The Broadcast Warning Working Group (BWWG) just received a PDF copy of the National EAS Test Report entitled, “Strengthening the Emergency Alert System (EAS): Lessons Learned from the Nationwide EAS Test”.

We have not yet read and digested this report, but decided that it needs to get out to the widest possible audience as fast as possible.

The BWWG

DOC-320152A2-1

The National Test: What Do We Know?

 FEMA originated the first-ever national EAS test over one year ago on November 9, 2011.  EAS stakeholders are still waiting for action from the FCC on what the test accomplished.  Most of what we know officially about test issues has come from FEMA. According to information quoted below in a FEMA post dated June 12, 2012, the test chalked up some successes:[1]

• All Primary Entry Point stations were connected during the test and over 90 percent were able to receive and relay the EAS message.
• The majority of EAS participants across the country were able to receive and relay the test message.
• Active participation of the EAS community assisted in station and facility-level improvements before and after the test.
• The EAS community took a proactive role in informing a FEMA IPAWS EAS Best Practices Guide and providing public information on the test.

•  The test elevated public awareness, providing important information on EAS within the landscape of public alert and warning.

Under the category of “lessons learned”, FEMA said:

• Outreach to the EAS community was essential to communicate expectations, develop EAS device best practices, and reinforce the purpose of testing.
• When all technical areas of the system are properly addressed, the National EAS functions as intended and can be improved.
• Regular and frequent testing of EAS is essential to identify mitigation strategies for a more resilient and effective system.
• EAS improvement is a process that takes time and requires a coordinated effort of diverse participants at multiple levels with varying roles and responsibilities.

•  Coordinated state and territory-wide EAS Tests in Alaska, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Nevada were essential to understand the limitations of EAS well in advance of the Test.

What We Observed About the National Test

Those of us who observed the event are well aware of other problems that marred the test. Here are several.

1.         FEMA had an equipment problem that caused a nationwide feedback loop. FEMA has assured the EAS community that this problem has already been fixed.

2.         A second problem was identified by Monroe Electronics, one of the EAS equipment vendors, in a filing with the FCC, Monroe said:

“On December 15 Monroe Electronics filed with the FCC a statement that ignoring the “time of transmission” or “effective time” has “the very real potential of hindering the security and effectiveness of next generation alerting systems, including a possible impact on coordination between EAS, CAP EAS and CMAS/PLAN alert messaging.”

Some EAS equipment, Monroe relates, “acted on the “time of transmission” of the alert in the JJJHHHMM portion of the SAME header, treating the start time of the EAN message as 3 minutes past the actual start of the event. Other EAS equipment, they relate, “disregarded the JJJHHMM “time of transmission” of the alert”.[2]

The time problem potentially applies to all EAS events, not just national tests.

3.         Another problem identified long before the national test took place is cable override. Not all cable systems have the capability to do selective override when an EAS event occurs. This means that on-air stations that may be carrying emergency protective action information after an EAS warning has been issued can be interrupted by an EAS message carried by the cable company not capable of selective override. This is a very complex issue with, according to cable industry experts, no hope of a rapid and/or cost-effective solution that will satisfy both cable operators and the EAS community.

The cable override problem just made news. A cable system in Tennessee recently overrode a local TV station carrying much-needed protective actions with an EAS activation. However, the EAS event did not have the proper End-Of-Message (EOM) code – locking the TV station up until the equipment timed out. The Tennessee Broadcasters Association, long aware of this issue, was quoted in an article in the Tennessean newspaper dated January 31, 2013:

“The broadcasters association has been working for two years to convince the FCC that “forced tuning,” a cable override of local television stations, is potentially dangerous for viewers,” said Whit Adamson, the association’s president. In a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in May, Adamson requested a “selective override” for local Nashville news stations. The letter has not yet received a response, Adamson said.”[3]

4.         The next problem has to do with EAS equipment that apparently aborted the EAN when that equipment detected a second set of headers.  We have to thank FEMA’s now corrected issue that caused the “echo” problem that exposed this apparent device flaw. Note: The BWWG is intentionally and carefully using the modifier “apparent” because we think that simple tests in FEMA’s own conformance lab can confirm or deny if this problem exists, and if so, to what degree. Broadcasters in the state of Nevada, with two PEP stations, have again volunteered to be the site of another “mini-National EAS test to determine if this problem has been resolved.

5.         A key national EAS EAN element still needs to be tested. As we know, the EAN is the one exception to the EAS two-minute message time limit Until we have test longer than two minutes, we will not really know if the longer EAN message length for national EAS emergency warnings actually works as intended under real world conditions.

6. EAS stakeholders are still wondering about the fate of the FCC Mapbook.  Will it stay or will it go?

7. Will the FCC adopt the 000000 national FIPS code, sometimes referred to as the ANSI number, or not?

What’s Next?

 The Broadcast Warning Working Group hopes that the FCC acts soon to address all open EAS issues. Knowing that only one of the national test issues we outlined has been fixed as of February, 2013, to say the least, is disappointing.

Much of the equipment tested on November 9, 2011 has since been replaced with new CAP-aware gear. While the classic EAS functionality of new equipment should be the same as the classic EAS boxes for the national EAN code, that assumption has not yet been tested in the real world.

Overall testing under controlled, closed laboratory conditions beyond FEMA’s excellent IPAWS OPEN testing program is needed. We hope that the FCC can work out an arrangement with FEMA to do testing for overall EAS performance and conformance.

Planning a second national test should be an FCC priority to make sure all currently installed EAS equipment made by different manufacturers can “play nice” with each other, and to assess progress in resolving all outstanding issues.  Part of the process leading to the next test should be an improved national test reporting system that will confirm for us that our reports have been filed, just like countless other online reporting sites for other FCC systems can do.

As part of the preparations for the National EAS Test, the FCC revised its EAS Handbook to reflect the realities of an EAN message. They prepared an EAS Handbook specifically for the 2011 National Test. The FCC said they would revise the EAS Handbook in conjunction with the rewrite of the Part 11 Rules. However, since the National Test, there’s been no revision to the Handbook and EAS clients are apparently back to using the faulty 2007 revised Handbook as mandated by FCC regulations. This leaves EAS clients open and vulnerable to mistakes and problems if a real National Warning is issued.

The BWWG also wishes to remind the EAS community that the FCC said in its Fifth Report and Order that it was deferring ruling on SECC rules, RWT/RMT changes, the EAS Checklist, and other issues until analysis of the National EAS Test results was completed.  With no word yet to date on those outstanding items, we are led to the presumption that those decisions are on hold until the long-awaited national test report gives them some direction. This seems to put on hold approval of revised EAS plans by the FCC. If we are wrong about this, we hope the FCC will tell us.

There are other areas that FEMA can help with – the sooner the better in our opinion. As of this writing (February, 2012), the only activity that most people are seeing coming through IPAWS OPEN polling are the Monday morning weekly tests. PEP needs to be brought on board as the national IPAWS OPEN warning component. FEMA also needs to redouble its efforts to encourage certification of local and state warning centers to originate warning messages through FEMA IPAWS.

There is a lot left to do. We have only skimmed the surface of CAP capabilities that can enhance the EAS, and creating partnerships that cover the warning process from origination to reception by people at risk. Working toward a truly effective national warning strategy and system in which EAS plays a major role will pay off in helping to save more lives and property.

The BWWG invites you to air your constructive thoughts and suggestions on this article on the EAS Forum list server: http://lists.radiolists.net/mailman/listinfo/eas

Core BWWG member and long time supporter of improved public warnings Ann Arnold passed away Saturday, September 1. She was 67. Her relentless support for improved warnings will be sorely missed by us all, but Ann’s work in other areas on both the Texas state level and nationally leave a deep void in our industry that will not easily be filled. The following obituary was prepared by the Texas Association of Broadcasters.

In a fifty-year professional career, she was a groundbreaking Texas journalist, first female press secretary to a Texas governor, and the longtime president of the Texas Association of Broadcasters. For 25 years, Arnold’s vision, fearlessness and tenacity allowed TAB to flourish and prosper. Her accomplishments and leadership helped ensure the continued vitality of the Texas broadcast industry.

“Ann Arnold was an extraordinary and inspiring woman,” said TAB Chairman Mary Mike Hatcher of Bryan Broadcasting.

“She was fearless in her advocacy for local radio and television broadcasters, for the public’s right to know how elected officials run our government, and in her long fight with cancer,” she said. “Texas is a better place because of her.”

Beverly Ann Watson was born April 6, 1945 in Jackson, Mississippi, the first daughter of Bill and Mildred Watson. She spent her early years in Little Rock, where her interest in journalism was fostered by the publicity generated by the forced integration of Central High School in 1959.

“I was always fascinated by the media and its ability to uncover the truth…how important that was,” she would say later.

After her family moved to Fort Worth in the 1960’s, journalism clearly became her passion. She started her junior high school newspaper, wrote for the L.D. Bell High School newspaper and moonlighted for community newspapers, covering evening city council and school board meetings. She attended Texas A&M Arlington, later transferring to the University of Texas at Austin where she graduated with a B.A. in Journalism in 1968. She worked three jobs to pay her way through college, including the Capitol bureau of the Dallas Times-Herald.

Arnold won a 1966 Headliners award for a Dallas Times-Herald series on LSD use and also worked on the Daily Texan staff. When she graduated Arnold joined UPI’s Capitol bureau under David Anderson, now a professor at the UT School of Law.

That year, she married her high school sweetheart, Reg Arnold, and worked at UPI while he finished law school. The couple’s first son, Bill, was born Jan. 14, 1972. Never one to slow down, Arnold was hanging sheetrock at home the day before Bill was born and a few weeks later jumped back into reporting on the gubernatorial election that featured a primary runoff between Frances “Sissy” Farenthold and Dolph Briscoe.

The Texas Capitol was rocked by a series of scandals in the early 1970s. Arnold reported on everything from state agency nepotism, the Sharpstown scandal, to a state official who used state paid postage stamps to buy a new pickup truck. Arnold joined the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in 1980 working in the newspaper’s Capitol bureau. While reporting on Gov.-Elect Mark White’s plans for his administration in 1982, he asked her to be his press secretary.

“I had never thought about leaving journalism,” she recalled and agreed on the condition the Administration be as open as possible with the public. She was the first female press secretary to a Texas Governor.

Serving as press secretary was hectic, made even more so by the birth of second son, Jon, in 1985. It was common to see months-old Jon crawling around the Governor’s Mansion and Press Office before he could walk. Gov. White’s administration brought MCC and other high tech industry to Texas, but the biggest accomplishment was passing education reform in a special session in 1984. When the Texas economy crashed in 1986, jeopardizing the hard-won education reforms and crucial state services, White persuaded the Texas Legislature to increase taxes in a bid to keep Texas’ future economic standing bright. it worked, but cost White re-election. After White left office, Arnold decided to check with doctors about nagging health problems.

She soon faced the biggest challenge of her life.  Doctors diagnosed her with leukemia and said she had six months to two years to live. Arnold rejected that death sentence, joined an experimental treatment program at UT’s M. D. Anderson facilities in Houston and lived a remarkable 20+ years with the disease. She was not one to stay home and feel sorry for herself.

In 1987, she was asked by a group of radio and TV station owners and operators to head up the Texas Association of Broadcasters, taking over the reins of the organization when long-time Executive Director Bonner McLane died suddenly. With her legendary power of persuasion and tireless dedication, Arnold developed a state and national reputation of championing the work of the Texas broadcast industry.

She was instrumental in broadcasters’ fight to achieve a positive business climate in Texas through her work at the Texas Capitol, before Congress and the Federal Communications Commission. Arnold also positioned TAB as a primary defender of Texas’ Open Government laws which were borne out of the very Sharpstown scandal she had covered years before. Arnold was recognized for Open Government efforts with the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas’ James Madison Award in 2001 which she received with then Texas Attorney General John Cornyn. She was broadcasters’ fiercest advocate for enhancing the Emergency Alert System and laid the groundwork for the successful effort to pass a Free Flow of Information Act in Texas.

During her tenure at TAB, Arnold doubled station membership, expanded an array of member services for stations and recruited top professional staff. She oversaw the creation of TAB’s permanent home just blocks from the State Capitol which the association has occupied since 1999. The building hosts industry events and meetings with legislators and other Texas and U.S. policy makers.

Arnold also grew the Texas Broadcast Education Foundation’s endowment and organized successful fundraisers to create scholarships honoring Lady Bird Johnson, Wendell Mayes, Vann Kennedy and Tom Reiff. She was President of the National Alliance of State Broadcast Associations in 2005. Texas broadcasters honored her for legacy of work on their behalf by presenting Arnold TAB’s first Lifetime Achievement Award in 2008.

“Ann was passionate about Texas and optimistic about the future,” said TAB Vice President Oscar Rodriguez. “She cherished the opportunity to help local broadcasters strengthen their communities and had yet to find the challenge that would daunt her,” he said. “The broadcast industry and local communities throughout Texas will long benefit from her dedication and passion.”

She is survived by her son and his wife, Merle and Julie Arnold of Fort Washington, Maryland, son Jonathan Arnold of Austin, and sister Sue March of Friendswood.

Memorial information is pending.
__________________________

 August 20, 2012

Dear National Weather Service:

You have been in the warning business longer than most of us. Warnings about weather that can affect our lives adversely are your mission and, in general, you do it well.

However, when you, the National Weather Service (NWS) became part of the Emergency Alert System (EAS), like it or not you became a syndicated provider of programming for all EAS participants, and the largest one at that.

A FLOOD OF MESSAGES

In early 1997, coincident with the launch of the EAS, there was a spate of bad weather in Southern California. And the NWS was there with timely warnings.

But there were too many warnings. You literally and figuratively flooded the EAS with repeated messages that in a short time drew the attention of program directors (or as we call them, PD’s). It was not “good” attention. The PD’s started demanding EAS messages not be relayed by their stations.

At that time the Chair of the Los Angeles County EAS Local Emergency Communications Committee (LECC), after hearing from a number of unhappy if not irate PD’s arranged a meeting with the Warning Coordination Meteorologist (WCM) for the NWS office that covered Los Angeles County.

COOPERATION

As he explained to the WCM, airing the local and state elements of EAS messaging is voluntary on the part of EAS participants, and he offered his opinion that if this type of message flooding continued, lots of EAS participants would “voluntarily” opt out over time.

He also explained that NWS EAS messages have to face the scrutiny that any program element must bear when it airs. It has to be clear, concise, and as close to broadcast quality as possible.

The WCM and his boss took his input to heart. They made a concerted effort to taper down the number of EAS events they would trigger when an extended storm sequence occurred. They also promised to keep their EAS messages under a minute.  With some exceptions, that office still follows those guidelines. Some other NWS offices, working cooperatively with other LECC’s, have done the same.

REACHING OUT

Yet, there is still a problem in the relationship between many of  the NWS local offices and EAS stakeholders.

Many EAS stakeholders perceive that the NWS is composed of local offices that could be described as being part of a loose confederacy. They set a lot of their local policies having to do with issuing EAS messages based on local climatic conditions – and rightly so.

Why? Local weather experts in each office learn local weather and roll out NWS products tailored to local conditions. This is good.

On the other hand, while some of these offices put the area affected by the weather event in the “lead” paragraph or message header, others do not. Some offices include a lot of boilerplate warnings that extend EAS messages beyond the two-minute limit (EAS receivers “time out” automatically at the two minute mark, so valuable information can be lost). Some offices even put out EAS events just to say a weather warning has been cancelled.

IT IS RAINING WARNINGS AGAIN IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND ELSEWHERE

Based on another string of bad Southern California weather resulting in NWS EAS “message flooding” during the past two weeks, we believe we could be heading towards a mass rejection of NWS EAS by EAS participants.

On August 17^th one of our core members counted six (6) Flash Flood Warnings (FFW) sent in two and one-half hours for one market he monitors, all lasting from one minute to 90 seconds. A log that we have seen from another state recorded four (4) Severe Weather Warnings were issued within three minutes!

The local NWS office was likely tracking progress of intense storm cells. All the people tuned in (if they even stayed tuned in) during this period certainly got the idea there were serious storms going on.

Nevertheless, PD’s would definitely take issue with weather warning message flooding that, among other things, can interfere with live real-time weather news coverage, or other program elements. The result is that the PD’s may decide to direct their stations to receive and log the NWS weather events – but will not forward any of them, which is all perfectly in tune with Part 11 that governs EAS compliance.

One more point. This issue is not limited to EAS. The new Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS) 90 character cell phone warning protocol now being rolled out nationally has the potential of alienating another but closely related warning audience. The people who received one recent CMAS warning on their smart phones were approximately 120 miles from the Flash Flood Warning area and were in no way threatened by flash flooding.  Better targeting for warnings is now technically possible for both EAS and CMAS.

SOLVE THE PROBLEM TOGETHER

How can NWS EAS message flooding be mitigated? A good first step would be for all NWS offices throughout the country to adopt common message standards after meeting with their local EAS participants, LECC’s, state EAS committees, and the emergency management community.

If NWS management in Silver Springs can manage this activity, that would be great. If not, the least that Silver Springs could do is to put out “the Word” to all their WCM’s that they have a serious problem they need to address ASAP.

Looking down the road, we may have a public/private EAS stakeholder common ground for discussions designed to improve all types of public warnings. But the current NWS local situation is urgent and needs action now.

Our organization, the Broadcast Warning Working Group (BWWG), would like to help. We are sure that state and local emergency managers, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) the National Alliance of State Broadcasting Associations (NASBA), local chapters of the Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE), and your federal EAS partners would like to help, too.

Please let us help us help you to preserve your ability to get your EAS warnings to people who need them by winning back the hearts and minds of PD’s across the land, if not an audience at risk that needs to hear warnings about bad weather that can hurt them.

As you may know, the broadcast industry is rife with  consolidation, meaning there is more and more “Central Planning” going on with TV, cable and radio facilities running automation systems that leave them with only two options: Either let message flooding continue, or shut off the faucet entirely.

The pressure on PD’s is to resist the relaying of any weather-related EAS messages because it just is easier for them to things that way. The result would reduce your effectiveness – and cause the broadcast community to miss out on relaying a lot of information that could be crucial to saving lives.

Together, we can fix this.

Regards,

The Broadcast Warning Working Group

Cc: Federal Communications Commission

Federal Emergency Management Agency

For further information: 

Richard Rudman

Core Member, the Broadcast Warning Working Group

rar.bwwg@gmail.com

There is a new development on the EAS front that we should watch – closely. The FCC released a public notice on August 17 stating that the FCC is going to “share” results of the national EAS test with the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The purpose, the notice gives for this is that the GAO is reviewing “progress made in modernizing the EAS, including review of the results of the nationwide EAS test and efforts underway to address any weaknesses in the EAS identified by the test.” [1]

As we know all too well the national test was not a test of a modernized EAS. There was no Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) component. If anything, the test represents a benchmark for where we were a decade ago. Although the test was clouded by what some call an “echo” caused by return feedback to the FEMA origination point that FEMA has told us it has already fixed, the glitches noted on some cable systems and inconsistencies in how EAS devices handled the EAN code may be core points that will come out in the FCC’s report.

Since the report will not be shared with the public, it is hard to know if many of us in the EAS stakeholder community will ever see it.[2]

What we are likely to see will be final touches to the yet unfinished re-write of Part 11. What the final version says, or does not say, about EAN procedures may tell us what the FCC wants us to know about their non-public test results report. Will the FCC require cable companies to accelerate progress toward a sensible cable override standard?  Will there be further work to assure under controlled laboratory conditions that all EAS devices will “play nice” with each other? Will there be a test before the June, 2015 sunset for CAP Converter boxes? Will there be clarification of the roles for local and state EAS Committees responsible for EAS monitoring assignments that impact the propagation of all EAS codes? Will the FCC require closed circuit testing of EAN propagation using EAS test codes that already exist but have never been used? Will there be a policy for or against live code testing? Can or will the GAO report influence FCC policy as outlined in Part 11? The list of unanswered questions The Broadcast warning Working Group (BWWG), sponsors of this Forum, hope will get answered in Part 11 goes on…

The EAS Forum has been a useful way for all of us to share EAS information so we can all learn from each other.  While we are waiting for the above mentioned shoes to drop, please feel free to post your thoughts on where we are and where we need to go.

At some point, hopefully soon, the BWWG hopes that government at all levels is really serious about providing better warnings to people at risk so they can take timely and proper protective actions to save more lives and property. If you noted that previous sentence contains the definition for what a warning is per reports that the Partnership for Public Warning (PPW) wrote nearly a decade ago that also gave birth to CAP, it is meant to. What the GAO will have to say about the EAS evolutionary process will be, to say the least, interesting, although we may never see that report, in an “un-redacted” form, either.

Starting July 9th, the FEMA announced that they plan to return to the Monday only schedule until the end of July.

Some of these RWTs have not gone off correctly.

For the most current information on which RWTs failed and what the FEMA plans as well as the FCC, you are invited to check the EAS Page at the Broadcasters’ Desktop Resource, http://www.theBDR.net/articles/fcc/eas/eas.html

The long-awaited deadline for those subject to the Federal Communications Commission’s art 11 EAS Rules is here  for Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) Compliance. Latest word is that there are at least 1000 back orders for equipment at this time. Sorry. No sympathy from me for those who are not in compliance today. There was, pun intended, ample “warning” this was really going to happen. Others may argue any number of mitigating circumstances, but anyone who doubted June 30 would be a real deadline was, in my opinion, in denial.

While there will certainly be many bumps on the road to better public warnings using the CAP, the importance of having an international open non-proprietary standard for overall warning dissemination can not and should not be overlooked or underestimated. That said, it will all be for naught if we do not work to build strong partnerships at all levels to encourage warning originators to get certified to use CAP and to look on the public warning function using many warning systems as an integral part of emergency response — not just an afterthought.

And, while we mark this date, let’s recognize the acknowledged “father” of the Common Alerting Protocol (or maybe its midwife?), Art Botterell, who brought this key concept to life during the short but productive existence of the Partnership For Public Warning.

Q:     I programmed my DASDEC with the IPAWS OPEN URL but have not seen any tests yet. When are they supposed to come through?

A:    The IPAWS OPEN EAS CAP RWT’s are set to go out during your local 11 AM hour on each Monday.  FEMA has set up a routine for testing so all tests, no matter where you are, will happen at your local 11:00 hour on Mondays.  Their routine begins in Guam and CNMI and walks through eight other US time zones.  If a CAP device is properly configured the operator will see only the RWT intended for their local time zone. There are some exceptions. Al Kenyon provided me with a list of states with their assigned time zones and state FIPS codes:

Q:     Have any firewall issues associated with IPAWS OPEN polling been identified?

A:    So far, no firewall issues have been identified. (If anyone has identified any IPAWS OPEN firewall issue, please let the BWWG know so we can post!)

Q:    When I entered a FIPS code for San Diego County for IPAWS OPEN, do I have to also program in the DC FIPS Code to get national EAS events?

A:    This should not be necessary since all boxes should have a default to recognize the EAN EAS code. The Commission has yet to rule on the 000000 All-US code.  Al Kenyon does not advise programming in the DC FIPS code into a CAP-EAS device unless it is done using an EAN-specific filter (or you are actually operating in the DC FIPS area).  Otherwise the EAS box will likely receive severe weather alerts for the DC area.

Q:    Are FIPS Codes the best/only granularity than can be selected under IPAWS OPEN right now?

A:    The CAP standard includes a provision to use geo shapefiles to specify targeted alerting areas.  As far as we know, current CAP-EAS devices do not now have the ability to read and interpret geo shapefiles. This type of geo-description is included in IPAWS OPEN messages supporting alerting pathways that are now more “targetable” such as cell tower/tower sector targeting and Enhanced Telephone Notification such as Reverse 911(tm).

Q:     What about programming EAS devices for statewide events that would be originated from CalEMA when they get certified to go through IPAWS OPEN without entering a lot of FIPS codes? [ In case anyone does not know what Boolean logic is:  http://www.ithacalibrary.com/sp/subjects/boolean ]

A:    CAP EAS devices should utilize Boolean logic  to accept alerts directed to the entire state based on filters accepting alerts for one or more counties within that state.  This may vary by manufacturer.

Q:    When will SAGE release their IPAWS OPEN profile?

A:    After checking with Sage EAS guru Harold Price yesterday, he says that they will release the SAGE IPAWS OPEN profile during the week of May 2-26.

Thanks again to Al and Harold for helping to provide answers to questions that came up at the meeting. If anyone has more questions, please email me off list at rar01@mac.com and I will try my best to come up with answers.

This update is a result of incorporating feedback and suggestions from a number of  SECC sources. Version 4.0 incorporates changes to the structure and operation of the SECC, and a FEMA graphic that illustrates the IPAWS OPEN structure.

Version 3.1 incorporates corrections and changes suggested by manufacturers and SECC Chairs specific to CAP provisions in Part 11. This version includes a table that may be useful to describe CAP monitoring assignments for your state. Updated versions will be posted if warranted.

The Broadcast Warning Working Group held an SECC plan writing workshop during the recent NAB Convention. Twenty-five EAS stakeholders representing state committees, local committees, manufacturers, and emergency management attended. The goal was to come up with a sample state plan with elements that take revisions we know about so far to Part 11 into account. The plan, in Microsoft Word .doc format is posted here for download.

Different browsers handle downloads of .doc and .PDF differently. If your download of the sample plan produces an error message, there is a simple work-around. Save the downloaded file and either open it from your download folder or by using the “Open” option for MS Word or Open Office. If you still experience download problems, email rar01@mac.com and a copy will be sent to you directly.

SECC_SAMPLE_PLAN_Version 4.0