******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Amendment of Part 73, Subpart G, of the) FO Docket 91-301 Commission's Rules Regarding the) FO Docket 91-171 Emergency Broadcast System ) ORDER Adopted: June 4, 1997 Released: June 6, 1997 By the Commission: Commissioner Chong issuing a statement. 1. In its Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (First R&O), the Commission adopted rules replacing the Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) with the Emergency Alert System (EAS). The EAS incorporates new equipment and procedures that provide an efficient digital signalling protocol and automation of many of the prior manual EBS functions. The First R&O also established rules to implement Section 624(g) of the Communications Act, which provides in pertinent part that "each cable operator shall comply with such standards as the Commission shall prescribe to ensure that viewers of video programming on cable systems are afforded the same emergency information as is afforded by the emergency broadcasting system . . . ." The First R&O, accordingly, required all cable systems, irrespective of size, to participate in the EAS by July 1, 1997. 2. As a result of the Commission's concern about the possible adverse financial impact this action could have on small cable systems, we sought comment in the Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making on whether the Communications Act permits the Commission to exempt small cable systems from participating in EAS or to establish a special waiver policy for small cable systems. Additionally, in response to the First R&O, we received comments from the hearing- impaired community contending that the requirements adopted were inadequate to provide satisfactory emergency service to hearing impaired individuals. In a Memorandum Opinion and Order that addressed petitions for reconsideration of the First R&O, we deferred consideration of the issues raised by the hearing-impaired community until the Second Report and Order. 3. The Commission has not yet reached a decision regarding the participation by small cable systems or the requests by the hearing-impaired community. Should the Commission ultimately decide to amend the participation in the EAS by small cable systems or to address concerns of the hard of hearing, some cable systems could be irreparably harmed by application of Section 11.11 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  11.11, prior to our action in the Second Report and Order. Therefore, on our own motion and in the public interest, we are extending the effective date, previously July 1, 1997, for all cable systems to comply with the EAS requirements so that compliance with Section 11.11 of the Commission's Rules will not be required until a date to be specified by the Commission in a subsequent Report and Order in this proceeding. 4. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to Section 1.103(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.103(a), that the effective date of Section 11.11 of the Commission's Rules, which requires all cable systems to install and operate EAS equipment, IS EXTENDED until a new effective date is established by the Commission. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION William F. Caton Acting Secretary FCC 97-196 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER RACHELLE B. CHONG Re: Amendment of Part 73, Subpart G, of the Commission's Rules Regarding the Emergency Broadcast System, Order, FO Dockets 91-301, 91-171. I support our order extending the effective date for all cable systems to comply with our rules regarding the Emergency Alert System (EAS). I agree that it does not make sense to require cable systems to comply with rules that we are in the process of changing. I write separately, however, to express my dismay that we have not yet issued our decision on the revised rules. Our First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was issued in 1994. Comments were filed over two years ago. Since then, the one major issue with which we have been wrestling is how to balance the needs of the hearing impaired community to receive adequate alerts under the EAS against the burden that such EAS requirements would impose on small cable systems. In order to help us resolve this issue, the Commission asked cable industry representatives to sit down with hearing impaired community representatives to attempt to work out a mutually acceptable solution. The cable industry responded to our requests by holding a meeting with the National Association of the Deaf at Gallaudet University. After this meeting and months of discussions, a compromise agreement was reached. A letter confirming the terms of that agreement was filed with the Commission on March 13, 1997. In sum, the parties to the agreement agreed to take steps to make the EAS messaging system more user friendly for the deaf and to provide more time and flexibility to smaller systems to comply with EAS requirements. Despite the striking of the compromise agreement, the Commission has yet to issue its Second Report and Order. My key concern is that the granting of this extension may further delay the issuance of the Second Report and Order. Such regulatory delay does not serve the public interest or enhance public safety. Let me be clear: Every day that we delay the Second Report and Order and the effectiveness of our rules, all cable viewers, including deaf cable viewers, do not have available to them EAS messages. In addition, the longer we take to finalize our rules, the less time the cable industry and the manufacturers have to undertake necessary technical changes and upgrades. I am also concerned that our delay in acting on this compromise agreement may discourage other parties in other proceedings from expending the time and effort necessary to develop consensus solutions. In short, the time has come to adopt the Second Report and Order that incorporates the terms of the compromise agreement. I urge my colleagues and our staff to bring it up speedily for a vote.