We examined the issue in light of the court decisions and the legislative history of the Copyright Act, and we concluded that the Copyright Act bars only those "rules that are inconsistent with the 'basic arrangement' of that  X -legislation."A. U Xo-ԍ Id. at 53205321.A We also concluded that, "Congress was aware that there is close interplay between communications policy and the intellectual property issues addressed in the Copyright Act . . . . Apart from the basic compulsory license scheme, however, Congress did not statutorily define the boundaries of intellectual property issues and communications policy  Xd-concerns.";/d U X-ԍ Id. at 5321.; This analysis was supported on appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which stated that, "[i]nsofar as they apply to cable television, the 1976 Congress did not imagine copyright law and communications law to be two islands, separated by an impassible sea. Rather, Congress was aware of the close interplay between copyright and communications law, and knew that the FCC would have a role to play in  X-determining the scope of compulsory licensing."l0`U X&-ԍ United Video, Inc. v. F.C.C., 890 F.2d 1173, 1184 (D.C. Cir. 1989).l " 00*(("Ԍ X-+a2Agendas21.44In requiring cable systems to provide a video interruption and an audio EAS message on all channels, we are implementing the intent of Congress as expressed in the Cable Act that "viewers of video programming on cable systems are afforded the same emergency information as is afforded by the emergency broadcasting system." 47 U.S.C.  X-544(g).1U X-ԍ "Notwithstanding any such rule, regulation, or order, each cable operator shall comply with such standards as the Commission shall prescribe to ensure that viewers of video programming on cable systems are afforded the same emergency information as is afforded by the emergency broadcasting system pursuant to the Commission regulations in subpart G of part 73, title 47, Code of Federal Regulations." 47 U.S.C.  544(g).  In accordance with the Congressional directive, the EAS rules require that cable systems transmit a visual EAS message on at least one channel. 47 C.F.R.  11.51(g)(3). Cable systems must also provide video interruption and an audio EAS message on all channels. The audio message must also state which channel is carrying the visual message. 47 C.F.R.  11.51(g)(2). By requiring interruption of the video signal with an audio message  X1-and directing the viewer to the visual information, the Report and Order makes cable systems provide emergency information in an essentially similar fashion as television stations did under the emergency broadcast system, thus fulfilling the statutory mandate.  X -+a2Agendas22.44Moreover, we have determined that the EAS requirement for interruption of the broadcast retransmission does not conflict with the interests that the Copyright Act is designed to protect. The legislative history's analysis of Section 111(c)(3) of the Copyright Act entitled "Commercial Substitution," indicates that Section 111(c)(3) is intended to prevent  Xy-substitution of advertising or insertion of additional advertising into the broadcast program.2yU XG-ԍ H.R. Rep. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., at 93 94, reprinted in 1976 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 5659, 5708. "The House amendment struck out all of the Senate bill after the enacting clause and inserted a substitute text." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 1733, 94th  X-Cong., 2d Sess., at 69, reprinted in 1976 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 5659, 5810. (The conference adopted a substitute for the House amendment and the original Senate bill. As the House Report explains, "[i]n the Committee's, view any willful deletion, substitution, or insertion of commercial advertisements of any nature by the cable system, or changes in the program content of the primary transmission, significantly alters the basic nature of the  X-cable retransmission, service and makes its function similar to that of a broadcaster."23v U XD -ԍ Id.2 The legislative history makes it plain that the language of Section 111(c)(3) that refers to deletions means removal of commercial messages or program content for the purpose of insertion of the cable system's own commercial messages by the cable system. The EAS requirement for interruption of the broadcast retransmission is consistent with the Copyright Act. Nothing in the EAS rules would permit changes, deletions, or additions to the broadcast signal being retransmitted for the commercial advantage of the cable system. Rather, the sole purpose is to further public safety. "e ' 30*(("Ԍ X-+a2Agendas23.44NAB, however, cites the language of the House Report, referring to the cable  X-system acting like a broadcaster, as a reason why interruption should not be allowed.i4U Xb-ԍ Reply to Opposition, supra note NANOPP44, at 9.i NAB argues, therefore, that cable systems should be permitted only to override the audio and interrupt the video on channels that are not retransmitting broadcast signals. We disagree. Under EBS, broadcasters must override the audio and interrupt the video of all channels. Therefore, we believe that permitting cable systems to override the audio and interrupt the video on all channels, including those transmitting broadcast signals is necessary to make the function of the cable system "similar to that of a broadcaster" for emergency alert purposes, as mandated by Congress. The requirement of the EAS for interruption of retransmission of broadcast signals is necessary to fulfill the mandate that cable operators comply with standards to insure that all cable subscribers get the same emergency information as broadcast viewers receive.  X -+a2Agendas24.44Decision. Must Carry. We also do not believe that our EAS requirement for interruption of broadcast signals conflicts with our must carry rules. The must carry provisions at issue state: "Cable operators shall carry the entirety of the program schedule of any television station carried unless carriage of specific programming is prohibited . . . ." 47 C.F.R.  76.62(a). Also, "[e]ach commercial broadcast station carried pursuant to  76.56 shall include in its entirety the primary video, accompanying audio . . . ." 47 C.F.R.  76.62(e). In reaching this conclusion we have reviewed our previous decision on a similar  X4-question in Total Television of Amarillo. In that case we addressed the request of a cable television system operator for a waiver of the provision that requires certain local broadcast signals to be carried on the cable system "without material degradation in quality and that the  X-programs broadcast must be carried in full, without deletion or alteration of any portion.""5{U X-ԍ The must carry rules in effect at the time were ruled unconstitutional. The current must carry rules were enacted under a mandate of Congress, 47 U.S.C.  534, and were drafted to pass constitutional muster in light of the prior court decision." The waiver was requested so that the cable system could conduct 30 second tests of its  X-emergency alert system at 3:00 PM on the last Friday of each month.M6U Xp-ԍ Total Television of Amarillo at 242.M We ruled that it was not the intent of the must carry rules to prohibit such emergency transmissions and that a waiver was not necessary:  sWe conclude that the public benefit of insuring an operational emergency alert system outweighs the possible harm done by momentarily interrupting the broadcast signals carried by the cable television system. Accordingly, as long as the tests are no longer than 60 seconds, occur at regularly scheduled intervals, and are uniform in their interruption of all broadcast signals carried on the cable television system Total Television and all similarly situated systems may proceed" 60*((<" with the development of such emergency alert systems without further  X-Commission authorization.>7U Xb-ԍ Id. at 242243.>!  X-+a2Agendas25.44We acknowledge that the must carry provisions in effect at the time of Total  X-Television of Amarillo were ruled unconstitutional in Quincy Cable TV v. FCC, 768 F. 2d 1434 (1985). The Cable Act of 1992, however, mandated that the Commission adopt must  Xv-carry rules, and we have adopted must carry rules accordingly.8avyU X -ԍ The history of the must carry rules was reviewed in the legislative history to the Cable  X -Act. The Committee shows concern about what it terms our refusal to appeal the Quincy  Xr -decision. Then it goes on to say, "The Committee strongly supports reinstitution of the must  X[ -carry requirements." See S. Rep. No. 92, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. at 38 41, reprinted in 1992  XF -U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1133, 11711174.Id. at 41, 1992 USCCAN at 1174. Section 4 of the Cable Act added Section 614 to the Communications Act and codified must  X-carry rules. See 47 U.S.C.  534. Our current must carry rules  X_-are essentially the same as the rules in effect at the time of our Total Television of Amarillo decision. Specifically, they require that the cable system "carry the entirety of the program schedule of any television station carried unless carriage of specific programming is prohibited," 47 C.F.R.  76.62(a), and "include in its entirety the primary video, accompanying audio, . . . ." 47 C.F.R.  76.62(e). These must carry provisions apply to programming as a whole and ensure that none of its constituent parts audio or video, as a whole, are deleted. The must carry provisions do not address the audio override or video interruption for purposes of emergency alerting. We conclude, therefore, that our analysis in  X -Total Television of Amarillo is still valid, and we reject NAB's assertion that the must carry rules preclude audio override or video interruption. Further, given this analysis, NAB's request that we invalidate individual agreements between cable operators and franchisors  Xb-such as those envisioned in Total Television of Amarillo is inapt, and we deny the petition of NAB to delete the audio override and video interrupt provisions of our rules.  X- )C. TIME EXTENSION FOR EAS IMPLEMENTATION  X-+a2Agendas26.44In the Report and Order we required broadcasters to install the new EAS  X-equipment and have it fully operational by July 1, 1996.]9 U X"-ԍ Report and Order, supra note 1, at 1845.] NAB asks that we consider whether our implementation of the EAS by broadcasters should be delayed until July 1, 1997. )  X|-+a2Agendas27.44NAB states that, if an extension of time were granted, manufacturers would have more equipment available before the stations were required to have it. It asserts that the broadcasters would benefit from the economies of scale in production of EAS equipment and would not be compelled to seek waivers of the requirement due to equipment shortages. "7 U 90*((" NAB also states that the extension would allow stations in financial difficultly more flexibility  X-in budgeting for the equipment.x:U Xb-ԍ Petition for Partial Reconsideration, supra note  NAB31 , at 79.x  X-+a2Agendas28.44 TFT, Inc., opposes any delay in implementation of the EAS. TFT argues that waiting any longer for EAS implementation would put lives and property at unnecessary risk  X-because weekly EBS testing causes audiences to ignore actual alerts;{U X-ԍ Opposition to Petition for Partial Reconsideration, TFT, Inc., Santa Clara, California, February 23, 1995, at 23. and because it would  Xv-delay development of consumer alerting devices designed to be activated by the EAS alert.8<vU X< -ԍ Id. at 3.8 It states that, based upon its survey of broadcasters before the 1994 NAB Convention, a one year delay could cost each broadcaster $5,200 more to operate the EBS than the EAS "in loss of revenue during the lengthy weekly test, training of personnel, record keeping activities, and  X -maintenance and repair of EBS equipment."8= U X-ԍ Id. at 2.8 Further, TFT states that equipment will be available in time for the EAS phasein, and any delay would increase costs due to storage expenses for the manufacturer.  X -+a2Agendas29.44In reply NAB argues that cost savings from the EAS will not accrue until well  X -after it has been fully implemented.j> wU X-ԍ Reply to Opposition, supra note NAB REPLY44, 23.j They also state that nothing in their request will put lives at risk because it does not preclude stations from implementing the system before the  Xy-regulatory deadline.8?y* U XT-ԍ Id. at 3.8  XK-+a2Agendas30.44It is in the interest of public safety to move forward with implementation of the EAS. We do find some merit, however, in the argument that until recently the precise timing and details of the equipment requirements had not been specified, and, therefore, broadcasters could not budget for purchase of the equipment. Also, because of technical issues pending on reconsideration, manufacturers could not obtain certification of their equipment and begin production. In light of the technical adjustments and clarifications to the rules made below and to allow implementation to occur in a later budget year, we will delay the implementation date of the EAS for broadcasters to January 1, 1997. We encourage all broadcasters and cable television systems to proceed with implementation of the EAS as expeditiously as possible. "e ?0*((1"Ԍ X- D. RULE CLARIFICATIONS  X-+a2Agendas31.44 In its Petition, the NAB proposed several minor and incidental technical rule  X-changes.j@U X4-ԍ Petition for Partial Reconsideration, supra note 34, at 16.j The following is a discussion and our decision on each proposed change.  X-+a2Agendas32.44 NAB points out that Section 11.33(a)(9) of the Rules, which requires that the EAS decoder automatically reset if it receives an EAS message but no EndOfMessage code (EOM) after a preset interval of not less than two minutes, is ambiguous because an EAS  XH-message is defined to include an EOM.<AH{U Xt -ԍ Id. at 1617.< Our intention was to preclude the problem which NAB wishes to avoid"the EAS decoder forcing a break in programming, producing dead air during automated operation and not resetting. Therefore, we are revising Section 11.33(a)(9) of the rules to require decoders to be able to reset automatically if an EAS header code is received, but an EOM is not received after the preset interval of not less than two minutes.  X -X4` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: