The FCC has extended to March 15 and April 13, respectively, the deadlines for the filing of opening comments and reply comments in its NPRM proposing national EAS testing. Read the full order below.

ORDER

Adopted: February 24, 2010 Released: February 24, 2010

Revised Comment Date: March 15, 2010

Revised Reply Comment Date: April 13, 2010

By the Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau:

1. On January 12, 2010, the Commission adopted a Second Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (Second FNPRM) proposing to amend the Commission’s Part 11 rules governing the

Emergency Alert System (EAS) to provide for national testing of the EAS and collection of data from such tests. The Second FNPRM seeks comment on whether the proposed rules would effectively ensure accurate EAS testing at the national level. The Second FNPRM sets deadlines for filing comments and reply comments at 30 and 60 days after publication of the Second FNPRM in the Federal Register. On

January 29, 2010, a summary of the Second FNPRM was published in the Federal Register.

Accordingly, the deadline for filing comments was set at March 1, 2010, and the deadline for filing reply comments was set at March 30, 2010.

2. On February 18, 2010, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) filed a Motion for

Extension of Time seeking a 14-day extension of the deadlines for all interested parties to submit

Comments and Reply Comments in response to the Second FNPRM. NAB indicates that such an extension is warranted because it will enable NAB to help develop a more robust record in response to the Second FNPRM, particularly concerning the complex technical challenges and issues relevant to nationwide testing of the EAS. NAB also notes that the National Alliance of State Broadcasters Associations and NAB will hold the annual EAS National Summit in Washington, DC on February 28 to March 1, 2010. This conference will bring together representatives of the Commission, the Federal

Emergency Management Agency, Capitol Hill, and the broadcasting industry to discuss EAS, public warning and reliability, and emergency preparedness issues generally. NAB states that broadcasters intend to use this opportunity to address specifically the proposed nationwide testing of EAS and other matters raised in the Second FNPRM.

3. It is the policy of the Commission that extensions of time are not routinely granted.

However, such extensions may be warranted when, among other things, the additional time will serve the public interest. In the instant proceeding, we find that providing the requested limited extension would be beneficial to the development of a complete record on the issues and that granting the extension of time requested by NAB therefore serves the public interest. We therefore extend the comment deadline to Monday, March 15, 2010, and the reply comment deadline to Tuesday, April 13, 2010.

4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 4(j) of the Communications

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i) and (j), and Sections 0.191, 0.392, and 1.46 of the

Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.191, 0.392, and 1.46, the Motion for Extension of Time filed by the

National Association of Broadcasters IS GRANTED, and the deadlines for filing comments and reply comments in response to the Second FNPRM ARE EXTENDED to March 15, 2010 and April 13, 2010, respectively.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

James Arden Barnett. Jr., Rear Admiral (Ret.)

Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau

Your Association joined with 46 other State Broadcasters Associations in strong support of the free, local, over-the-air television broadcast industry by filing Reply Comments in the FCC’s National Broadband Plan proceeding.  The Reply Comments focus on the CTIA-CEA proposal to reclaim broadcast spectrum by transitioning U.S. television broadcasters in all markets to a “Single Frequency Network” architecture.  Every station would retain a full 6 MHz, but would have to operate via a network of lower-power transmitters to cover an entire market.  In our pleading, we made the following points:

• The CTIA-CEA proposal includes no supporting technical or financial data, so it is little more than speculation.
• Local broadcasters are small, local businesses compared to wireless providers and provide service free to consumers.  Local broadcaster cannot build and operate the same kinds of high-cost networks that wireless carriers use.
• CTIA has argued that lack of available tower capacity and tower sites is one of the reasons they need more spectrum.  Ironically, forcing broadcasters to compete for the same towers and sites wireless providers use could result less efficient use of wireless spectrum.
• CTIA and CEA have greatly underestimated the costs of the proposed transition and have not explained how broadcasters could pay the vastly higher operating costs.
• ATSC was not designed to be used in a Single Frequency Network architecture, and attempting to backward engineer this would add significant costs and degrade performance.
• A second transition would require major service interruptions in all markets, compromising the Emergency Alert System.  Since the dates of these service interruptions would have to be publicized in advance, the transition would pose substantial public safety risks. 

The State Associations support FCC efforts to initiate a constructive dialog about how regulatory changes can improve broadcasting service, and the CTIA-CEA Comments may deserve more consideration. However, the comments should be recognized for what they are:  constructive in intent with a high level of speculation.