Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. ...

Federal Communications Commission FCC 02-64other things, these commenters assert that low-cost, FCC-certified decoders have not become available asanticipated by the Commission in the LPFM proceeding because the number of authorized LPFMstations is currently too small to create sufficient demand for the manufacture of such devices. 171 Bycontrast, two LPFM applicants assert that they have allocated funds to purchase a combinedencoder/decoder unit. 17275. In the LPFM proceeding, the Commission concluded that LPFM stations should berequired to participate in EAS by installing EAS decoders only, rather than combined encoder/decoderunits. 173 We reasoned that this modified EAS requirement would balance the cost of compliance, theability of LPFM stations to meet that cost, and the needs of the listening public to be alerted inemergency situations. While we anticipated that FCC-certified decoders would become available forunder $1,000 in the near future, we stated that if certified decoder equipment is not available when thefirst LPFM stations go on the air, we can grant a temporary exemption for LPFM stations until such timeas it is reasonably available. 174 As of December 31, 2001, the Commission staff had granted 174construction permits for LPFM stations and a number of LPFM stations have begun operating. However,certified EAS decoders have not reached the market as quickly as we expected. Therefore, as stated inthe LPFM proceeding, we will grant a temporary exemption to LPFM licensees of the requirement toinstall FCC-certified decoders. Specifically, we will amend the Part 11 rules to provide that LPFMstations need not install EAS decoders until one year after the Commission publishes in the FederalRegister a public notice indicating that at least one EAS decoder has been certified.K. Other Matters76. In paragraph 32 of the NPRM, we stated that we did not propose to adopt various otherchanges to the EAS rules suggested by NWS and SBE because they appear to be either unnecessary ornot in the public interest, but we nevertheless invited interested parties to comment on thesesuggestions. 175 Although most of these suggested changes did not generate any comments, a fewcommenters addressed SBE’s suggestions to replace the Required Monthly Test with a RequiredQuarterly Test, 176 make the two-tone Attention Signal optional, 177 and add the Evacuation Immediate(EVI) event code to the list of national event codes for which we require immediate retransmission. 178Notably, SBE now recommends that these three suggestions not be adopted. 179 After reviewing the171172173174175CCB Supplemental Comments at 2; Prometheus Supplemental Comments at 2.Lexington Calvary Supplemental Comments at 1; Viernstein Supplemental Comments at 1.15 FCC Rcd at 2280.Id. at 2282.NPRM, 16 FCC Rcd at 7266.176Two commenters argue that the monthly tests are not a burden to EAS participants and therefore shouldremain in place. Named StBAs Comments at 17; WSAB/WA SECC Comments at 14.177Two commenters assert that making the attention signal optional would decrease the effectiveness of EAS atthe risk of public safety. Named StBAs Comments at 17; WSAB/WA SECC Comments at 14. Two commenterssupport making the attention signal optional. Ohio EMA Comments at 5; Seven Ranges Comments at 15.178Two commenters support adding the EVI code to the list of event codes for which retransmission isrequired. WSAB/WA SECC Comments at 15; Ohio EMA Comments at 5.179SBE Comments at 3; SBE Reply Comments at 9.30