Federal Communications Commission                           DA 13-1575
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Review of the Emergency Alert System; 
Independent Spanish Broadcasters Association, 
the Office of Communication of the United 
Church of Christ, Inc., and the Minority Media 
and Telecommunications Council, Petition for 
Immediate Relief;
Randy Gehman Petition for Rulemaking
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
           EB Docket No. 04-296
ORDER 
Adopted: July 15, 2013 Released: July 15, 2013
By the Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau:  
I. Introduction
1. In this Order we address the petitions for waiver of Section 11.56 of the Commission’s 
rules,
1
filed by Southern Communications Volunteers, Inc. (SCV), Applegate Media, Inc. (Applegate),
Telecommunications Management, LLC and Avenue Broadband Communications, Inc., (New Wave), 
Lakeview Cable, Inc. (Lakeview), RB3, LLC and Arklaoktex, LLC, d/b/a Reach Broadband (Reach),
2
(collectively, the Petitioners).
3
  Section 11.56 requires Emergency Alert System (EAS) Participants to 
have installed operational equipment that can receive and process EAS alerts in the Common Alerting 
Protocol (CAP) by June 30, 2012.
4
  For the reasons set out herein, we deny these petitions.  
                                                     
1
47 C.F.R. § 11.56.  
2
New Wave, Lakeview and Reach each filed requests for waivers of the Commission’s June 30, 2012 CAP deadline 
on behalf of multiple cable systems, each of which stated separate bases for the requests.  Thus, we are able to 
separate those requests for waiver that are based solely on vendor delay.  Accordingly, this order resolves:
? New Wave’s request for waiver of the June 30, 2012 deadline on the basis of vendor delay for its Ashdown, 
Arizona; Brazil and Clinton, Indiana; and Westville and Coatesville, Illinois systems;  
? Lakeview’s request for waiver of the June 30, 2012 deadline on the basis of vendor delay for its 
Cache/Indiahoma, Oklahoma system; and
? Reach’s request for waiver of the June 30, 2012 deadline on the basis of vendor delay for its Eufala, Hondo, and 
Kenedy, systems.  
This Order does not address any other requests for waiver of the June 30, 2012 deadline contained in the filings of 
New Wave, Lakeview and Reach.
3
See Request for Waiver, EB Docket No. 04-296 (filed July 2, 2012) (SCV Petition); Request for Waiver, EB 
Docket No. 04-296 (filed June 29, 2012) (New Wave Petition); Request for Waiver, EB Docket No. 04-296 (filed 
June 29, 2012) (Lakeview Petition); Request for Waiver, EB Docket No. 04-296 (filed June 28, 2012) (Reach
Petition); Letter, Lindsey Riggs to FCC, EB Docket No. 04-296 (filed June 28, 2012) (Applegate Petition).
4
The EAS is a hierarchical alert message distribution system that delivers alerts initiated by federal, state and local 
alerting authorities utilizing the transmission facilities of radio and television broadcast stations, cable operators, 
                                               Federal Communications Commission                                     DA 13-1575
2
II. Background
2. In its 2007 EAS Second Report and Order, the Commission, among other things, 
mandated that EAS Participants be able to receive a CAP-formatted EAS alert message issued by the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) no later than 180 days after FEMA adopted technical 
standards for CAP.
5
  On September 30, 2010, FEMA published the technical standards and requirements 
for CAP-formatted EAS alerts, triggering the 180-day clock for EAS Participants to be able to receive 
CAP-formatted alerts.
6
  On November 18, 2010, the Commission adopted the Waiver Order, which 
extended the 180-day deadline for EAS Participants to meet the CAP-related obligations it adopted in the 
Second Report and Order until September 30, 2011.
7
  Finally, on September 16, 2011 the Commission
extended the deadline a final time, amending section 11.56 of the Commission's EAS rules to require 
EAS Participants to be able to receive CAP-formatted EAS alerts as required by Part 11 no later than June 
30, 2012.
8
3. SCV, New Wave, Lakeview, Reach, and Applegate filed petitions seeking temporary 
waiver of section 11.56 on the basis that they could not meet the June 30, 2012 deadline due to vendor 
delay.
9
  
III. Discussion
4. The Commission has authority to waive its rules if there is “good cause” to do so.
10
  The 
Commission generally finds such good cause where special circumstances warrant a deviation from the 
                                                                                                                                                                          
satellite radio and television service providers, and wireline video service providers, collectively referred to as “EAS 
Participants.”  See 47 C.F.R. §11.2(c).  CAP is an open, interoperable XML-based standard that allows an alert 
initiator to deliver information-rich alerts to multiple devices.  See Review of the Emergency Alert System; 
Independent Spanish Broadcasters Association, the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ, Inc., 
and the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, Petition for Immediate Relief; Randy Gehman Petition 
for Rulemaking, EB Docket 04-296, Fifth Report and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 642, 648  ¶ 10 (2012) (Fifth Report and 
Order).
5
See Review of the Emergency Alert System; Independent Spanish Broadcasters Association, The Office of 
Communication of the United Church of Christ, Inc., and the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, 
Petition for Immediate Relief, ET Docket No. 04-296, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 13275 ¶ 26 (2007) (EAS Second Report and Order).
6
See Review of the Emergency Alert System; Independent Spanish Broadcasters Association, the Office of 
Communication of the United Church of Christ, Inc., and the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, 
Petition for Immediate Relief; Randy Gehman Petition for Rulemaking, EB Docket 04-296, Fourth Report and 
Order, 26 FCC Rcd 13710, 13713 ¶ 4 (2011) (EAS Fourth Report and Order).
7
See Review of the Emergency Alert System, Order, EB Docket No. 04-296, 25 FCC Rcd 16376 ¶ 1 (2010) (Waiver 
Order).   
8
See Fourth Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 13711-12 ¶¶ 1 (2011).
9
See SCV Petition at 1, New Wave Petition at 3, Lakeview Petition at 1, Reach Petition at 2, Applegate Petition at 
1.
10
47 C.F.R. § 1.3. See Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
                                               Federal Communications Commission                                     DA 13-1575
3
general rule, and such deviation will serve the public interest.
11
  The waiver applicant faces a high hurdle 
and must plead with particularity the facts and circumstances that warrant a waiver.
12
5. We find that the Petitioners have failed the first prong of the Commission’s waiver 
analysis.  Vendor delay alone does not ordinarily constitute the “special circumstances” that would justify 
a waiver.
13
  In order to constitute “special circumstances” justifying a waiver, the delay must have arisen
from some event or events that occurred despite Petitioner’s diligent business operations, and not as a 
result of Petitioner’s actions.
14
  
6. The SCV, New Wave, Lakeview, and Reach waiver requests, however, show that they
chose to wait until very close to the deadline to order equipment, and thus any delay in receiving 
equipment was entirely attributable to each company’s business decisions.  SCV states that it did not 
order the equipment until May 24, 2012 because it had a long-standing relationship with its equipment 
vendor who normally “delivered the ordered equipment within a matter of days each time SCV 
ordered.”
15
  SCV also says it only ordered the equipment after its fund drive ended, which provided the 
money necessary to purchase the equipment.
16
  New Wave stated that it contacted its vendor in April, 
2012, and was told the equipment was on back order and would not be delivered in time to meet the June 
30, 2012 deadline.
17
  According to New Wave, it attempted unsuccessfully to obtain the required 
                                                     
11
Northeast Cellular, 897 F.2d at 1166 (citing WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir.1969), aff’d, 459 
F.2d 1203 (1973), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1027 (1972)).
12
WAIT Radio, supra, 418 F.2d at 1157.
13
See, e.g., Wendell & Associates Request to Waive the Period to Construct Unbuilt Station WKNJ (AM) 
Harriman, New York, File No. BMAP-200001023ACF, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 18576, 
18578 ¶ 7 (2002) (“vendor problems, whatever their cause, are ordinary risks for which businesses should prudently 
plan, and would not generally form the basis for a waiver”).  See also Application for Review of Specialized Mobile 
Radio Station WZZ–545, licensed to Motek Engineering San Jose, California, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 98 
F.C.C.2d 323 ¶¶ 4, 10 (1984) (“delays in the manufacture or shipment of equipment provide no basis for an 
extension …The nature of [the licensee’s] relationship with its supplier is the result of [its] independent business 
judgment and may not be used to absolve [it] or any other licensee from the … requirements [of] our rules.”);
Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC 
Docket No. 94-102, Order, 16 FCC Rcd 18330, 18354 Statement of Commissioner Michael Copps (2001) (“waivers 
will not be granted merely … because of delays by a vendor”).
14
See, e.g. Winnebago Cooperative Telephone Association, File No. EB-02-TS-663, Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14332, 
14333 ¶ 4 (EB 2003) (Winnebago) (Commission grants waiver where petitioner ordered equipment but after 
installing it, “found certain components of the EAS system missing [and] its vendor’s delivery of the missing 
components has been delayed.”); D&P Cable, Inc., File No. EB-02-TS-673, Order, 18 FCC Rcd 14336, 14337 ¶ 3
(EB 2003) (D&P Cable) (Commission grants waiver where petitioner installed the equipment and “once installed 
[found that the] equipment did not work properly … and submits that although its vendor promised prompt delivery 
of replacement EAS equipment, there has been a delay”).
15
See Letter, Marjorie Conner, Counsel to Southern Communications Volunteers, Inc., to Thomas Beers, Chief, 
Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission
(dated Aug. 24, 2012) (SCV Letter), at 1.
16
Id. at 2.
17
See Letter, James N. Moskowitz, Counsel to Telecommunications Management, LLC and Avenue Broadband 
Communications, Inc., to Thomas Beers, Chief, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland 
Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (dated September 5, 2012) (New Wave Letter), at 2, 3.
                                               Federal Communications Commission                                     DA 13-1575
4
equipment from other vendors, finally ordering the equipment from its initial vendor in June, 2012.
18
  
Lakeview states that it first attempted to order its equipment in late May, 2012, and was told that the 
equipment would not be delivered until 6 to 8 weeks after the June 30, 2012 deadline.
19
  Reach states that 
it first attempted to order its equipment from the manufacturer in “spring, 2012,” and was told to order the 
equipment form the National Cable Television Cooperative, which Reach did on June 25, 2012.
20
None 
of these explanations show the kind of exogenous circumstances necessary to a showing of special 
circumstances.  Applegate has also failed to make a showing of special circumstances in its waiver 
request because, despite a request for further information from the Commission, Applegate has not 
provided an explanation as to why it waited until May 7, 2012 to order CAP-compliant EAS equipment.
21
  
Thus, in each of the petitions we consider today, the Petitioners have failed to show the special 
circumstances necessary to justify a deviation from section 11.56 of the Commission’s rules.
7. Moreover, we find that the lack of due diligence shown by the Petitioners to obtain the 
required equipment in a timely fashion is inconsistent with the public interest and thus offers no 
justification for the requested waiver.  The Commission implemented the June 30 deadline for CAP 
compliance in order to ensure that “Next Generation EAS” would be transmitted in an efficient, rapid, and 
secure manner over a variety of formats.
22
  The Commission acknowledged EAS Participant concerns 
with the potential difficulties associated with the introduction of a new technology such as CAP, and 
provided EAS Participants with a series of compliance windows, the final one of which exceeded nine 
months.
23
   Despite this, SCV did not order its equipment until May 24, 2012,
24
New Wave did not order 
its equipment until June, 2012,
25
Lakeview did not order its equipment until late May, 2012,
26
Reach did 
not attempt to order its equipment until late spring 2012 at the earliest,
27
and Applegate did not order its 
CAP-compliant equipment until May 7, 2012,
28
  As we discuss in paragraph 6 above, this delay, to the 
extent it was explained, was not attributable to circumstances beyond the Petitioner’s business choice, and 
so does not provide justification for rule waiver.  
                                                     
18
Id.
19
See Letter, James N. Moskowitz, Counsel to Lakeview Cable, Inc., to Thomas Beers, Chief, Policy and Licensing 
Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (dated September 7, 
2012) (Lakeview Letter), at 1.
20
See Letter, Scott C. Friedman, Counsel to RB3, LLC and Arklaoktex, LLC, d/b/a Reach Broadband, to Thomas 
Beers, Chief, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission (dated September 7, 2012) (Reach Letter), at 3.
21
See Letter, Thomas Beers, Chief, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, 
Federal Communications Commission (dated June 28, 2012), to Lindsay Riggs, Applegate Media, Inc. (dated Oct. 5, 
2012).
22
See Fourth Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 13710, 13711-12 ¶¶ 1, 4.
23
Indeed, EAS Participants have been on notice since 2007 that they would need to purchase CAP-compliant EAS 
equipment.  See Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 13275, 13288 ¶ 26.  
24
See SCV Letter at 1.
25
See New Wave Letter at 2.
26
See Lakeview Letter at 1.
27
See Reach Letter at 3.
28
See Applegate Petition at 1.
                                               Federal Communications Commission                                     DA 13-1575
5
8. In conclusion, we find that the Petitioners have failed to show special circumstances to 
justify departure from the requirements of section 11.56(a) of the Commissions’ rules, and that it is not in 
the public interest to grant waiver of Section 11.56(a) to Applegate and SCV.  We therefore deny their
waiver petitions.
IV. Ordering Clauses
9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Sections 1.3 and 1.8 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 
§§ 1.3, 1.8, the “Requests for Waiver,” filed by Southern Communications Volunteers, Inc. and the 
Petitions for Waiver filed by Telecommunications Management, LLC and Avenue Broadband 
Communications, Inc.; Lakeview Cable, Inc.; RB3, LLC and Arklaoktex, LLC, d/b/a Reach Broadband; 
and Applegate Media, Inc., ARE DENIED.
10. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.191 and 0.392 of the 
Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.191, 0.392.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
David Turetsky
Chief
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau