Click here for Microsoft Word Version
********************************************************
NOTICE
********************************************************
This document was converted from
WordPerfect or Word 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
Word or WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version (above).
*****************************************************************
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
Amendment of Part 11 of the Commission's Rules ) EB Docket
No. 01-66
Regarding the Emergency Alert System ) RM-9156
) RM-9215
)
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Adopted: March 13, 2001 Released: March 20, 2001
Comment Date: 75 days after publication in the Federal Register
Reply Comment Date: 105 days after publication in the Federal
Register
By the Commission: Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth dissenting and
issuing a statement.
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM''), we
solicit comment on requested revisions to the Part 11 rules
governing the Emergency Alert System (``EAS'')1 set forth in
petitions for rulemaking filed by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (``NOAA'') National Weather
Service (``NWS'')2 and the Society of Broadcast Engineers
(``SBE'').3 In addition, we propose to revise Part 11 of
the Rules to eliminate references to the now-defunct
Emergency Action Notification (``EAN'') network and its
participants. We also propose to amend Part 11 to delete
the requirement that international High Frequency (``HF'')
broadcast stations purchase and install EAS equipment.
II. BACKGROUND
2. In 1994, the Commission adopted rules establishing the
EAS as a replacement for the Emergency Broadcast System
(``EBS'') and requiring cable systems as well as broadcast
stations to participate in EAS.4 The Commission extended
the EAS requirements to wireless cable systems in 1997.5
The EAS affords national, state and local authorities the
capability to provide emergency communications and
information to the general public via broadcast stations,
cable systems and wireless cable systems. Participation in
national EAS alerts is mandatory for broadcast stations,
cable systems and wireless cable systems.6 These entities
participate in state and local area EAS plans on a voluntary
basis. Broadcast stations were required to install the new
EAS equipment by January 1, 1997. Cable systems with 10,000
or more subscribers were required to install new EAS
equipment by December 31, 1998. Cable systems with fewer
than 10,000 subscribers and wireless cable systems are
required to install EAS equipment by October 1, 2002.7
3. The EAS equipment used by broadcast stations and cable
systems sends and receives messages using a precise format
called the EAS protocol. Each EAS message has four parts:
digital header codes, a two-tone attention signal, an audio
and/or video message, and an End of Message code. The
header codes define who originated the emergency message
(originator code), the nature of the emergency (event code),
the location of the emergency (location code), and the valid
time period of the message. The two-tone attention signal,
which must be transmitted for a minimum of eight seconds,
provides an audio alert to audiences that emergency
information is about to be sent.
4. NWS filed its petition for rulemaking on December 30,
1997.8 The Commission staff issued a public notice
announcing the filing of NWS's petition on January 14,
1998.9 Comments were filed by SBE. NWS plays a significant
role in the implementation of the EAS as the originator of
emergency weather information. The EAS protocol described
above is identical to the NOAA Weather Radio (``NWR'')
Specific Area Message Encoding (``SAME'') technique, which
NWS uses to transmit messages over NWR transmitters around
the country. NWR-SAME messages are transmitted on over 500
NWR transmitters throughout the country, and NWS has plans
to add over 200 more transmitters. Many broadcast stations
and cable systems directly monitor NWR transmissions and
relay the NWS messages to their audiences over the EAS. In
order to ensure that there is equipment operability between
the EAS and NWR-SAME systems, the Part 11 rules specifically
provide that EAS codes must be compatible with the codes
used by NWR-SAME.10 In its petition for rulemaking, NWS
requests numerous additions and modifications to the EAS
header codes. NWS also seeks revisions to the EAS equipment
requirements which it believes are necessary to promote
smoother operations and compatibility between EAS and NWR-
SAME systems.
5. SBE filed its petition for rulemaking on August 14,
1997. The Commission staff issued a public notice
announcing the filing of SBE's petition on August 22,
1997.11 Comments were filed by the National Association of
Broadcasters (``NAB''), Fox Television Stations, Inc.
(``Fox''), Multi-Technical Services, Inc. (``MTS''), and the
West Virginia Broadcasters Association. Reply comments were
filed by SBE. In the petition, SBE requests additions and
modifications to the EAS header codes. Additionally, SBE
seeks various revisions to the operational and technical
requirements for EAS. Among other things, SBE seeks to
modify EAS testing requirements, make the two-tone attention
signal optional, reduce the modulation level for EAS codes,
establish a protocol for text transmissions, and allow the
carriage of the audio portion of a President's EAS message
from a non-EAS source.
III. DISCUSSION
6. The proposals set forth for comment in this NPRM are,
for the most part, intended to enhance the performance of
the EAS during state and local emergencies. While we
recognize that EAS plays an important role at the state and
local levels, we emphasize that participation in state and
local EAS activities remains voluntary. We do not wish to
impose additional costs or burdens on broadcast stations and
cable systems that choose not to participate in state and
local area EAS plans. Further, we wish to fully understand
the costs and benefits that might result from our possible
endorsement of the changes NWS has proposed to state and
local emergency warnings. As a result, we are requesting
specific cost information below and will evaluate that
information carefully.
EAS Codes
7. Event Codes. Event codes are three-letter codes used
in the transmission of EAS messages that identify the nature
of the event or emergency that is causing the EAS
activation. A list of authorized event codes is set forth
in Section 11.31(e) of the Rules.12 This list includes
codes for national EAS events and tests, which broadcasters
and cable systems are required to receive and transmit, and
codes for state and local EAS events, which broadcasters and
cable systems voluntarily participating in state and local
area EAS plans may transmit on an optional basis.13
8. NWS requests a number of modifications to the list of
authorized event codes. First, NWS requests that the
Commission adopt a naming convention for state and local
event codes.14 Under the naming convention suggested by
NWS, the third letter of all hazardous state and local event
codes would be limited to one of four letters: ``W'' for
warnings, ``A'' for watches, ``E'' for emergencies, and
``S'' for statements.15 Events that pose a significant
threat to public safety and/or property, have a high
probability of occurrence in a particular location, and
have a relatively short onset time would be titled
``warnings.'' Events would be titled ``watches'' where they
pose a significant threat to public safety and/or property,
but either the onset time or probability of occurrence or
location is uncertain. The title ``emergency'' would be
reserved for future applications that do not meet the
definition of warning or watch but are of such a nature that
the information is important and may require public
response. Follow-up messages would be titled as
``statements.'' NWS states that the naming convention would
make possible a wider range of consumer products without
lessening the current capabilities of the EAS or NWR-SAME.
SBE endorses the suggested naming convention, noting that it
will make it much easier to design consumer grade equipment
which allows consumers to select the events for which they
wish to be alerted.16
9. We seek comment on whether the suggested naming
convention should be adopted. We note that adoption of the
naming convention would require revision of the existing
event codes for Tornado Warning (TOR), Severe Thunderstorm
Warning (SVR) and Evacuation Immediate (EVI) to TOW, SVW and
IEW, respectively. Adding the revised codes and deleting
the existing codes for these three events would require any
broadcast station or cable system that wishes to participate
in state and local EAS alerts to modify or upgrade its EAS
equipment to handle the revised codes. In addition, we seek
comment on ways to ease the transition in the event that we
adopt the naming convention. Specifically, we seek comment
on whether we should add the revised codes suggested by NWS
for Tornado, Severe Thunderstorm and Evacuation Warnings,
while also retaining the existing codes for these events for
some specified length of time to allow continued
functionality of existing EAS equipment through its expected
lifespan. Based on discussions between Commission staff and
NWS, we believe that NWS has the capability to transmit both
the existing codes and the revised codes for these three
events. We seek comment on what issues arise for EAS
participants if NWS transmits both the existing codes and
the revised codes for these three events.
10. We are mindful that the Commission has only recently
adopted final rules requiring that broadcast stations and
cable systems install EAS equipment.17 Thus, we are
particularly interested in ascertaining any costs that
broadcast stations and cable systems participating
voluntarily in state and local EAS alerts may incur if the
naming convention is adopted.18 In addition, to assist us
in determining the best course to take, we request specific
comment on the following questions: Is it possible to
modify all existing EAS equipment to receive the revised
codes through software upgrades or will hardware upgrades be
required? What will it cost to upgrade existing EAS
equipment to receive the revised codes? Will some broadcast
stations and cable systems simply choose not to participate
voluntarily in state and local EAS alerts rather than make
the modifications? If so, how many and how does this
balance with the benefits of the new codes? How can we
ensure that revisions to state and local event codes do not
cause an emergency warning to be missed? What happens to an
EAS decoder that has not been upgraded if it receives a
revised code transmitted by NWS? What issues arise if we
authorize the continued use of EAS equipment that can only
receive the existing codes for an indefinite period of time?
What is the expected lifespan of existing EAS equipment? If
we authorize the manufacture and sale of EAS equipment with
the existing codes for a specified period of time, how long
should we give manufacturers and distributors to reduce or
upgrade existing stock? Additionally, if we authorize the
continued use of EAS equipment that can only receive the
existing codes for a specified period of time, how long
should we give broadcast stations and cable systems
participating voluntarily in state and local EAS alerts to
replace or upgrade EAS equipment? Finally, if we adopt the
revised and new EAS codes, will there be any adverse effects
or additional costs on broadcast stations and cable systems
that transmit digital signals?
11. NWS also requests that we add new event codes for
emergency conditions not included in the current list,
modify the titles of two existing codes to include weather
events that are likely to occur in tandem, and add new event
codes for certain administrative messages and non-EAS
applications.19 The Commission has also received other
recommendations for new event codes. A complete listing of
the existing and recommended event codes is attached as
Appendix A. We seek comment on whether we should amend the
rules to add the recommended event codes. In addition, we
seek comment on whether there are other event codes that
should be added to the list. We also request comment on
what equipment modifications would be needed to implement
the recommended changes and on the costs of such
modifications. Further, we seek comment on what effect the
addition of these new event codes would have on existing EAS
equipment that is not capable of receiving these codes.
12. SBE suggests that the Commission include a cancellation
code for each event code in the current list and for each
event code that will be added to the list.20 In SBE's view,
cancellation codes are needed for situations where a warning
can be cancelled prior to its issued expiration time. SBE
notes that in some cases the warning code has been reissued
to announce cancellation of the event, but the EAS generated
crawl made it appear that the warning was being reissued.
NAB supports SBE's suggestion to add cancellation codes,
asserting that this change would consider the needs of
broadcasters as well as the need of the listening and
viewing public to be informed during an emergency
situation.21 We are not convinced that the cancellation
codes suggested by SBE are necessary, but seek further
comment on this suggestion. We question whether
cancellation codes are necessary given that EAS messages
already contain a code that specifies the valid time period
of the message. In particular, we seek comment on how
frequently situations arise where a warning can be cancelled
prior to its issued expiration time. In addition, we seek
comment on what equipment modifications would be needed to
implement cancellation codes and on the costs of such
modifications.
13. Location Codes. Location codes are six-digit numerical
codes used in the transmission of EAS messages that indicate
what geographic areas may be affected by an emergency.
These codes have three separate parts. The ``SS'' portion
of the location code is a two-digit number that identifies
the state or territory in which the emergency is located.
The ``CCC'' portion of the location code is a three-digit
number that identifies the county or city affected by the
emergency. The ``P'' portion of the location code is
optional and allows the message originator to divide a
county into nine sections to further pinpoint the affected
portion of the county. The ``SS'' and ``CCC'' numbers are
unique Federal Information Processing Standard (``FIPS'')
numbers assigned by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology. The ``SS'' numbers are listed in Section
11.31(f) of the Rules.22 The ``CCC'' numbers are contained
in the State EAS Mapbook.
14. NWS requests that we add new location codes to cover
marine areas, which are not presently included in the
location codes specified in Section 11.31(f) of the Rules.23
The marine areas are immediate offshore areas likely to be
affected by extreme weather conditions and are identified by
two-digit numbers that would comprise the ``SS'' portion of
the location code.24 A listing of the marine location codes
requested by NWS is attached as Appendix B. We seek comment
on whether we should include these location codes in Section
11.31. We also seek comment on what equipment modifications
would be needed to implement this request and on the costs
of such modifications. Further, we seek comment on what
effect the addition of these new marine location codes would
have on existing EAS equipment that is not capable of
receiving these codes.
15. NWS and SBE both request the addition of an entire
country location code. SBE states that an entire country
location code is needed so that multiple alerts are not
necessary to activate the entire country when a national
level emergency situation arises.25 NWS recommends that the
000000 location code be used for a message affecting all or
a large portion of the country. We seek comment on whether
we should ask the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(``FEMA'') to use the 000000 location code when a national
level EAS message is originated by the federal government.
We also request comment on whether this would have any
effect on existing EAS equipment.
16. In addition, NWS points out that since consumer
products only respond to receipt of the county location code
programmed into the unit, which is usually the consumer's
location, the consumer products would not respond to the
000000 location code. To remedy this problem, NWS suggests
that when the EAS equipment at broadcast stations and cable
systems receive a national level EAS message, the equipment
could, in addition to retransmitting the event code and the
accompanying 000000 location code, also trigger transmission
of all of the county location codes stored within the
equipment. This ``triggering'' proposal would allow
consumer products that activate only upon the location code
for the county in which the product is located to be
activated for national EAS messages accompanied by the
000000 location code. We are concerned that adoption of the
``triggering'' proposal would require costly modification of
existing equipment at broadcast stations and cable systems.
However, we seek comment on whether we should permit this as
an optional feature of EAS equipment. Further, we are not
aware of any significant number of consumer devices which
rely upon EAS transmissions of broadcast stations and cable
systems. We seek comment on the existence of consumer
devices which monitor broadcast stations and cable systems
rather than NWS weather transmitters.
17. NWS also requests that we permit the use of any
combination of the standard alphabet and numbers in the
``CCC'' portion of the location code.26 NWS states that
organizations responsible for the warning communications
associated with special facilities - such as nuclear power
plants, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons storage
facilities, and plants that produce and store hazardous
materials - are now using or evaluating the use of NWR as
their primary radio communications system. Allowing the
geographic code blocks to include both numbers and letters
plus the * symbol, NWS says, would enable these
organizations to create up to 1.4 million possible location
code and message combinations. Text messages could be
stored in each receiver that, depending on the code
received, provide almost site specific information such as
shelter in place information, evacuation routes, and safe
areas. In its comments on the NWS Petition, SBE expresses
concern that if this regionally customized location coding
is not explicitly included in the Part 11 rules, equipment
manufacturers will not allow such flexibility in their
equipment for fear of FCC equipment certification
problems.27 In this regard, SBE states that it has
repeatedly been told by some manufacturers that unless
coding is exactly specified in the FCC rules, the modified
or supplemental coding will not be put into the
manufacturer's equipment. Thus, SBE asserts that it cannot
support NWS's request for customized location coding without
an assurance that every bit of code customizing is expressly
included in Part 11. SBE adds that the flexibility sought
by NWS with the customized location coding could be better
accomplished by adoption of SBE's suggestion for a protocol
for text transmission, which we discuss below. We seek
comment on NWS's request and on the concerns raised by SBE
with respect to this request.
18. Originator Codes. Originator codes are three-letter
codes used in the transmission of EAS messages that identify
who originally initiated the activation of the EAS. A list
of authorized originator codes is set forth in Section
11.31(d) of the Rules.28
19. NWS asks that we revise its originator code from WXR to
NWS. While we agree with NWS that this revision would make
its originator code more easily recognizable to EAS
participants, we believe that it raises the same concerns
discussed above with respect to the revision of existing
event codes to implement NWS's suggested naming convention.
Adding the NWS code and deleting the WXR code could have a
substantial adverse impact on the use of the EAS for state
and local emergency purposes because NWS is the originator
of emergency weather information. Any broadcast station or
cable system that wishes to participate in state and local
EAS alerts would need to modify or upgrade its EAS equipment
to handle the revised code. We seek comment on whether we
should revise NWS's originator code from WXR to NWS.
Further, to ease the transition in the event that we revise
NWS's originator code, we seek comment on whether we should
add the NWS code, while also retaining the existing WXR code
for some specified length of time to allow continued
functionality of existing EAS equipment through its expected
lifespan.
20. Equipment authorization. EAS equipment is required to
be certified by the Commission in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Subpart J of Part 2 of the
Commission's Rules.29 Accordingly, we seek comment on what
effect the proposed and requested revisions to the EAS codes
discussed above may have on Commission certification of
existing EAS equipment. In addition, we invite comment from
equipment manufacturers on how we can make the equipment
authorization process more flexible to accommodate changes
in EAS codes.
21. We also seek comment on whether, as an alternative to
revising the lists of State and local EAS event and location
codes, we should amend the Rules to provide that any
modifications to existing authorized EAS equipment that are
necessary to implement revisions in EAS codes are Class I
permissive changes that do not require a new application for
and grant of equipment certification.30 Under this
alternative, entities subject to the Commission's EAS
requirements could satisfy their obligations with equipment
designed to function with either the existing codes or an
expanded range of codes. Additional State and local event
and location codes could be developed directly by State and
local officials, broadcasters and cable operators, equipment
manufacturers and other interested parties. The use of
these codes and the equipment needed to access them would be
implemented on a permissive basis as determined by the
specific needs and interests of the local area participants.
This approach would eliminate the need to conduct
rulemakings to revise the State and local event codes and
location codes, and would afford equipment manufacturers
greater flexibility in the design and modification of EAS
equipment. We request comment on alternative means of
addressing the need for changed EAS codes.
EAS Testing
22. Current Part 11 rules require broadcast stations and
cable systems to retransmit the Required Monthly Test
(``RMT'') within 15 minutes of receipt of the RMT message.31
SBE requests that we extend the relay window for RMTs from
15 minutes to 60 minutes.32 SBE asserts that if
broadcasters have more time to relay a RMT, they will likely
be able to insert it into a less disruptive portion of
programming, which will increase acceptance of EAS. NAB and
Fox support this proposal.33 We tentatively conclude that a
longer relay window for RMTs would ease scheduling
difficulties for all EAS participants without negatively
affecting EAS test procedures. Accordingly, we propose to
amend Part 11 to increase the time for retransmitting RMTs
to 60 minutes from the time of receipt of the RMTs and seek
comment on this proposal.
Modulation Level of EAS Codes
23. SBE requests that we reduce the modulation level of the
EAS codes from 80% to 50% of full channel modulation
limits.34 SBE states that in most cases the tone insertion
equipment must be inserted after station processing to
attain the required modulation level. According to SBE,
this situation is ``adverse to acceptable engineering
practice.''35 We agree with SBE and propose to amend
Section 11.51(f) of the Rules to permit a minimum modulation
level of 50%. We invite comment on this proposal.
Compatibility of EAS Equipment with NWR-SAME System
24. NWS requests that we amend Section 11.33(a)(4) and
(a)(5) of the Rules to permit EAS decoders to display or log
receipt of only those event codes and accompanying location
codes for which the decoder is programmed for mandatory
receipt and those optionally set by the device user.36
Section 11.33(a)(4) and (a)(5) requires EAS decoders to
display messages from any valid EAS header codes received.37
Therefore, EAS participants monitoring NWR-SAME
transmissions receive every message transmitted, even test
messages originated by NWS. We have received several
reports from broadcasters who were unhappy with receiving
unwanted NWS messages, and some have even stopped monitoring
NWR on their EAS equipment. To address this problem, we
seek comment on whether we should amend Part 11 to permit
equipment manufacturers to include an optional feature in
EAS equipment that would allow EAS users the capability to
program their EAS decoders to select only certain received
EAS messages for processing. This selection capability
would only apply to EAS messages that contain state and
local event codes. Because this selection capability would
be an optional feature of EAS equipment, existing EAS
decoders which function according to the original
specifications would still be in compliance with Section
11.33.
Protocol for Text Transmission
25. The existing EAS rules are designed to function with
both radio and television systems and to accommodate
information received in either audio or text formats.
Subject to certain requirements that are intended to ensure
that persons with disabilities have access to emergency
information, television broadcasters and cable operators
participating in the EAS system have the option as to
whether to pass audio or text information on to the public.
SBE does not propose any changes in terms of these options,
but requests that we amend the Part 11 rules to include a
more specific protocol for text transmission.38 If included
in the relevant equipment and utilized by entities
participating in the EAS system, SBE suggests that a
protocol for text transmission would improve the options
available to those broadcasters and cable operators desiring
to make greater use of already formatted text messages.
This would include, according to SBE, those broadcasters
wishing to include detailed disaster information updates in
the next programming break or newscast rather than
immediately upon reception. SBE maintains that the lack of
a detailed text transmission capability has caused
considerable criticism of EAS, particularly from the hearing
impaired community and local emergency managers. SBE
suggests that EAS would have ``the ultimate capabilities of
disaster warning as well as disaster follow up management if
the proper means of text transmission were included in the
protocol.''39 Under SBE's suggestion, text information
would be transmitted immediately following the existing EAS
message format, using the existing Audio Frequency Shift
Keying (``AFSK'') technique. By providing the text message
following the existing EAS message, SBE states that ``text
can be incorporated without affecting existing decoders.''40
We seek comment on this suggestion, but we note that at this
time, we have no information or data to support the addition
of text messaging to the EAS system using the AFSK technique
or any other scheme. In addition, we are aware of no
comprehensive field tests that have been conducted to show
the viability of different text formats. Moreover, SBE
provides no data in its petition on the costs of adding text
processing to EAS equipment. Nevertheless, we seek comment
on whether we should amend the rules to provide broadcasters
and cable operators with additional text transmission
options.
26. As an alternative to SBE's suggestion, we could add a
local event code (TXT) that can be used as an indicator that
textual information will be transmitted after the End of
Message code or we could permit other modifications to the
EAS codes to test text transmission techniques. This would
allow for the testing of different textual formats and could
eventually lead to an industry standard. Another possible
alternative is the transmission of textual information on
sub-carrier or auxiliary signals. We seek comment on these
alternatives.
Use of Common EAS Equipment by Co-Located Broadcast Stations
and Cable Systems
27. Under the Part 11 rules, broadcast stations that are
co-owned and co-located with a combined studio and cable
systems that are co-owned and co-located with a combined
control facility are permitted to use a common set of EAS
equipment to comply with the EAS rules.41 SBE raises
concerns in its petition regarding co-owned, co-located
``key'' stations -- broadcast stations that are designated
as state or local primary EAS sources in their EAS plan and
thus are monitored by other stations in their EAS area.42
SBE states that since EAS equipment does not provide for the
relay of a message originated by itself, co-located key
stations that do not simulcast program originations must
originate tests and alerts separately. Because EAS encoders
are required to affix date/time codes automatically to all
messages,43 when the same EAS message is originated on co-
located key stations at different times, two apparently
separate messages for the same event circulate through the
EAS relay web, and automated, unattended, or manned stations
set to automatic will air both messages. SBE therefore
suggests that we amend Part 11 to provide that where more
than one of the co-owned and co-located broadcast stations
or cable systems are designated as key stations or systems,
the common EAS equipment must be configured such that the
EAS message of one key station or system is either simulcast
or relayed by the remaining key station(s) or system(s).
Although we have not received any reports of specific
instances of this problem from any state or local primary
EAS sources, we are concerned that confusion may result when
the same EAS message is originated on co-located key
stations or systems at different times. We accordingly seek
comment on SBE's suggestion. Commenters should address what
equipment modifications would be necessary to implement this
suggestion, and the costs associated with such
modifications.
Carriage of Audio of Presidential Messages from Non-EAS
Sources
28. SBE requests that in the case of a national EAS alert,
broadcast stations be permitted to air the President's voice
message from a source other than the EAS source from which
the alert was received.44 In support of this request, SBE
states that most broadcast stations are equipped with high
audio quality network connections, whereas the audio
received on an EAS decoder may be of questionable quality.
SBE also expresses concern that severe video to audio
synchronization problems may occur if a television station
chooses to air the video of the President from the station's
network feed, but is required to air the audio portion of
the President's message from the EAS source which provided
the activation. We invite comment on this request as it
applies to broadcast stations.
EAN Network
29. The EAN network was one of two networks used to
distribute national emergency messages from the federal
government. It consisted of a dedicated communications
service connecting industry networks, wire services and
common carriers with government activation points. The other
network used to distribute national level messages is the
PEP system which was originally developed to serve as a
backup to the EAN network. The PEP system consists of a
nationwide network of broadcast stations designated as
National Primary (``NP'') sources that are connected with
government activation points. In a Memorandum to the
Director of FEMA dated September 15, 1995, President Clinton
indicated that the PEP system would be the exclusive
distribution network for the national level EAS and directed
FEMA to ``[p]hase out the dedicated circuitry and associated
equipment of the Emergency Action Notification (EAN) network
and incorporate the network nodes into the national-level
EAS as required.''45 Consistent with this directive, FEMA
approved the removal of all EAN network equipment and
circuits.46 Accordingly, because the EAN network no longer
exists, we propose to delete those portions of the Part 11
rules which reference the EAN network and its participants.
International High Frequency Stations
30. In a letter dated August 30, 1996, the National
Association of Shortwave Broadcasters, Inc. (``NASB'')
requested that the Commission exempt FCC licensed
international HF broadcast stations from the requirement to
purchase and install EAS equipment.47 Under Section
11.54(b)(9) of the Rules, stations in the International
Broadcast Service (``IBS'') are required to cease
broadcasting immediately upon receipt of a national-level
EAS message and must remain off the air until they receive
an EAS message terminating the activation.48 IBS stations
may, however, be issued an emergency authorization by the
FCC, with the concurrence of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy (``OSTP'') in the Executive Office of the
President, to transmit federal government broadcasts and
communications.
31. In support of its request, NASB asserted that the
technical and political concerns which gave rise to the
requirements of Section 11.54(b)(9) are no longer relevant.
On September 13, 1996, Commission staff forwarded NASB's
request to the OSTP for comment.49 After consulting with
the White House Military Office and FEMA, OSTP responded
that it had no objection to granting NASB the requested
exemption.50 By letter dated December 20, 1996, the
Commission staff exempted all FCC licensed international HF
broadcast stations from the requirement to purchase and
install EAS equipment.51 We propose to amend Part 11 to
eliminate the requirement that international HF broadcast
stations purchase and install EAS equipment and to delete
Section 11.54(b)(9).
Other Matters
32. NWS and SBE have also suggested a number of other
changes. For example, NWS suggests that we delete from the
State and local EAS event code list certain events that in
its view do not provide information about immediate life-
threatening situations; and that we include an explicit
statement in the Part 11 rules that EAS equipment
manufacturers should ensure that their equipment is
compatible with the non-EAS applications of NWR-SAME. SBE
suggests that we add the event code for Evacuation Immediate
situations to the list of national event codes for which
immediate transmission is required; that we require location
code verification of all EAS tests and activations; that we
replace the Required Monthly Test with a Required Quarterly
Test; that we make the two-tone Attention Signal optional;
and that we take steps to ``coax'' participation in EAS at
the local level. We do not propose to adopt these
suggestions because amendments to the rules in these areas
appear either unnecessary or not in the public interest.
Nevertheless, parties may comment on these matters if they
choose.
IV. CONCLUSION
33. In this NPRM, we solicit comment on revisions to the
EAS rules suggested in petitions for rulemaking filed by NWS
and SBE. We seek comment on additions and modifications to
the list of digital header codes used in the transmission of
EAS messages. In addition, we propose to increase the relay
time for RMTs, to reduce the modulation level of the EAS
codes, to delete references in the EAS rules to the EAN
network and its participants, and to delete the requirement
that international HF stations purchase and install EAS
equipment. We request comment on all of the issues and
proposals addressed in this NPRM and encourage full
participation from broadcast licensees and cable operators,
equipment manufacturers, state and local emergency
management personnel, and other interested parties. We also
invite comment on what effects the proposals and issues
addressed in this NPRM may have on consumer equipment.
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
34. Comments and reply comments. Pursuant to Sections
1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§
1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or
before 75 days after publication in the Federal Register,
and reply comments on or before 105 days after publication
in the Federal Register. Comments may be filed using the
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (``ECFS'') or
by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents
in Rulemaking Proceedings, 13 FCC Rcd 11322, 11326 (1998).
35. Comments filed through ECFS can be sent as an
electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-
file/ecfs.html. Generally, only one copy of an electronic
submission must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking
numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however,
commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments
to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the
caption. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by
Internet e-mail. To obtain filing instructions for e-mail
comments, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov,
and should include the following words in the body of the
message, ``get form