[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 239 (Monday, December 14, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77289-77311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31234]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 10 and 11

[PS Docket No. 15-91; FCC 15-154]


Improving Wireless Emergency Alerts and Community-Initiated 
Alerting

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document proposes revisions to Wireless Emergency Alert 
(WEA) rules designed to improve the clarity of WEA messages, ensure 
that WEA alerts reach only those individuals to whom a WEA alert is 
relevant, and establish a WEA testing program that will improve the 
effectiveness of the system for public safety officials and the public. 
This document also seeks comment on issues necessary to ensure that WEA 
keeps pace with evolving technologies and thus empowers communities to 
initiate these life-saving alerts. By this action, the Commission

[[Page 77290]]

affords interested parties an opportunity to submit comments on these 
proposed rule changes. Through this action, the Commission hopes to 
empower state and local alert originators to participate more fully in 
WEA, and to enhance the utility of WEA as an alerting tool.

DATES: Comments are due on or before January 13, 2016 and reply 
comments are due on or before February 12, 2016. Written Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA) comments on the proposed information collection 
requirements contained herein must be submitted by the public, Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or 
before February 12, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 15-91, 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document. In addition to filing comments 
with the Secretary, a copy of any PRA comments on the proposed 
information collection requirements contained herein should be 
submitted to the Federal Communications Commission via email to 
[email protected] and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, 
via email to [email protected] or via fax at 202-395-5167.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Fowlkes, Deputy Bureau Chief, 
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 418-7452, or by 
email at [email protected]. For additional information concerning 
the information collection requirements contained in this document, 
send an email to [email protected] or contact Nicole Ongele, Office of 
Managing Director, Performance Evaluation and Records Management, 202-
418-2991, or by email to [email protected]. To view or obtain a 
copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) 
Go to this OMB/GSA Web page: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, 
(2) look for the section of the Web page called ``Currently Under 
Review,'' (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the ``Select 
Agency'' box below the ``Currently Under Review'' heading, (4) select 
``Federal Communications Commission'' from the list of agencies 
presented in the ``Select Agency'' box, (5) click the ``Submit'' button 
to the right of the ``Select Agency'' box, and (6) when the list of FCC 
ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of 
this ICR as shown in the Supplementary Information section below (or 
its title if there is no OMB control number) and then click on the ICR 
Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be 
displayed.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking in PS Docket No. 15-91, FCC 15-154, released on 
November 19, 2015. The document is available for download at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db1119/FCC-15-154A1.pdf. The complete text of this document is also available for 
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-
A257, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats 
for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, 
audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 
(TTY).

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This document contains proposed new and modified information 
collection requirements. It will be submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, 109 Stat 163 
(1995). The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce 
paperwork burdens, invites the general public and OMB to comment on the 
information collection requirements contained in this document, as 
required by the PRA. Public and agency comments on the PRA proposed 
information collection requirements are due February 12, 2016. Comments 
should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the 
Commission, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on the respondents, including the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In 
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 
Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks 
specific comment on how it might ``further reduce the information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees.''
    OMB Control Number: 3060-1126.
    Title: Testing and Logging Requirements for Wireless Emergency 
Alerts (WEA).
    Form Number: Not applicable.
    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.
    Number of Respondents and Responses: 146 Respondents; 1,752 
responses.
    Estimated Time per Response: 0.000694 hours (2.5 seconds).
    Frequency of Response: Monthly and on occasion recordkeeping 
requirements and reporting requirements.
    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. 
Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 
U.S.C.s 151, 154(i) and (o), 201, 303(r), 403 and 606 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, as well as by sections 602(a), 
(b), (c), (f), 603, 604 and 606 of the WARN Act.
    Total Annual Burden: 1.22 hours (rounded to 2 hours).
    Total Annual Cost: No Cost.
    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).
    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission seeks comment 
on the extent to which alert logs should be made accessible to entities 
other than the Participating CMS Provider that generates the log, and 
on whether to treat test reports as presumptively confidential.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the 
policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(Notice). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments 
must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the 
deadlines for

[[Page 77291]]

comments on the Notice provided in Section IV of the Notice. The 
Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including this IRFA, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). 
In addition, the Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be 
published in the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    2. With this Notice, the Commission takes another step towards 
strengthening Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) by proposing revisions to 
the WEA rules to empower alert originators to participate more fully in 
WEA, and by enhancing the utility of WEA as an alerting tool. The 
Commission's proposals fall into three categories, improving WEA 
messaging, geo-targeting, and testing and proficiency training. With 
respect to WEA messaging, in this Notice, the Commission proposes to 
expand the maximum character length of WEA messages from 90 to a 
maximum of 360 characters; create a new class of WEA alerts for 
Emergency Government Information; and remove the prohibition on 
embedded references to allow the provision of phone numbers and URLs in 
WEA alerts. The Commission also seeks comment on technically feasible 
approaches to supplement WEA alerts with multimedia, and with the 
capability to offer alerts in languages other than English. With 
respect to geo-targeting the Commission proposes to require 
Participating Commercial Mobile Service (CMS) Providers to distribute 
WEA messages to a geographic area that more accurately matches the 
target area provided by the alert originator. With respect to WEA 
testing, the Commission proposes to establish requirements and 
procedures for state and local WEA testing, and on alert logging 
requirements for Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateways, and seeks 
comment on test reporting requirements based, in part, upon the data 
produced by this logging function. The Commission seeks comment on 
methods of increasing participation in WEA by both consumers and CMS 
Providers. The Commission proposes to amend the WEA rules to allow use 
of the emergency alerting attention signal for Public Service 
Announcements (PSAs) designed to raise public awareness about Wireless 
Emergency Alerts (WEA). The Commission seeks comment on whether it 
should begin to test the broadcast back-up to the C-interface. Finally, 
the Commission seeks comment on whether it should amend the 
Commission's WEA prioritization rules such that WEA alerts take 
priority over all mobile device functions except certain voice and data 
sessions.
    3. This Notice represents another step towards achieving one of the 
Commission's highest priorities--``to ensure that all Americans have 
the capability to receive timely and accurate alerts, warnings and 
critical information regarding disasters and other emergencies.'' This 
Notice also is consistent with the Commission's obligation under 
Executive Order 13407 to ``adopt rules to ensure that communications 
systems have the capacity to transmit alerts and warnings to the public 
as part of the public alert and warning system,'' and the Commission's 
mandate under the Communications Act to promote the safety of life and 
property through the use of wire and radio communication. The 
Commission takes these steps as part of an overarching strategy to 
advance the nation's alerting capability, which includes both WEA and 
the Emergency Alert System (EAS), to keep pace with evolving 
technologies and to empower communities to initiate life-saving alerts.

B. Legal Basis

    4. Authority for the actions proposed in the Notice may be found in 
sections 1, 4(i) and (o), 201, 303(r), 403, and 706 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (o), 
201, 303(r), 403, and 606, as well as sections 602(a), (b), (c), (f), 
603, 604 and 606 of the WARN Act.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    5. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines 
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small-business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A small-business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently 
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
    6. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 28.2 million 
small businesses, according to the SBA. In addition, a ``small 
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,315 small 
organizations. Finally, the term ``small governmental jurisdiction'' is 
defined generally as ``governments of cities, towns, townships, 
villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of 
less than fifty thousand.'' Census Bureau data for 2007 indicate that 
there were 89,476 local governmental jurisdictions in the United 
States. The Commission estimates that, of this total, as many as 88,761 
entities may qualify as ``small governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, the 
Commission estimates that most governmental jurisdictions are small.
    7. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). As 
noted, the SBA has developed a small business size standard for small 
businesses in the category ``Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 
(except satellite).'' Under that SBA category, a business is small if 
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Since 2007, the SBA has recognized 
wireless firms within this new, broad, economic census category. This 
category is the best fit to describe common-carrier paging providers 
and cellular radiotelephone services subject to the Commission's rules. 
For the category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite), census data for 2007 shows that there were 1,383 firms that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,368 firms had employment 
of 999 or fewer employees and 15 had employment of 1000 employees or 
more. Since all firms with fewer than 1,500 employees are considered 
small, given the total employment in the sector, the Commission 
estimates that the vast majority of wireless firms are small.
    8. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband 
personal communications services (PCS) spectrum is divided into six 
frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held 
auctions for each block. The Commission initially defined a ``small 
business'' for C- and F-Block licenses as an entity that has average 
gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar 
years. For F-Block licenses, an additional small business size standard 
for ``very small business'' was added and is defined as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more 
than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. These small 
business size standards, in the context of broadband PCS auctions, have 
been approved by the SBA. No small businesses within the SBA-approved

[[Page 77292]]

small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A 
and B. There were 90 winning bidders that claimed small business status 
in the first two C-Block auctions. A total of 93 bidders that claimed 
small business status won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 
licenses in the first auction for the D, E, and F Blocks. On April 15, 
1999, the Commission completed the reauction of 347 C-, D-, E-, and F-
Block licenses in Auction No. 22. Of the 57 winning bidders in that 
auction, 48 claimed small business status and won 277 licenses.
    9. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 
C and F Block Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 
winning bidders in that auction, 29 claimed small business status. 
Subsequent events concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency 
determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being 
available for grant. On February 15, 2005, the Commission completed an 
auction of 242 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 58. Of 
the 24 winning bidders in that auction, 16 claimed small business 
status and won 156 licenses. On May 21, 2007, the Commission completed 
an auction of 33 licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks in Auction No. 71. 
Of the 12 winning bidders in that auction, five claimed small business 
status and won 18 licenses. On August 20, 2008, the Commission 
completed the auction of 20 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block Broadband PCS 
licenses in Auction No. 78. Of the eight winning bidders for Broadband 
PCS licenses in that auction, six claimed small business status and won 
14 licenses.
    10. Narrowband Personal Communications Service. To date, two 
auctions of narrowband personal communications services (PCS) licenses 
have been conducted. For purposes of the two auctions that have already 
been held, ``small businesses'' were entities with average gross 
revenues for the prior three calendar years of $40 million or less. 
Through these auctions, the Commission has awarded a total of 41 
licenses, out of which 11 were obtained by small businesses. To ensure 
meaningful participation of small business entities in future auctions, 
the Commission has adopted a two-tiered small business size standard in 
the Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order. A ``small business'' is an 
entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has 
average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than 
$40 million. A ``very small business'' is an entity that, together with 
affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for 
the three preceding years of not more than $15 million. The SBA has 
approved these small business size standards.
    11. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for 
fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite 
uses. The Commission defined ``small business'' for the wireless 
communications services (WCS) auction as an entity with average gross 
revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a 
``very small business'' as an entity with average gross revenues of $15 
million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved 
these definitions.
    12. 700 MHz Guard Band Licensees. In 2000, in the 700 MHz Guard 
Band Order, the Commission adopted size standards for ``small 
businesses'' and ``very small businesses'' for purposes of determining 
their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and 
installment payments. A small business in this service is an entity 
that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has 
average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding 
three years. Additionally, a very small business is an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding 
three years. SBA approval of these definitions is not required. An 
auction of 52 Major Economic Area licenses commenced on September 6, 
2000, and closed on September 21, 2000. Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 
96 licenses were sold to nine bidders. Five of these bidders were small 
businesses that won a total of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz 
Guard Band licenses commenced on February 13, 2001, and closed on 
February 21, 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to 
three bidders. One of these bidders was a small business that won a 
total of two licenses.
    13. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The Commission previously adopted 
criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of 
determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding 
credits. The Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years. 
A ``very small business'' is defined as an entity that, together with 
its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues 
that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years. 
Additionally, the lower 700 MHz Service had a third category of small 
business status for Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA) 
licenses--``entrepreneur''--which is defined as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding 
three years. The SBA approved these small size standards. An auction of 
740 licenses (one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one license 
in each of the six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)) commenced on August 
27, 2002, and closed on September 18, 2002. Of the 740 licenses 
available for auction, 484 licenses were won by 102 winning bidders. 
Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed small business, very small 
business or entrepreneur status and won a total of 329 licenses. A 
second auction commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on June 13, 2003, and 
included 256 licenses: 5 EAG licenses and 476 Cellular Market Area 
licenses. Seventeen winning bidders claimed small or very small 
business status and won 60 licenses, and nine winning bidders claimed 
entrepreneur status and won 154 licenses. On July 26, 2005, the 
Commission completed an auction of 5 licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band 
(Auction No. 60). There were three winning bidders for five licenses. 
All three winning bidders claimed small business status.
    14. In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700 
MHz band in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order. An auction of 700 MHz 
licenses commenced January 24, 2008 and closed on March 18, 2008, which 
included, 176 Economic Area licenses in the A Block, 734 Cellular 
Market Area licenses in the B Block, and 176 EA licenses in the E 
Block. Twenty winning bidders, claiming small business status (those 
with attributable average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million 
and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years) won 49 
licenses. Thirty three winning bidders claiming very small business 
status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do 
not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) won 325 licenses.
    15. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. In the 700 MHz Second Report and 
Order, the Commission revised its rules regarding Upper 700 MHz 
licenses. On January 24, 2008, the Commission commenced Auction 73 in 
which several licenses in the Upper 700 MHz band were available for 
licensing: 12 Regional Economic Area Grouping

[[Page 77293]]

licenses in the C Block, and one nationwide license in the D Block. The 
auction concluded on March 18, 2008, with 3 winning bidders claiming 
very small business status (those with attributable average annual 
gross revenues that do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three 
years) and winning five licenses.
    16. Advanced Wireless Services. AWS Services (1710-1755 MHz and 
2110-2155 MHz bands (AWS-1); 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 
MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands (AWS-2); 2155-2175 MHz band (AWS-3)). For 
the AWS-1 bands, the Commission has defined a ``small business'' as an 
entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years 
not exceeding $40 million, and a ``very small business'' as an entity 
with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not 
exceeding $15 million. For AWS-2 and AWS-3, although the Commission 
does not know for certain which entities are likely to apply for these 
frequencies, it notes that the AWS-1 bands are comparable to those used 
for cellular service and personal communications service. The 
Commission has not yet adopted size standards for the AWS-2 or AWS-3 
bands but proposes to treat both AWS-2 and AWS-3 similarly to broadband 
PCS service and AWS-1 service due to the comparable capital 
requirements and other factors, such as issues involved in relocating 
incumbents and developing markets, technologies, and services.
    17. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. 
Broadband Radio Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint 
Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution 
Service (MMDS) systems, and ``wireless cable,'' transmit video 
programming to subscribers and provide two-way high speed data 
operations using the microwave frequencies of the Broadband Radio 
Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) (previously 
referred to as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)). In 
connection with the 1996 BRS auction, the Commission established a 
small business size standard as an entity that had annual average gross 
revenues of no more than $40 million in the previous three calendar 
years. The BRS auctions resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining 
licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 67 
auction winners, 61 met the definition of a small business. BRS also 
includes licensees of stations authorized prior to the auction. At this 
time, the Commission estimates that of the 61 small business BRS 
auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to the 
48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are 
approximately 392 incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small 
entities. After adding the number of small business auction licensees 
to the number of incumbent licensees not already counted, the 
Commission finds that there are currently approximately 440 BRS 
licensees that are defined as small businesses under either the SBA or 
the Commission's rules.
    18. In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78 
licenses in the BRS areas. The Commission offered three levels of 
bidding credits: (i) A bidder with attributed average annual gross 
revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the 
preceding three years (small business) received a 15 percent discount 
on its winning bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross 
revenues that exceed $3 million and do not exceed $15 million for the 
preceding three years (very small business) received a 25 percent 
discount on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder with attributed average 
annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding 
three years (entrepreneur) received a 35 percent discount on its 
winning bid. Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses. 
Of the ten winning bidders, two bidders that claimed small business 
status won 4 licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business 
status won three licenses; and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur 
status won six licenses.
    19. In addition, the SBA's Cable Television Distribution Services 
small business size standard is applicable to EBS. There are presently 
2,436 EBS licensees. All but 100 of these licenses are held by 
educational institutions. Educational institutions are included in this 
analysis as small entities. Thus, the Commission estimates that at 
least 2,336 licensees are small businesses. Since 2007, Cable 
Television Distribution Services have been defined within the broad 
economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that 
category is defined as follows: ``This industry comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access 
to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or 
lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using 
wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based 
on a single technology or a combination of technologies.'' The SBA has 
developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: 
All such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. To gauge small business 
prevalence for these cable services the Commission must, however, use 
the most current census data that are based on the previous category of 
Cable and Other Program Distribution and its associated size standard; 
that size standard was: All such firms having $13.5 million or less in 
annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a 
total of 996 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. 
Of this total, 948 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 
48 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million. 
Thus, the majority of these firms can be considered small. In the 
Paging Third Report and Order, the Commission developed a small 
business size standard for ``small businesses'' and ``very small 
businesses'' for purposes of determining their eligibility for special 
provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. A ``small 
business'' is an entity that, together with its affiliates and 
controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 
million for the preceding three years. Additionally, a ``very small 
business'' is an entity that, together with its affiliates and 
controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more 
than $3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved 
these small business size standards. An auction of Metropolitan 
Economic Area licenses commenced on February 24, 2000, and closed on 
March 2, 2000. Of the 985 licenses auctioned, 440 were sold. Fifty-
seven companies claiming small business status won. Also, according to 
Commission data, 365 carriers reported that they were engaged in the 
provision of paging and messaging services. Of those, the Commission 
estimates that 360 are small, under the SBA-approved small business 
size standard.
    20. Wireless Communications Service. This service can be used for 
fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite 
uses. The Commission established small business size standards for the 
wireless communications services (WCS) auction. A ``small business'' is 
an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million for each of the 
three preceding years, and a ``very small business'' is an entity with 
average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the three preceding 
years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. The 
Commission auctioned geographic area

[[Page 77294]]

licenses in the WCS service. In the auction, there were seven winning 
bidders that qualified as ``very small business'' entities, and one 
that qualified as a ``small business'' entity.
    21. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications 
Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as 
follows: ``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in 
manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless 
communications equipment. Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable 
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile 
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment.'' The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for firms in this category, which is: All such firms having 
750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2010, there 
were a total of 810 establishments in this category that operated for 
the entire year. Of this total, 787 had employment of fewer than 500, 
and an additional 23 had employment of 500 to 999. Thus, under this 
size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
    22. Software Publishers. Since 2007 these services have been 
defined within the broad economic census category of Custom Computer 
Programming Services; that category is defined as establishments 
primarily engaged in writing, modifying, testing, and supporting 
software to meet the needs of a particular customer. The SBA has 
developed a small business size standard for this category, which is 
annual gross receipts of $25 million or less. According to data from 
the 2007 U.S. Census, there were 41,571 establishments engaged in this 
business in 2007. Of these, 40,149 had annual gross receipts of less 
than $10,000,000. Another 1,422 establishments had gross receipts of 
$10,000,000 or more. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that 
the majority of the businesses engaged in this industry are small.
    23. NCE and Public Broadcast Stations. The Census Bureau defines 
this category as follows: ``This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound. These 
establishments operate television broadcasting studios and facilities 
for the programming and transmission of programs to the public.'' The 
SBA has created a small business size standard for Television 
Broadcasting entities, which is: such firms having $13 million or less 
in annual receipts. According to Commission staff review of the BIA 
Publications, Inc., Master Access Television Analyzer Database as of 
May 16, 2003, about 814 of the 1,220 commercial television stations in 
the United States had revenues of $12 (twelve) million or less. The 
Commission notes, however, that in assessing whether a business concern 
qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) 
affiliations must be included. The Commission's estimate, therefore, 
likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected 
by the Commission's action, because the revenue figure on which it is 
based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.
    24. In addition, an element of the definition of ``small business'' 
is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The 
Commission is unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria 
that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant 
in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small 
businesses to which rules may apply do not exclude any television 
station from the definition of a small business on this basis and are 
therefore over-inclusive to that extent. Also as noted, an additional 
element of the definition of ``small business'' is that the entity must 
be independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is 
difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media 
entities and the Commission's estimates of small businesses to which 
they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent. There are also 2,117 
low power television stations (LPTV). Given the nature of this service, 
the Commission will presume that all LPTV licensees qualify as small 
entities under the above SBA small business size standard.
    25. The Commission has, under SBA regulations, estimated the number 
of licensed NCE television stations to be 380. The Commission notes, 
however, that, in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as 
small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must 
be included. The Commission's estimate, therefore, likely overstates 
the number of small entities that might be affected by the Commission's 
action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not 
include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. The Commission 
does not compile and otherwise does not have access to information on 
the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many 
such stations would qualify as small entities.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    26. This Notice proposes new or modified reporting or recordkeeping 
requirements. Any changes to the Part 10 WEA technical rules, including 
message and geo-targeting requirements, may result in modified 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements necessary to satisfy the 
statutory requirements of the WARN Act (1) that Commission receive 
notice of election by all CMS providers concerning whether they will 
participate in the WEA; (2) CMS providers electing not to transmit, in 
part or in whole, in the WEA must provide clear and conspicuous notice, 
which takes into account the needs of persons with disabilities, to new 
subscribers of its non-election or partial election at the point of 
sale; and (3) CMS providers electing not to transmit WEA Alert 
messages, in part or in whole, must also provide clear and conspicuous 
notice, which takes into account the needs of persons with 
disabilities, to existing subscribers of its non-election or partial 
election by means of an announcement amending the existing subscriber's 
service agreement. Although the Notice does not propose revising the 
existing election procedures, the Commission notes that the CSRIC IV 
recommends that the Commission modify the current election procedures 
and provide Participating CMS Providers an opportunity to revise 
previous WEA election to comply only with the WEA rules that existed at 
the time of their initial election, and not those adopted subsequently. 
Moreover, amending the Commission's rules to require Participating CMS 
Providers to log the receipt of alerts and report the results of State/
Local WEA Tests to the Commission may result in increasing the 
reporting and recordkeeping costs and burdens approved under OMB 
Control No. 3060-1113, ICR Reference No. 201404-3060-021. Test 
reporting and alert logging requirements may require small businesses 
to contract with engineers in order to make modifications to 
Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateways and mobile devices.
    27. Additionally, any changes to the existing WEA testing regime to 
require Participating CMS Providers to support State and Local testing 
will entail some form of recordkeeping that will be used by the 
Commission to satisfy the statutory requirement of the WARN Act that 
the Commission ``shall require by regulation technical testing for 
commercial mobile service providers

[[Page 77295]]

that elect to transmit emergency alerts and for the devices and 
equipment used by such providers for transmitting such alerts.'' 
Specifically, amending the Commission's rules to require Participating 
CMS Providers to participate in State/Local WEA testing as well as 
maintaining a log of RMT results and generating reports will require a 
modification to the cost and hours burdens approved by OMB under OMB 
Control Number 3060-1126, ICR Reference No. 201502-3060-020. The 
proposals set forth in the Notice are intended to advance the 
Commission's public safety mission and establish an effective WEA in a 
manner that imposes minimal regulatory burdens on affected entities.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    28. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in developing its approach, which 
may include the following four alternatives (among others): ``(1) the 
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small 
entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and 
(4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for 
such small entities.''
    29. As noted in paragraph 1 above, this Notice initiates a 
rulemaking to update the rules governing the WEA system by which 
Participating CMS providers may elect to transmit emergency alerts to 
the public, a goal mandated by the WARN Act and consistent with the 
Commission's obligation to protect the lives and property of the 
public. Primarily, this Notice seeks comment on three general 
categories of proposed rule changes: messaging, geo-targeting and 
testing.
    30. With regard to WEA messaging and geo-targeting, this Notice 
seeks comment on a number of options to minimize the economic impact on 
small entities. First, the Notice proposes to expand the maximum 
character length of WEA messages from 90 to 360 characters and also 
seeks comment on alternatives such as rendering 140 character WEA 
alerts. The Notice also seeks comment on the extent Participating CMS 
Providers can leverage existing technology and best practices to 
minimize costs. Additionally, the Notice seeks comment on whether 
existing software is capable of rendering 360-character WEA alerts. 
Further, the Notice seeks comment on developing an appropriate 
timeframe for Participating CMS Providers to begin rendering longer WEA 
alerts in order to mitigate costs.
    31. Second, the Notice proposes to create a new class of WEA alerts 
for Emergency Government Information. In that connection, the Notice 
seeks comment on measures to mitigate costs, including the utility of 
providing alert originators training and guidelines to minimize 
burdens. Further, the Notice seeks comment on developing an appropriate 
timeframe for Participating CMS Providers to begin rendering Emergency 
Government Information alerts in order to mitigate costs.
    32. Third, the Notice proposes to allow the provision of phone 
numbers and URLs in WEA alerts. The Notice seeks comment, in the 
alternative, on whether embedded references should be allowed only in 
AMBER Alerts. The Notice seeks comment on developing an appropriate 
timeframe for Participating CMS Providers to begin rendering embedded 
phone numbers and URLs in WEA alerts in order to mitigate costs. 
Additionally, the Notice seeks comment on leveraging existing 
technology to supplement WEA alerts with multimedia.
    33. Fourth, the Notice proposes to require Participating CMS 
Providers to geo-target WEA messages more precisely. The Notice seeks 
comment on leveraging existing technology and best practices, including 
network-side enhancement already voluntarily undertaken by 
Participating CMS Providers, to more precisely geo-target WEA alerts. 
The Notice also seeks comment on alternatives such as allowing 
Participating CMS Providers to render geo-targeted WEA alerts to the 
area that approximates the alert target area. The Notice also seeks 
comment on the extent ``device-assisted'' geo-targeting solutions 
already exist and can be implemented to ``filter'' WEA alerts based on 
coordinates as well as the extent that third party developers might 
create applications to improve geo-targeting. Further, the Notice seeks 
comment on developing an appropriate timeframe for Participating CMS 
Providers to begin geo-targeting WEA alerts in order to mitigate costs.
    34. With respect to WEA testing and proficiency training, this 
Notice proposes to establish requirements and procedures governing 
Participating CMS Provider support for state and local WEA testing, and 
seeks comment on alert logging requirements for Participating CMS 
Provider Alert Gateways and test reporting requirements based, in part, 
upon the data produced by this logging function. First, in order to 
minimize the costs associated with supporting state and local testing, 
the Notice seeks comment on (1) leveraging the existing RMT testing 
protocol and (2) the use of best practices and standards developed 
through a public/private partnership including geo-targeting tests to 
localized areas and providing an opportunity for volunteers to 
participate in WEA tests. Second, the Notice seeks comment on how to 
minimize the costs associated with testing reporting requirements for 
state and local tests, including leveraging existing logging 
functionality and best practices, as well as relying on an informal 
approach to reporting test results and the extent that third-party 
developers may automate the proposed test filing procedures. The Notice 
seeks comment on the appropriate timeframe within which Participating 
CMS Providers should comply with the proposed testing requirements.
    35. In commenting on these questions, commenters are invited to 
propose steps that the Commission may take to minimize any significant 
economic impact on small entities. For example, the Notice seeks 
comment on whether the benefits of extending liability protection to 
these proposals sufficiently outweigh the costs to Participating CMS 
Providers for participating in WEA. The Notice also seeks comment on 
the feasibility of its messaging, geo-targeting and testing proposals 
as well as an appropriate transition period from the current technical 
and testing requirements to the proposed rule changes contained in the 
Notice. When considering proposals made by other parties, commenters 
are invited to propose significant alternatives that serve the goals of 
these proposals.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    36. None

Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. WEA Messaging

1. Increasing Maximum WEA Character Length
    1. Under the Commission's rules, WEA messages are currently limited 
to a maximum length of 90 characters. In the First Report and Order the 
Commission concluded that adopting a 90-character text message protocol

[[Page 77296]]

would serve the public interest because it would allow Participating 
CMS Providers to transmit WEA messages without requiring technical 
changes to their underlying infrastructure, and because 90-character 
messages were considered to be of sufficient length to get the 
consumer's attention, so they could then seek out other media for 
confirmation of the alert and for further information. Importantly, the 
Commission envisioned that Participating CMS Providers would eventually 
deploy technologies capable of messages longer than 90 characters.
    2. In its recent report CSRIC IV finds that the majority of 
commercial mobile wireless networks and network technologies, such as 
GSM, UMTS, and LTE, can support messages with a larger number of 
characters. Moreover, CSRIC IV recommends that the Commission expand 
the character limit for WEA messages sent using 4G LTE-based 
infrastructure and devices to a maximum of 280 characters, pending 
confirmation by the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions 
(ATIS), and the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) (jointly, 
ATIS/TIA) that such an increase of the character length is feasible. 
CSRIC IV recommends that the necessary modifications to industry 
standards supporting the coexistence of 90- and 280-character alerts 
can be completed within one year of the issuance of an appropriate 
report and order. Subsequent to CSRIC IV's recommendations, ATIS/TIA 
released its Feasibility Study for LTE WEA Message Length in October 
2015, and confirms that extending WEA message character length is 
feasible. The Feasibility Study for LTE WEA Message Length recommends a 
maximum WEA message length of 360 characters, where a minimum of 280 
and a maximum of 372 characters can be included in two transmission 
segments. The study also notes, however, that additional WEA 
enhancements, such as improved geo-targeting and support for multimedia 
and multilingual alerts, may decrease their maximum recommended 
character length, pending further study.
    3. Consistent with the CSRIC IV recommendations and the recent 
ATIS/TIA study, the Commission propose to amend section 10.430 of its 
rules to expand the maximum permissible length of WEA messages from 90 
to 360 characters of alphanumeric text. Specifically, the Commission 
proposes to extend the character limit for those networks and devices 
for which it is technically feasible to deliver and process 360-
character messages, as discussed in greater detail below, while 
continuing to allow the delivery of 90-character messages on 2G and 3G 
networks and devices. In this regard, the Commission seeks to balance 
the capabilities of 4G LTE networks with the limitations of legacy 
networks. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal, and the extent 
to which it would serve the needs of state and local governments to 
provide more detailed alert information to the public sufficient to 
motivate appropriate and swift action to save lives and protect 
property.
    4. Expanding the maximum character length for WEA messages to 360 
characters could address alert originators' concerns that they are 
unable to motivate the public to take appropriate protective action 
using messages limited to 90 characters. According to the National 
Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), ``[i]t can be 
extremely difficult to fit sufficient descriptive information within a 
90-character limit in a meaningful and understandable manner that 
doesn't confuse the public.'' The National Weather Service (NWS) states 
that increasing the maximum WEA message length ``would improve the 
ability of NWS and non-weather alerting authorities to convey critical 
life-saving information over WEA, such as spelling out key terms which 
are not abbreviated and may not be well understood.'' CSRIC IV and 
START concur that longer alert messages make it easier for the public 
to understand the nature of an emergency and the responsive action 
alert originators advise them to take. For example, according to the 
START Report, longer alert messages improve message interpretation, 
reduce ``milling'' by personalizing alert messages, and hasten a 
protective response. FEMA also strongly supports increasing the 
character length of WEA messages. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether expanding WEA messages to 360 characters would be likely to 
promote public understanding and swifter action in response to an 
emergency. The Commission also seeks comment on how an increase in the 
length of WEA messages would affect the accessibility of such messages 
by individuals with disabilities, senior citizens, and persons with 
limited English proficiency. The Commission seeks comment on how to 
quantify the potential life-saving benefits of increasing the maximum 
character length of WEA messages, as well as of the rules the 
Commission proposes today.
    5. If the Commission expands the maximum character length for WEA 
messages, it seeks comment on whether 360 characters is the optimal 
maximum. The Commission seeks comment on the number of characters 
necessary to provide the public with sufficiently detailed information 
about the emergency situations that WEA is designed to address, and to 
encourage swift and effective public action in response to such 
emergencies. For example, the START Report's finding that longer alerts 
improve public response was based on 1,380 character messages. Is such 
a message length technically feasible? Would a 1,380 character message 
would better serve the public interest? The START Report also found 
that some alert originators expressed a preference for 140-character 
messages, based on their view that the public may be unlikely to read 
longer messages. In this regard, the Commission observes that the 
social media service Twitter uses messages limited to 140 characters in 
order to disseminate information about socially relevant phenomena, 
including emergency alerts and warnings. What can the Commission learn 
about the way that people use Twitter and other social media platforms 
that can inform the Commission's policymaking with respect to the 
length of WEA messages?
    6. The Commission seeks comment on the technical feasibility of 
supporting WEA messages longer than 90 characters. As confirmed by 
ATIS/TIA, CSRIC IV states that 4G LTE networks and devices are capable 
of delivering 360-character alerts, and the Commission anticipate that 
future network iterations will continue to support messages with a 
maximum character length of at least 360 characters. The Commission 
observes that the nation's four largest CMS Providers have all but 
completed their transition to 4G technologies. In addition to the 
nation's largest CMS Providers, smaller Participating CMS Providers are 
also transitioning to 4G technologies; for example, more than 93 
percent of U.S. Cellular's customers have access to 4G LTE, and Sprint 
and NetAmerica Alliance have partnered with the Competitive Carriers 
Association to accelerate smaller Participating CMS Providers 
deployment of 4G LTE across rural America. The Commission also seeks 
comment regarding how the incorporation of the additional WEA 
enhancements the Commission proposes below (such as support for 
multimedia and multilingual alerts) may affect the implementation of 
WEA messages with a maximum length of 360 displayable characters. For 
instance, would the metadata associated with the

[[Page 77297]]

inclusion of a URL compete with the maximum text limitation for WEA 
messages?
    7. CSRIC IV concludes that the existing 90-character limit should 
remain for legacy networks and devices due to these networks' 
limitations and its expectation that the overwhelming majority of CMS 
Provider infrastructure and mobile devices will soon achieve 4G LTE 
capability. We seek comment on this view. The Commission seeks comment 
on whether the coexistence of 90- and 360-character alerts might cause 
public confusion. The Commission also seeks comment on the extent to 
which it would be feasible for alert originators and Participating CMS 
Providers to support the coexistence of both 90- and 360-character 
alerts.
    8. CSRIC IV considered multiple approaches that would accommodate 
the existing base of legacy networks and mobile devices, while 
accounting for 4G technology's ability to deliver and receive longer 
messages. For example, one approach would be for the alert originator 
to ``create two WEA [a]lert [m]essages, the first adhering to the 90 
displayable character maximum and the second to support the longer 
displayable character length.'' Alternatively, one WEA message could be 
generated, the first 90 characters could be delivered to legacy 
devices, ``and the full longer displayable characters [could be] 
delivered to future enhanced WEA LTE mobile devices.'' A third 
alternative would be the transmission of a longer message in four parts 
over legacy networks (and in a single message over 4G networks, where 
feasible). The Commission seeks comment on the feasibility of these 
alternatives and any other approaches for implementing an expanded WEA 
message. FEMA states that standards applicable to the Integrated Public 
Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) would need to be updated in order for 
IPAWS to accept longer messages, and that a software update would 
likely be necessary to enable alert origination software to initiate 
longer messages. NWS states that it could provide a longer WEA message 
in addition to the 90-character message, if necessary. Is commercially 
available alert origination software capable of automatically 
generating 90- and 360-character alerts from one message? Are there 
additional technological solutions, not considered by CSRIC IV, which 
would more effectively enable the transmission of longer alerts across 
all technologies, including legacy networks and devices? The Commission 
also seeks comment on the extent to which existing standards would need 
to be modified to accommodate the coexistence of 90- and 360-character 
maximum messages.
    9. The Commission proposes that Participating CMS Providers should 
be required to come into compliance with its proposed WEA messaging 
rules within one year of the adoption of final rules. With respect to 
the Commission's proposal to allow the continued delivery of 90-
character messages to legacy networks and devices, would it be 
preferable to adopt a date certain by which all Participating CMS 
Providers must be able to deliver 360-character WEA messages, rather 
than allowing the co-existence of 90- and 360-character WEA messages? 
If so, in what timeframe should the Commission sunset the 90-character 
WEA message length? Should the date of any sunset be contingent upon 
the satisfaction of a particular condition, such as the achievement of 
a particular milestone (e.g., the completion of a 4G network deployment 
milestone or the completion of any necessary standards work by ATIS/TIA 
or other standards bodies)?
    10. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on the costs associated 
with changing the maximum character length for WEA messages. To what 
extent can Participating CMS Providers leverage existing resources and 
infrastructure deployed for commercial purposes to satisfy the 
requirement the Commission proposes today? What additional network 
resources, if any, are necessary to comply with the Commission's 
proposed rule? If the delivery of expanded WEA messages can be 
accomplished through a software upgrade, would such upgrades fall 
within the scope of Participating CMS Providers' fixed-maintenance 
contracts, thus resulting in a cost of near zero? The Commission also 
seeks comment on mitigating factors that could offset potential costs, 
including those for small and rural Participating CMS Providers. The 
Commission seeks comment on any burden associated with allowing 
Participating CMS Providers to continue delivering shorter WEA messages 
using legacy devices and networks, while simultaneously delivering the 
expanded WEA messages on their 4G networks. The Commission also seeks 
comment on the costs and benefits of any potential alternative 
approaches. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the extent of 
cost savings expected to result from expanding the maximum character 
length to 360, as opposed to requiring that longer messages be issued 
as sequential 90-character alerts.
2. Classifying Emergency Government Information
    11. The WEA rules currently provide for three classifications of 
WEA message: Presidential Alerts, Imminent Threat Alerts, and AMBER 
Alerts. For an alert to be issued through WEA, it must fall within one 
of these three categories. In the First Report and Order, the 
Commission adopted these three categories in the public interest 
because they aligned with the Commission's interpretation of 
``emergency'' alerts under the WARN Act, and because additional alert 
categories could cause the public to disregard WEA alerts or cause the 
delivery of alerts to be delayed. In this regard, the Commission's 
conclusion was consistent with the CMSAAC's finding that supporting 
these three alert classes achieves the best balance between warning of 
imminent threats to life and property and the limitations of 
Participating CMS Provider networks at that time. However, FEMA 
suggests that communities need the ability to share information beyond 
the nature of an emergency and how to respond to that emergency; they 
need the ability to provide additional instructions and information 
that may contribute to saving lives.
    12. The Commission proposes to amend the WEA rules to create an 
additional class of WEA message, ``Emergency Government Information.'' 
The Commission proposes to define an Emergency Government Information 
message as an essential public safety advisory that prescribes one or 
more actions likely to save lives and/or safeguard property during an 
emergency. According to CSRIC IV, examples of Emergency Government 
Information messages include ``boil water'' advisories, and messages 
indicating shelter locations in the event of long-term or severe 
flooding, hurricanes, or tornados. The Commission seeks comment on its 
proposed definition of Emergency Government Information, and on whether 
enabling the delivery of Emergency Government Information messages 
would expand the alerting toolkit available to government entities in a 
meaningful way, complementing existing WEA classes and allowing the 
provision of more detailed information about how to protect life and 
property.
    13. The Commission seeks comment on how it can ensure that 
Emergency Government Information messages are used appropriately and in 
circumstances where they would be most effective at precipitating 
protective action. According to CSRIC IV, ``[a]n

[[Page 77298]]

Emergency Government Information message should only be used to provide 
information to assist citizens regarding actions to take resulting from 
an imminent threat to life and property.'' Would Emergency Government 
Information be most effective if defined as a standalone message, the 
issuance of which is predicated upon the fulfillment of certain 
necessary conditions? Or, on the other hand, should Emergency 
Government Information messages be used only to supplement Imminent 
Threat Alerts? What guidelines and parameters would ensure that 
Emergency Government Information messages are used in an appropriate 
manner? CSRIC IV recommends that only ``appropriate agencies'' become 
authorized to issue Emergency Government Information messages. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether it should adopt that approach. If 
the Commission does, are there particular entities which would be 
particularly appropriate sources of Emergency Government Information?
    14. The Commission seeks comment on the benefits and costs of 
creating this additional class of WEA alert. Would such messages help 
to save lives and protect property? What costs, if any, would be 
imposed on Participating CMS Providers, alert originators, and 
consumers? Are there any measures that could be taken to mitigate these 
costs? Is alert origination software currently capable of issuing 
Emergency Government Information messages using predefined CAP fields 
and free-form text, or would a software update be required? Would 
creating an additional category of alerts desensitize the public to 
other types of alerts? The Commission believes that Participating CMS 
Providers could use the same hardware to deliver an Emergency 
Government Information WEA message as they would to deliver another 
classification of WEA message and seek comment on this view.
    15. As required by the WARN Act, the Commission proposes to amend 
Section 10.280 of the Commission's rules to allow Participating CMS 
Providers to enable consumers to opt out of receiving Emergency 
Government Information messages. CSRIC IV recommends that subscribers 
should be allowed to opt out of receiving Emergency Government 
Information, and states that this option need not imply a new device 
setting, but rather, should be combined with existing settings on the 
device. The CSRIC IV's report states that the subscriber opt-out 
capability recommended to be offered for Emergency Government 
Information would need to be ``defined and specified in the Joint ATIS/
TIA mobile Device Behavior Specification'' in order to ensure that the 
option to opt out is provided consistently and uniformly across 
devices, operating systems and software versions. Is this the case? 
What, if any, other standards or specifications would need to be 
modified in order to support the provision of Emergency Government 
Information? Alternatively, would it be preferable for Emergency 
Government Information to be presented to consumers on an opt-in basis? 
Would providing such an opt-in option be consistent with the WARN Act?
    16. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there are other 
classes of alerts that should be added to WEA. FEMA, for example, 
asserts that the Commission should revisit the manner in which WEA 
messages are classified, and recommends that the Commission amend the 
Commission's rules to create the following classes: Federal Alerts 
(authorized by the President), AMBER Alerts, Severe Weather Alerts, and 
Local Threat Alerts, each of which would have its own unique attention 
signal and vibration cadence. As recommended by FEMA, Local Threat 
Alerts are alerts that may not meet each of the criteria for an 
imminent threat alert (certainty, urgency and immediacy) but 
nonetheless may be appropriate for a WEA alert. The Commission seeks 
comment on this approach. Are additional alert types, such as those 
currently offered by private mass notifications systems on an opt-in 
basis, appropriate for WEA? Such additional alert notifications would 
include weather-related closings, severe traffic incidents, and road 
closures due to special events. Would such additional classifications 
help adequately capture the variety of events that merit an alert or 
warning, and help provide clear instructions to alert originators on 
the kinds of events where use of the WEA system is appropriate? In 
addition, could additional alert types provide consumers with a more 
nuanced range of opt-out choices, in terms of the types of alerts they 
choose to receive, that could encourage consumer participation in WEA? 
Parties suggesting additional classes should explain how their proposed 
classes substantively differ from any of the current classes, or the 
proposed Emergency Government Information class, and the benefits of 
their proposed class, including why an additional or alternative alert 
classification is necessary to help save lives and protect property.
3. Content in WEA Alerts
    17. The WEA rules currently prohibit the inclusion of embedded 
references, including telephone numbers and URLs, in all WEA messages 
except the Presidential Alert. In the First Report and Order, the 
Commission found that allowing URLs or telephone numbers to be included 
in WEA messages could exacerbate wireless network congestion in the 
wake of an emergency when wireless networks are already burdened by 
calls for help from police, fire, and rescue personnel, as well as to 
family and friends. In this regard, the Commission's conclusion was 
consistent with the CMSAAC's recommendation that including telephone 
numbers and URLs in WEA messages would encourage mass usage and 
potential congestion of wireless networks.
    18. The WEA rules currently provide minimum standards for text-
based alerts only. The Commission did not adopt technical requirements 
for WEA alerts with multimedia capability in the First Report and Order 
because, at that time, the Commission believed ``it would be premature 
and not consistent with our obligations under section 602(a) of the 
WARN Act to adopt standards and requirements for technologies that are 
still under development.'' In this regard, the Commission's conclusion 
was consistent with the CMSAAC's recommendation that support for text 
should be the minimum requirement for Participating CMS Providers.
    19. Given the advancement of time and technology since the adoption 
of the WEA rules, the Commission believes that it would serve the 
public interest to reconsider the prohibition on the inclusion of 
telephone numbers and URLs in WEA messages. The Commission propose to 
remove Section 10.440 from its Part 10 WEA rules, in order to allow 
embedded phone numbers and URLs to be included in WEA messages. In 
doing so, the Commission seeks to ensure that Americans may be provided 
with an immediately accessible method of contacting public safety 
officials or finding additional information about emergency situations 
by leveraging the existing capabilities of Participating CMS Provider 
networks and devices. The Commission believes this approach furthers 
its goal of using the system to advance public safety. The Commission 
seeks comment on this proposal and on the Commission's rationale.
    20. The Commission believes that allowing embedded references in 
WEA messages will improve alert quality and accessibility by offering 
additional,

[[Page 77299]]

specific information, and could reduce the risk of network congestion 
by focusing consumer response, thereby minimizing ``milling'' behavior. 
The Commission seeks comment on this analysis. To what extent do 
individuals currently respond to the receipt of a WEA message by using 
the Internet to confirm the existence of the emergency condition in 
their area or to search for additional information? Could a 
synchronized push of link content to device cache reduce non-alert 
congestion? CSRIC IV, START and FEMA agree that ``consideration should 
be given to including a URL'' in WEA messages, but recommend further 
study on whether the inclusion of URLs in WEA messages could cause 
network congestion when many people access a link within seconds of 
alert receipt. The Commission seek comment on whether such further 
studies would be helpful, given existing network management 
technologies that could be deployed to mitigate any potential alert 
congestion.
    21. The Commission believes the potential benefits of allowing 
embedded phone numbers and URLs in WEA messages may be particularly 
applicable where AMBER Alerts are concerned. NCMEC states that the 
ability to provide a URL directing recipients to a Web site 
specifically used for AMBER Alerts would be the most important possible 
enhancement to WEA that the Commission can require at this time. FEMA 
recommends that a phone number be included in AMBER Alerts, noting that 
the ATIS/TIA specification for the interface between IPAWS and 
participating wireless carrier gateways already contains provisions for 
including a phone number. Every type of missing child advisory issued 
by NCMEC (e.g., bulletin, notice or poster) includes a phone number to 
contact with potentially helpful information, except WEA AMBER Alerts. 
According to the Boston Globe, ``[i]n cases in which an abducted child 
is murdered, 75% of the killings happen within the first three hours.'' 
The Commission believes that providing WEA AMBER Alert recipients with 
URLs linking to images of missing children, their suspected abductors, 
and potentially the abduction vehicle could make it easier for the 
public to assist alert originators in locating missing children, and 
that providing a phone number to call could hasten the provision of 
such information during a critical period when every second may count. 
The Commission seeks comment on this analysis, and on other potential 
benefits of allowing alert originators to include embedded references 
in AMBER Alerts and in WEA messages more generally.
    22. The Commission seeks comment regarding the potential costs that 
may be associated with incorporating embedded references in WEA 
messages, including any costs associated with the potential for 
increased call volume or network congestion. If alerts were more 
narrowly geo-targeted, would these potential burdens be mitigated? What 
network management techniques could be deployed to counter any 
potential network congestion? The Commission also seeks comment on any 
technical considerations that the Commission should take into account 
with regard to Participating CMS Providers' ability to support embedded 
references in WEA messages. According to CSRIC IV, adding URLs to WEA 
messages would necessitate the revision of standards for displaying 
content generated by the URL. The Commission seeks comment on CSRIC 
IV's assertion. What technical challenges would need to be addressed to 
support the synchronized push of content to be stored in cache for all 
URL links used in WEA CAP messages? Would it be possible to include 
interactive links in WEA messages, such that an alert recipient could 
provide real-time feedback to alert originators that would improve 
emergency responders' situational awareness and help ensure that 
adequate and appropriate resources are deployed to the scene of the 
emergency? For example, a WEA message warning about a developing fire 
in a multi-story building could ask alert recipients whether they see 
smoke by responding ``yes'' or ``no,'' helping emergency responders 
make decisions about building ventilation that could help to prevent 
the fire from further spreading. The Commission observes that the 
CMSAAC Report recommended guidelines for translating embedded 
references from CAP into a format suitable for communication with 
mobile devices. The Commission also observes, however, that a data 
connection may be required in order to access content made available 
through URLs, and that appropriate protocols and cybersecurity 
protections may need to be developed in order to protect these 
functions from malicious intrusion. How should these concerns be 
addressed? Finally, the Commission seeks comment on how much, if any, 
additional data would be necessary to transmit embedded references, 
along with text, in WEA messages, and on the impact, if any, that 
transmitting this additional data would have on message delivery 
latency and mobile device battery life. The Commission also seeks 
comment on the extent of any end-to-end latency in the delivery of WEA 
messages today, and whether there are ways to employ new technologies 
to reduce latency for WEA's current functionalities. The Commission 
seeks comment on these and other technical issues that could affect the 
implementation of this proposal. The Commission observes that AT&T 
suggests that the use of phone numbers and URLs in WEA alerts should be 
limited to WEA AMBER Alerts. The Commission seeks comment on this 
alternative.
    23. The Commission also seeks comment on the efficacy of using 
embedded URLs to enhance accessibility of WEA for people with 
disabilities, senior citizens and persons with limited English 
proficiency, in addition to the general public. Wireless RERC conducted 
field trials and focus groups regarding disability access to WEA 
messages and found that users with sensory disabilities prefer to have 
access to additional information beyond that supplied by the 90-
character alert via URLs. The Commission seeks comment on this 
conclusion, and on how the inclusion of URLs and phone numbers may 
facilitate access to information. For example, could a URL provide non-
English speakers with access to emergency information in their 
preferred language?
    24. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether it would serve 
the public interest to adopt rules governing the provision of 
multimedia-based alerts, including alerts that contain high-information 
maps that demonstrate the location of the alert recipient relative to 
an area affected by an imminent threat, and images of children, 
suspected abductors and vehicles in AMBER Alerts. The Commission 
believes that providing multimedia-based alerts could significantly 
enhance the usefulness of the system, thereby advancing public safety 
goals. For example, NWS strongly supports the incorporation of 
graphical content in WEA messages, stating that this improvement would 
provide greater clarity in WEA messaging. The Commission recognizes 
that CSRIC IV concludes that it is impractical for current cell 
broadcast technology, including 4G LTE, to support sending multimedia, 
such as images and maps, as part of WEA messages without ``significant 
impacts'' to Participating CMS Provider infrastructure. However, the 
Commission observes that mobile alerting technology vendors and 
Participating CMS Providers agree that other technologies may be able 
to support multimedia functionality. How

[[Page 77300]]

much additional data would be associated with the transmission of 
multimedia content in WEA messages, and what impact, if any, would 
transmitting this additional data have on message delivery latency and 
mobile device battery life? The Commission seeks comment on these 
issues, as well as any technical solutions that may serve to enhance 
the usefulness of WEA alerts for the general public.
4. Providing Multilingual WEA Messages
    25. The WARN Act allows Participating CMS Providers to transmit 
alerts in languages other than English, if technically feasible. The 
Commission determined in the First Report and Order that it was not 
technically feasible for CMS Providers to deliver commercial mobile 
alerts in languages in addition to English and that further study was 
necessary to ensure that system capacity and message latency were not 
adversely affected. The Commission's conclusion in this regard is 
consistent with the CMSAAC's observation that rendering multilingual 
alerts would require additional character sets that would limit the 
amount of text that could be transmitted in WEA messages and that more 
precise geo-targeting increases the number of non-English languages 
that will be encountered. Accordingly, the Commission found it 
premature to require that Participating CMS Providers transmit alerts 
in languages other than English, but encouraged WEA stakeholders to 
develop multilingual alerting capabilities.
    26. The Commission seeks comment on whether the fundamental 
technical problems that limited the ability of Participating CMS 
Providers in 2008 to provide alerts in languages other than English 
remain barriers to implementing Congress' vision. To the extent these 
problems remain, are they device-based, network-based, or both? FEMA 
recommends that WEA should be enhanced to support delivery of alert 
messages in languages other than English if the alert is made available 
by the originator in other languages. FEMA observes that ``[t]he IPAWS 
system as currently deployed and based upon the Common Alerting 
Protocol standards is capable of supporting multiple languages beyond 
English if the originator of the alert message provides the alert in 
additional languages.'' Alert originators state that they want to 
``[u]se language in the WEA Alert Message that best conveys who is at 
risk given message length constraints.'' That could reasonably include 
a language, other than English, that best serves a particular 
community. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on the benefits of 
supporting multilingual WEA alerts in order to advance the Commission's 
goals for promoting community participation.
    27. In raising the issue of multilingual alerts, the Commission 
notes that the Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council (MMTC) 
has highlighted the importance of providing information about 
emergencies in languages other than English on numerous occasions. The 
Commission agrees with MMTC that all Americans, regardless of the 
language they speak, should have access to emergency information. In 
this Notice, the Commission seeks comment on the technical implications 
and potential costs of supporting multilingual WEA alerts. The 
Commission also seeks comment on the impact of requiring WEA alerts in 
languages other than English on the ability of Participating CMS 
Providers to comply with the rules the Commission propose today. For 
example, the Commission seeks comment on whether Participating CMS 
Provider networks continue to experience technical limitations that 
restrict their ability to offer WEA alerts in languages other than 
English. How much additional data, if any, would be necessary to 
support additional languages and/or character sets in WEA messages, and 
how would the transmission of this additional data affect mobile device 
battery life and message delivery latency? The Commission seeks comment 
on whether there are other factors that should be considered in 
determining whether to support multilingual alerts, and on how states 
and local alert originators can best determine which languages are 
appropriate for their communities.

B. WEA Geo-Targeting

    28. In the First Report and Order, the Commission adopted a geo-
targeting requirement for WEA messages in order to ensure that WEA 
messages would only be received by those individuals affected by a 
specific emergency. Under Section 10.450 of the WEA rules, 
Participating CMS Providers may not transmit WEA messages to areas 
greater than the county (or county equivalent) that approximates the 
geocode, circle, or polygon specified by the WEA alert. The Commission 
anticipated that as more refined and cost effective geo-targeting 
capabilities became available to Participating CMS Providers they would 
voluntarily elect to target alerts more granularly. Similarly, the 
CMSAAC recommended county-based geo-targeting, but acknowledged that it 
would be desirable to allow for ``more flexible geo-targeting to alert 
areas [to] evolve as technology advances,'' and recommended that the 
geo-targeting to alert areas smaller than a county ``should be reviewed 
as part of the biennial review process.''
    29. Since the Commission adopted its WEA geo-targeting rules in 
2008, there has been considerable interest among alert originators in 
developing more finely targeted WEA messages. Additionally, research 
scientists at Carnegie Mellon have developed several polygon 
compression techniques that enable efficient transmission of polygons 
representing geographical targets. These techniques are intended to 
enable compressed polygon vertices to be embedded in emergency alert 
messages that have strict length restrictions, such as WEA messages.
    30. Further, CSRIC IV and START observe that the effectiveness of 
WEA alert messages may remain suppressed until they can be distributed 
to finer geospatial areas, so that messages only reach the people who 
are at risk. ``[O]therwise, people who receive WEA Alert Messages may 
be trained to think they don't apply to them.'' As CSRIC IV notes, some 
Participating CMS Providers have made voluntary enhancements to geo-
targeting that exceed the Commission's current county-level geo-
targeting rules. The enhancements include using an algorithm to geo-
target the WEA broadcast to transmission sites capable of best 
approximating the polygon-based alert area provided by the alert 
originator, and, in LTE networks, using cell sectorization, a technique 
whereby a WEA alert is broadcast to only certain sectors within a 
transmission site. CSRIC IV thus recommends that the Commission amend 
Section 10.450 of its WEA rules to state ``that a Participating CMS 
Provider may voluntarily transmit any Alert Message that is specified 
by the Alert Originator using a geocode, circle, or polygon, to an area 
that best approximates the geocode, circle, or polygon given the 
constraints of CMS Provider infrastructure topology, propagation area, 
and other radio and network characteristics.'' CSRIC IV further 
recommends that, at a minimum, the Commission should adopt a geo-
targeting standard constituting an area no larger than the coverage 
area of a single transmission site.
    31. The Commission proposes to revise the Commission's rules to 
require that Participating CMS Providers must transmit any alert 
message that is specified by a geocode, circle, or polygon to a target 
area not larger than

[[Page 77301]]

the specified geocode, circle, or polygon. If, however, the 
Participating CMS Provider cannot broadcast the alert to an area that 
accurately matches the target area, the Commission proposes that a 
Participating CMS Provider may transmit an Alert Message to an area 
that closely approximates the target area, but in any case not 
exceeding the propagation area of a single transmission site. In this 
regard, as a backstop, Participating CMS Providers would be permitted 
to geo-target WEA alerts with the same level of granularity currently 
allowed by the Commission's WEA rules. CSRIC IV recommends that CMS 
Providers be allowed to transmit alert messages, on a voluntary basis, 
to an area that best approximates the target area, ``given the 
constraints of Participating CMS Provider infrastructure topology, 
propagation area, and other radio and network characteristics.'' Would 
this approach weaken the Commission's current requirement that WEA 
alerts be geo-targeted to at least the county level, and would 
potentially allow Participating CMS Providers to geo-target alerts to 
any area, so long as it could be justified by reference to network 
constraints. The Commission seeks comment on the Commission's proposal 
and on this rationale.
    32. The Commission seeks comment on the technical feasibility of 
complying with these more granular geo-targeting proposals. Both the 
WARN Act and the Commission envisioned that WEA technology would evolve 
to encompass more precisely geo-targeted alerts. In light of the 
advances in network technology observed by CSRIC IV, specifically 
network-based solutions already deployed by Participating CMS 
Providers, is it technically feasible for Participating CMS Providers, 
utilizing currently available technology, to more accurately geo-target 
WEA alerts? The Commission specifically seeks comment on the state of 
network-based enhancements needed to implement this process. CSRIC IV 
states that ``the algorithms for mapping the intended alert area to the 
relevant cell sites/sectors in the CMSP network are considered 
proprietary and there is no standard method to perform this mapping.'' 
How can the Commission ensure that all Participating CMS Providers have 
access to any relevant techniques that are necessary to implement more 
granular geo-targeting?
    33. Further, the Commission seeks comment on other approaches to 
improve geo-targeting, including device-based geo-targeting solutions. 
CSRIC IV recommends that ATIS/TIA conduct feasibility studies of the 
ability of Participating CMS Providers to more narrowly geo-target WEA 
using network-based, device-based, and third-party-assisted solutions. 
Network-based geo-targeting solutions include cell sectorization and 
algorithm-based transmission site selection. A device-based solution 
entails an alert originator transmitting geographic coordinates for the 
target area along with the WEA message, and an end-user device using 
the device's location-based technology to display only those WEA 
messages that are relevant to the geographic area in which the device 
is located. CSRIC IV recommends that ATIS/TIA evaluate the extent to 
which device-based solutions could be optimized by minimizing the 
amount of data necessary to transmit alert area coordinates, either by 
compressing the data, circularizing the polygon, or embedding the 
geographic data in the alert message itself. A third-party-assisted 
solution (i.e., a service provided by a party other than the mobile 
device and the Participating CMS Provider) would utilize an external 
source of geo-location to determine whether the WEA message should be 
displayed, without relying on the device's own location services.
    34. Could a device-based solution improve WEA geo-targeting without 
burdening Participating CMS Provider infrastructure? Could device-based 
solutions complement network-based solutions to facilitate the delivery 
of even more granular WEA messages? Would the provision of alert area 
coordinates in a WEA message potentially reduce the amount of data 
available for other message elements, such as text and multimedia, and 
if so, what measures could mitigate this possibility? Carnegie Mellon 
University has ``developed a technique which significantly reduces the 
amount of data required to convey the location, size, and shape of an 
NWS alert polygon,'' suggesting that only a small amount of data may be 
necessary to transmit alert coordinates to a mobile device. To what 
extent can the amount of data needed to transmit geographic coordinates 
be reduced through such optimization methods? Are such methods feasible 
or advisable? Are there other techniques for efficiently sending alert 
area coordinates to a device that should be examined? The Commission 
also seeks comment on whether the use of device-based solutions might 
implicate privacy issues and on the protective measures that might be 
necessary to implement before a device's location-based services are 
used for the provisioning of WEA alerts. Finally, the Commission seeks 
comment on the extent to which third-party developers are in the 
process of developing services to improve WEA geo-targeting.
    35. The Commission seeks comment on the potential benefits that 
more accurate geo-targeting may provide. By proposing measures to 
ensure that WEA messages are more finely targeted and delivered only to 
recipients who are likely to be affected by the emergency event, the 
Commission intends to minimize over-alerting and reduce alert fatigue. 
Do alerts sent to too wide an area result in significant problems? Does 
or could inaccurate geo-targeting lead to alert fatigue, and, if so, 
would it cause many individuals to disregard or opt-out of receiving 
all but the Presidential message? CSRIC IV and START conclude that 
finer geo-spatial targeting is necessary to ensure WEA Alert Messages 
only reach those people at risk, and that the ``effectiveness of WEA 
Alert Messages may remain suppressed until they can be distributed to 
finer geospatial targeted populations so that messages only reach the 
people who are at risk.'' The Commission seeks comment on these 
findings and encourage commenters to offer statistical evidence of the 
anticipated benefits resulting from tightening the Commission's geo-
targeting requirements. Further, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether improved geo-targeting technology will increase opportunities 
for wireless providers to offer beneficial services to the companies 
currently providing mass notification products to localities, 
employers, and school systems. Specifically, will improved geo-
targeting capabilities expand opportunities for wireless carriers and 
other parties to contract for services outside of WEA that are 
beneficial to the alert-originating community? The Commission seeks 
comment on whether there are other potential public/private 
partnerships that could further leverage WEA capabilities and bring 
additional innovative alerting services to communities.
    36. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on the potential costs 
that would result from implementing the more granular geo-targeting 
requirements the Commission propose today, including through the 
implementation of network-based, device-based, or third-party-assisted 
solutions. Would the cost of compliance with the Commission's proposed 
rules through the use of network-based enhancements likely be minimal 
because Participating CMS Providers are already engaging in such 
practices voluntarily? What costs would be entailed for Participating 
CMS Providers

[[Page 77302]]

that are not currently using geo-targeting best practices? Would the 
implementation of device-based improvements to geo-targeting likely 
entail a software update to mobile devices? If a software update would 
be needed, could it be bundled into software updates that Participating 
CMS Providers would issue for their mobile devices in the regular 
course of business? What costs might be associated with the delivery of 
such software updates? Lastly, what costs might be associated with the 
implementation of a third-party-assisted solution?

C. WEA Testing and Proficiency Training

    37. Section 602(f) of the WARN Act provides that ``[t]he Commission 
shall require by regulation technical testing for commercial mobile 
radio service providers that elect to transmit emergency alerts and for 
devices and equipment used by such providers for transmitting alerts''. 
Under the current WEA rules, the Commission requires Participating CMS 
Providers to support Required Monthly Testing (RMT) initiated by FEMA, 
and testing of the C-Interface. The Commission adopted these testing 
requirements in the Second Report and Order to satisfy the WARN Act's 
testing requirement in a manner that would ensure the reliability and 
performance of the new WEA system and the availability and viability of 
both of its gateway functions. The Commission further noted that the 
CMSAAC proposed that, in order to ensure the reliability and 
performance of this new system, certain procedures for logging alerts 
at the Alert Gateway and for testing the system at the Alert Gateway 
and on an end-to-end basis should be implemented. Since the deployment 
of WEA in 2012, the system has grown, technology has changed, and new 
community-based alert initiators have begun to use WEA to address the 
safety needs of their communities. In the course of analyzing the 
Commission's proposals below, commenters should address whether the 
proposal is consistent with the Commission's statutory authority under 
the WARN Act or the Communications Act.
1. Promoting State and Local Testing and Proficiency Training
    38. GAO and alert originators have raised concerns about the lack 
of a state/local WEA testing regime. In response, the Commission tasked 
CSRIC IV with making recommendations on how the Commission could 
address these concerns. In its report, CSRIC IV observes that, 
according to state and local alert originators, training and 
proficiency-building exercises constitute a ``fundamental component'' 
of emergency management programs. Additionally, according to CSRIC IV, 
WEA testing would provide state and local alert originators with 
opportunities to evaluate their preparedness for responding to life-
threatening events, to ensure the software used to generate and the 
infrastructure used to disseminate WEA messages are operating 
correctly, and to test for downstream issues.
    39. Readiness Testing. CSRIC IV considered three potential models 
for WEA testing: (1) Allowing alert originators to utilize the current 
RMT process; (2) allowing alert originators to conduct WEA tests that 
could be received by wireless customers that opt in to receive alerts; 
and (3) allowing alert originators to conduct WEA tests that would be 
received by all wireless customers, unless they opt out of receiving 
the test. FEMA currently issues nationwide RMTs that are held up to 24 
hours before they are delivered to (but not displayed on) WEA-enabled 
devices. CSRIC IV concluded that a localized test to opt-in 
participants' WEA-enabled devices would achieve alert originators' 
goals of providing system verification, as well as opportunities for 
alert originator proficiency training, and enhancing public awareness 
of the WEA service.
    40. Pursuant to CSRIC IV's recommended opt-in testing model, an 
alert originator would submit its test message to FEMA/IPAWS, which 
would then send the test message to Participating CMS Providers that 
have coverage within the described alert area. Participating CMS 
Providers would then receive and process the test message, distributing 
it to devices configured to opt-in to receiving state and local WEA 
tests.
    41. The Commission proposes to add a new section 10.350(c) to the 
WEA rules to require Participating CMS Providers to ensure their 
systems support the receipt of ``State/Local WEA Tests'' from the 
Federal Alert Gateway Administrator, and to distribute such tests to 
the desired test area in a manner consistent with section 10.450 of the 
rules. In order to allow State/Local WEA Tests to mirror an actual 
event, as recommended by the CSRIC, the Commission proposes that the 
24-hour delivery window that currently applies to RMTs under section 
10.350(a)(2) would not apply to State/Local WEA Tests conducted under 
proposed section 10.350(c). The Commission believes that the local, 
geographically focused nature of these tests would allow Participating 
CMS Providers to distribute the State/Local WEA Tests within their 
networks upon receipt in a manner consistent with necessary traffic 
load management and network maintenance. The Commission seeks comment 
on this analysis. In this regard, the Commission also seeks comment on 
whether there still remains a justification for the 24-hour window for 
RMTs. Does the 24-hour window allow for efficient testing that provides 
adequate data about any weaknesses in the system, including potential 
message delivery latencies? Do Participating CMS Providers still 
require a 24-hour window ``to manage traffic loads and to accommodate 
maintenance windows,'' as indicated by section 10.350(a)(2)? The 
Commission further proposes that section 10.350(c), consistent with 
section 10.350(a), should specify that a Participating CMS Provider may 
forgo accepting or delivering a State/Local WEA Test if the test 
message is preempted by actual alert traffic, or if an unforeseen 
condition in the Participating CMS Provider infrastructure precludes 
distribution of the State/Local WEA Test. In the event that a 
Participating CMS Provider cannot accept or deliver a test under these 
circumstances, the Commission proposes to require that Participating 
CMS Providers shall indicate such an unforeseen condition by sending a 
response code to the Federal Alert Gateway. Finally, the Commission 
proposes that Section 10.350(c) state that Participating CMS Providers 
may provide their subscribers with the option to opt-in to receiving 
State/Local WEA Tests. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals. 
The Commission also seeks comment on whether the Commission should 
require State/Local WEA Test messages to be clearly identified as test 
messages to prevent confusion.
    42. The Commission seeks comment on whether any new or revised 
technical standards or processes would be necessary to facilitate state 
and local testing, and if so, whether such standards would be best 
developed through industry standards bodies or best practices. The 
Commission seek further comment on whether alert originators at the 
federal, state and local levels would be best positioned to coordinate 
with Participating CMS Providers and determine the proper method of 
outreach to testing participants. Accordingly, would the goal of 
promoting alert origination proficiency be best achieved by affording 
alert originators flexibility to develop a WEA testing model that best 
fits the needs of their individual

[[Page 77303]]

communities? Similarly, would industry organizations such as ATIS/TIA 
be best positioned to create the device and network specifications that 
may be necessary to support state and local WEA testing? The Commission 
seeks comment on whether any additional requirements would be necessary 
to realize the specific opt-in testing regime recommended by CSRIC IV. 
Should the Commission revise section 10.500 of the WEA rules, which 
specifies general requirements for WEA mobile device functionality 
(including monitoring for alert messages and presenting alert content) 
to include the ability to monitor for State/Local WEA Tests and to be 
able to receive and display State/Local WEA Test messages?
    43. The Commission also seeks comment on the periodicity with which 
state and local alert originators would likely want to engage in 
readiness testing, and on the maximum readiness testing periodicity 
Participating CMS Providers are able to support. With what frequency 
should State/Local WEA Tests be conducted, in order to optimize and 
ensure system readiness, without introducing alert fatigue or otherwise 
imposing undue burdens on Participating CMS Providers?
    44. The Commission seeks comment on the public safety benefits 
likely to result from requiring Participating CMS Providers to support 
State/Local WEA Testing. According to FEMA, a localized, opt-in, end-
to-end approach to testing, as described above, offers the public 
safety benefits that alert originators state that they need. 
Specifically, FEMA asserts that requiring Participating CMS Provider 
support for local testing would improve WEA by (1) demonstrating to the 
public that their handsets are (or are not) capable of receiving a WEA 
message; (2) demonstrating WEA capability in coordinated public warning 
exercises and tests such as those required by the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission for local emergency preparedness programs; and (3) providing 
the public with reassurance that local emergency management is capable 
of alerting them in times of disaster. The Commission seeks comment on 
FEMA's analysis.
    45. Alternatively, would another approach to state and local WEA 
testing address alert originators' needs more efficiently? As mentioned 
above, CSRIC IV considered two alternatives to localized, end-to-end, 
opt-in WEA testing, including local testing on an opt-out basis, and 
using the current RMT process. The Commission seeks comment on these 
alternative testing regimes. While CSRIC IV concludes that opt-out 
testing would afford substantial benefits in terms of system 
verification, alert originator proficiency, and public awareness, it 
also finds that opt-out testing is unnecessarily broad, and that large-
scale public response may unduly stress emergency call centers. The 
Commission seeks comment on CSRIC IV's analysis. With respect to 
utilizing the current RMT process, CSRIC IV finds that this testing 
model poses little to no network reliability risk for Participating CMS 
Providers, but also offers little, if any, benefit in the areas of 
system verification, alert originator proficiency and public awareness 
because the test alert would not be displayed on end-user devices. The 
Commission seek comment on CSRIC IV's findings.
    46. The Commission also seeks comment on any potential costs that 
may be imposed by its proposed testing requirements. Because the 
proposed testing regime is largely based on the current RMT model, with 
test recipients likely comprised of a limited number of voluntary, opt-
in participants, the Commission anticipates that the proposed testing 
regime would likely not lead to network congestion. The Commission 
seeks comment on this observation, as well as the extent to which 
Participating CMS Providers would incur costs, including costs related 
to the development of any technical standards or necessary 
modifications to end user devices. Are there any measures the 
Commission could take to minimize any attendant costs while still 
achieving the Commission's public safety goals?
    47. Liability Protection for State/Local WEA Testing. Finally, 
CSRIC IV recommends that the Commission confirm that liability 
protection provided under the WARN Act extends to Participating CMS 
Providers for their engagement in State/Local WEA Testing. Based on the 
plain language of the WARN Act, the Commission believes that liability 
protection would reasonably extend to Participating CMS Provider 
engagement in State/Local WEA Testing as proposed in this Notice, 
provided that the Participating CMS Provider otherwise satisfies its 
obligations under the WARN Act and complies with the Commission's 
testing requirements. The Commission notes that section 602(f) provides 
that ``[t]he Commission shall require by regulation technical testing 
for commercial mobile radio service providers that elect to transmit 
emergency alerts and for devices and equipment used by such providers 
for transmitting alerts. Further, section 602(e)(1)(A) states that 
``[a]ny commercial mobile service provider [. . .] that transmits 
emergency alerts and meets its obligations under this title shall not 
be liable to any subscriber, or user of, such person's service or 
equipment for--(A) any act or omission related to or any harm resulting 
from the transmission of, or failure to transmit, an emergency alert.'' 
The Commission seeks comment on its analysis.
    48. Proficiency Training. The Commission observes that it may be 
helpful for state and local alert originators to send WEA test messages 
in the context of proficiency training exercises. The Commission 
envision that proficiency training exercises would help develop the 
preparedness of state and local emergency response, ensuring that 
emergency managers are able to respond swiftly and efficiently to 
emergencies through the use of WEA. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether it should provide alert originators with the option of 
delivering such proficiency training messages to a single, dedicated 
end-user device, such as the mobile device of an emergency management 
official, rather than to a larger set of wireless customers, in order 
to provide alert originators with an opportunity to develop alert 
originator proficiency through regular exercises without involving the 
general public. Further, in order to minimize any potential burden on 
Participating CMS Providers, the Commission propose that proficiency 
training exercises would not be subject to the same reporting 
requirements that the Commission discuss below. The Commission seeks 
comment on this proposal, and any other approaches the Commission could 
adopt that would achieve its public safety objectives.
2. Requiring Alert Logging and Test Reporting
    49. Section 10.350 of the WEA rules requires Participating CMS 
Providers to keep an automated log of RMT messages received by the 
Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateway from the FEMA Alert Gateway. 
The Commission adopted this requirement in the Second Report and Order 
based on the CMSAAC's recommendation that alert logs should be kept and 
preserved as an integral part of the Trust Model for maintaining WEA 
system integrity, for protecting system security, and for testing and 
troubleshooting purposes. The Commission declined to adopt more 
specific test reporting requirements at that time because the WEA 
system was still in a nascent stage. According to CSRIC IV, there is no 
established procedure for Participating CMS Providers to inform alert 
originators or government entities of the

[[Page 77304]]

success or failure of WEA tests under the current WEA testing model 
(i.e., RMT and C-Interface Testing), and thus no available method to 
analyze these results in the interest of public safety. The Commission 
seeks comment on CSRIC IV's conclusions.
    50. The Commission proposes to require Participating CMS Provider 
Alert Gateways to provide the logging functionality recommended by the 
CMSAAC Report. Specifically, the Commission proposes to adopt a new 
section 10.320(g) that would require Participating CMS Provider Alert 
Gateways to:
     Provide a mechanism to log messages with time stamps that 
verify when messages are received, and when the messages are 
acknowledged or rejected by the Participating CMS Provider Alert 
Gateway, and if an alert is rejected, to provide the specific error 
code generated by the rejection;
     Maintain an online log of active and cancelled alert 
messages for 90 days, and maintain archived logs for at least 36 months 
that should be accessible by Participating CMS Providers for testing 
and troubleshooting purposes; and
     Generate monthly system and performance statistics reports 
based on category of alert, alert originator, alert area, and other 
alerting attributes.
    The Commission observes that these logging requirements were 
recommended by the CMSAAC after extensive efforts to arrive at a 
consensus among CMS Providers, vendors, public safety entities, 
organizations representing broadcast stations, and organizations 
representing people with disabilities and the elderly. Are 
Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateways currently capable of 
performing the logging functions specified by the CMSAAC? If not, how 
difficult would it be to add this functionality? Would alert logging 
allow Participating CMS Providers to monitor whether the WEA system is 
working as intended? In order to develop a full view of how the WEA 
system is working, from alert initiation all the way through to receipt 
of the message by the mobile device, should CMS Providers also log when 
the alert is received by a representative, dedicated, end-user device 
(such as a mobile device controlled by and in the possession of the 
Participating CMS Provider)? Aside from the Commission, should alert 
logs be accessible only by Participating CMS Providers? The Commission 
seeks comment on whether other federal or state governmental entities, 
such as FEMA, may have a legitimate need for access to alert logs. The 
Commission seeks comment any confidentiality protections that would be 
required to protect Participating CMS Provider alert logs. The CMSAAC 
described message logging as part of the Trust Model necessary to 
ensure WEA system security and reliability because it allows all WEA 
messages to be attributed reliably to an individual, sender, and to 
identify when the sender is not properly credentialed. The Commission 
also seeks comment on whether implementing these CMSAAC-recommended 
procedures, along with the test reporting requirements described below, 
would be beneficial in harmonizing the Commission's proposed WEA test 
reporting and logging procedures with the Commission's EAS rules.
    51. The Commission notes that CSRIC IV recommends that industry and 
government stakeholders ``develop a best practices ATIS/TIA standard 
for defining and reporting on significant problems.'' The Commission 
seeks comment on CSRIC IV's recommendation. Should the Commission 
formalize a reporting process for alert originators? If the Commission 
does formalize a test reporting procedure, what form should that 
reporting take, and what specific information should be reported? The 
Commission also seeks comment on the extent to which reporting 
procedures could provide alert originators with useful feedback on 
alert delivery latency, accuracy of geo-targeting, and quality of 
public response that otherwise would be unavailable. Could feedback on 
the quality of public response be leveraged to improve alert 
originators' alert origination proficiency? The Commission seeks 
comment on the extent to which reported data would be useful to empower 
alert originators with the ability to ensure the WEA system will work 
as designed and when needed. What, if any, characteristics of alert 
dissemination, beyond geo-targeting and latency, would state and local 
alert originators seek to evaluate through State/Local WEA Testing and 
thus require reports on? How can a test reporting system be optimized 
to protect potentially confidential information?
    52. Should the Commission also require Participating CMS Providers 
to report WEA test data? The Commission notes that the Commission has 
required that EAS Participants file nationwide EAS test result data 
with the Commission on a confidential basis through an Electronic Test 
Reporting System (ETRS). Should the Commission require Participating 
CMS Providers to use this system as a model for the reporting of WEA 
test data to the Commission? If the Commission were to require 
reporting of WEA test data, the Commission seeks comment regarding the 
frequency with which such reporting should take place. For example, 
should Participating CMS Providers file test data on an annual basis, 
based on test data collected from the RMT process? The Commission also 
seeks comment regarding the elements of the test data that should be 
provided in any such report. For example, should the report include 
data regarding the time of the receipt of the alert from the FEMA Alert 
Gateway, and the time of alert transmission? Should Participating CMS 
Providers include data regarding when an alert is received by a 
representative mobile device, as discussed above with respect to 
logging requirements? The Commission also seeks comment on whether such 
information should be considered presumptively confidential, to be 
shared with federal, state and local alert originators that have 
confidentiality protection at least equal to that provided by the 
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), consistent with the Commission's 
data-protection practices in the EAS context. Alternatively, are there 
differences in the type of data that the Commission might collect from 
CMS Providers versus EAS Participants that would suggest WEA test data 
should be treated differently? Should access to WEA test data be 
limited, and if so, to whom? The Commission seeks comment on the 
optimal method of filing test result data with the Commission in a 
manner that fulfills the primary goal of WEA testing to provide alert 
originators with verification that the system works as designed, and 
provides the Commission with an opportunity to analyze the performance 
of the WEA system in order to bring to light any potential weaknesses 
in the WEA system that the Commission may be able to address through 
rulemaking, public-private partnerships, or both.
    53. The Commission also seeks comment on three alternative test 
reporting mechanisms: Third-party software using Application 
Programming Interfaces (APIs), informal communication among alert 
originators, and use of the Public Safety Help Center. The Commission 
anticipates that these alternatives could minimize the filing burden on 
Participating CMS Providers, but could also present significant 
drawbacks. First, the Commission seeks comment on whether Participating 
CMS Providers could allow third-party application developers to create 
software and APIs to satisfy their test reporting requirements. Could

[[Page 77305]]

third-party software be designed to automate the process of filing test 
result data with the Commission by sending such data from the 
consumer's mobile device directly to a Commission-operated server or 
account using a the cell broadcast network, a data connection, or WiFi? 
Second, the Commission seeks comment on whether it would be preferable 
to leave test reporting to person-to-person interaction without the 
adoption of formal rules. Could the goals of test reporting be achieved 
through informal communication between alert originators and their 
associates? Finally, the Commission seeks comment on the use of the 
Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) section of the Public Safety Help 
Center to satisfy the need for feedback on State/Local WEA Tests. Would 
a consumer-complaint based reporting mechanism adequately capture 
shortcomings in State/Local WEA Tests?
    54. The Commission also seeks comment on the potential costs that 
Participating CMS Providers would be likely to incur if the Commission 
were to adopt rules for alert logging and test reporting. What costs, 
if any, would logging alerts at the Participating CMS Provider Alert 
Gateway cause Participating CMS Providers to incur? What costs would 
reporting test data to the Commission impose? How could the Commission 
optimize the WEA test reporting process to minimize the filing burden 
on Participating CMS Providers, and to protect confidential 
information? How, if at all, could a best-practice-based test reporting 
system be leveraged to provide comparable benefits at a lower cost?

D. Participating CMS Providers and Subscribers

    55. The Commission seeks comment on whether there are additional 
measures the Commission can take to promote participation in WEA, both 
by consumers and by CMS Providers. Section 602(b)(2)(E) of the WARN Act 
provides that ``any commercial mobile service licensee electing to 
transmit emergency alerts may offer subscribers the capability of 
preventing the subscriber's device from receiving such alerts, or 
classes of such alerts, other than an alert issued by the President.'' 
In the Third Report and Order, the Commission addressed this section of 
the WARN Act by adopting section 10.280 of the WEA rules, which states 
that Participating CMS Providers ``may provide their subscribers with 
the option to opt out of both, or either, the `Child Abduction 
Emergency/AMBER Alert' and `Imminent Threat Alert' classes of Alert 
Messages,'' and that Participating CMS Providers ``shall provide their 
subscribers with a clear indication of what each option means, and 
provide examples of the types of messages the customer may not receive 
as a result of opting out.'' The Commission also allowed Participating 
CMS Providers the flexibility to provide opt-out choices consistent 
with their own infrastructure in order to accommodate variations among 
Participating CMS Provider networks and devices. The Commission 
reasoned that this approach would allow consumers the flexibility to 
choose what type of messages they wish to receive, while also ensuring 
that customers would be apprised of the most severe threats as 
communicated by Presidential Alert messages. Further, the Commission 
reasoned that this approach would accommodate ``differences in how CMS 
providers and device manufacturers provision menus and user 
interfaces.'' The Commission's approach was consistent with the CMSAAC 
recommendation that a simple opt-out program should allow consumers the 
choice to opt out of Imminent Threat Alerts and AMBER Alerts.
    56. Section 602(b)(2)(E) of the WARN Act required the Commission to 
send a report to Congress making recommendations on whether 
Participating CMS Providers should continue to be permitted to offer 
their subscribers the ability to opt out of receiving Imminent Threat 
and AMBER Alerts. As required by the WARN Act, the Commission filed the 
report on August 5, 2010, but initial deployment of WEA was not 
scheduled until April 2012. Accordingly, although the Commission 
adopted opt-out rules in 2008, at the time the Commission submitted its 
report to Congress there was no WEA service from which customers could 
opt-out, so the Commission made no recommendations regarding subscriber 
opt-out capability.
    57. Now that WEA has been deployed for over three years, the 
Commission seek comment on the opt-out provisions currently used by 
Participating CMS Providers. Further, the Commission seeks comment on 
specific factors that lead consumers to opt out of receiving WEA 
messages. For example, do consumers regularly opt out of receiving WEA 
messages because they receive alerts that are not relevant to their 
geographic location? If so, would the new geo-targeting rules the 
Commission proposes today reduce consumer opt-out? Has message length, 
particularly the 90-character limit, been a factor in consumer 
decisions to opt out? Would the provision of further details about the 
nature of life-threatening situations and instructions on how to 
respond make it more or less likely that consumers would choose to opt 
out of receiving WEA messages? Similarly, would the availability of WEA 
messages in languages other than English, Emergency Government 
Information, embedded URLs, embedded phone numbers or multimedia 
content have an impact on consumer opt out, and if so, then to what 
extent?
    58. The Commission notes that many Participating CMS Providers 
supply, display, or refer the customer to instructions on how to opt 
out of receiving WEA messages on Participating CMS Provider Web sites. 
Does the manner in which Participating CMS Providers offer their 
customers information regarding consumer choice have an impact on 
whether consumers opt out of receiving WEA messages? Would the goals of 
the statute be better served by requiring a more neutral approach? If 
so, should the Commission prescribe a consistent, transparent and 
uniform opt-out procedure for WEA messages, or are there other 
regulatory responses that would effectively prevent such favoritism 
while providing Participating CMS Providers with more flexibility in 
how they inform consumers of the options?
    59. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which 
Participating CMS Providers can provide consumers with a greater number 
of opt-out choices that might facilitate consumer participation in WEA. 
For example, could Participating CMS Providers offer users the option 
to receive AMBER Alerts only during certain times, such as during the 
day, so they will not be disturbed during the evening or at night? Are 
consumers currently able to silence some or all WEA alerts by using 
``silent mode'' or ``do not disturb'' functions on their mobile 
devices? Are there other ways to personalize alert receipt options that 
would help optimize the balance between encouraging WEA participation 
and providing consumers with sufficient information to make an informed 
opt out decision? Should the Commission require Participating CMS 
Providers to offer any of these types of personalized alert receipt 
options, and, if so, what costs, if any, would such a requirement 
impose on the Provider? What benefits would be associated with such a 
requirement? For example, would a greater number of consumers decide 
not to disassociate completely from WEA if they had a more nuanced 
range of choices in how they could receive alerts, such as having the 
option to

[[Page 77306]]

cache certain types of alerts received during the evening or night for 
later delivery during a more convenient time, or to limit the types of 
weather alerts they would receive, for example, to tornadoes but not 
thunderstorms?
    60. The Commission seeks comment on the extent that public 
perception of WEA contributes to consumer opt-out and to CMS Provider 
election to participate in WEA. To the extent that the rules the 
Commission proposes today will heighten public awareness and improve 
public perception of the value of WEA, to what extent is this expected 
to affect consumer opt out and CMS Provider participation?
    61. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on what potential 
barriers may exist that prevent full participation in WEA by all 
wireless providers, particularly any barriers confronting smaller 
providers. What measures could lower any barriers to participation for 
CMS Providers? Are there particular actions the Commission or other 
stakeholders could take to facilitate the voluntary participation of 
non-participating CMS providers, particularly smaller providers, in 
WEA? For instance, do smaller providers encounter issues obtaining WEA-
capable devices?

E. WEA Attention Signals and Public Service Announcements

    62. Section 11.45 of the EAS rules provides, in pertinent part, 
that ``[n]o person may transmit or cause to transmit the EAS codes or 
Attention Signal, or a recording or simulation thereof, in any 
circumstance other than in an actual National, State or Local Area 
emergency or authorized test of the EAS.'' While the Commission's WEA 
rules do not include a comparable bar against the use of the WEA 
Attention Signal, because the WEA and EAS Attention Signals use 
identical frequencies, absent a waiver of the Commission's rules, the 
broadcast or transmission of the WEA Attention Signal may violate 
Section 11.45 of the Commission's rules, particularly insofar as the 
respective signals may be indistinguishable to the listener.
    63. FEMA, in collaboration with Ready.gov and the Ad Council, has 
developed a public education campaign consisting of PSAs, which it has 
distributed to strategic local markets and state and local IPAWS 
partners. In November 2015, the Public Safety and Homeland Security 
Bureau (PSHSB or Bureau), on delegated authority, temporarily waived 
sections 11.45 and 10.520 of the Commission's rules, in order to allow 
FEMA to raise public awareness about WEA and its attention signal 
through a PSA campaign. The waiver, which will expire on May 19, 2017, 
permits the PSAs to play the WEA Attention Signal to familiarize the 
public with the sounds that they may hear from their mobile device when 
they receive a WEA Alert. The Bureau, however, conditioned the waiver 
upon the WEA PSA making clear that the WEA Attention Signal was being 
used ``in the context of the PSA and for the purpose of educating the 
viewing or listening public about the functions of their WEA-capable 
mobile devices and the WEA program.''
    64. The Commission proposes to amend its rules to allow broadcast 
or transmission of the WEA Attention Signal as part of government-
developed PSAs in order to address alert originators' need to raise 
public awareness about WEA. Specifically, the Commission proposes to 
amend sections 11.45 and 10.520 to allow federal, state and local 
governments to use the attention signal common to EAS and WEA to raise 
public awareness about WEA, provided the relevant entity makes it clear 
that the WEA Attention Signal is being used in the context of the PSA, 
``and for the purpose of educating the viewing or listening public 
about the functions of their WEA-capable mobile devices and the WEA 
program,'' including by explicitly stating that the WEA attention 
signal is being used in the context of a PSA for the purpose of 
educating the public about WEA. The Commission also seek comment on 
whether the Commission should further amend section 10.520 to bar the 
use of the WEA Attention Signal in a manner parallel to the bar on use 
of the EAS Attention Signal in Section 11.45 of the Commission's rules. 
In the context of increasing the maximum WEA character limit, FEMA 
notes that it will ``need to . . . conduct additional public 
information efforts to inform people of the new format of WEA messages 
they may receive on their cellular phones.'' Would PSAs be useful for 
this purpose? If the Commission were to amend the Commission's rules to 
allow the broadcast or transmission of the WEA Attention Signal in PSAs 
intended to educate the public about WEA, should the Commission limit 
this exception to PSAs that are developed by FEMA, or should the 
Commission extend this exception to PSAs created by any alerting 
authority recognized by FEMA? If the Commission were to extend the 
exception in this manner, should any such PSAs be subject to prior 
review or approval by FEMA as a condition of being considered compliant 
under the Commission's amended rules?

F. Non-Commercial Educational and Public Broadcast Television Station 
Testing

    65. The WARN Act and the Commission's rules require Non-commercial 
Educational (NCE) and public broadcast television station licensees and 
permittees ``to install necessary equipment and technologies on, or as 
part of, any broadcast television digital signal transmitter to enable 
the distribution of geographically targeted alerts by commercial mobile 
service providers that have elected to transmit emergency alerts'' as a 
back-up to the C-Interface.
    66. In a companion Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further 
Notice) to the Second Report and Order, 73 FR 47552, the Commission 
sought comment on whether it should adopt rules that require NCE and 
public broadcast television station licensees and permittees to test 
the installed equipment. In the Further Notice, the Commission noted 
that NCE and public broadcast television station licensees and 
permittees will, in essence, provide a redundant path by which 
Participating CMS Providers will be able to receive geo-targeted 
alerts. The Commission also noted that it adopted rules to implement 
602(f) of the WARN Act to require technical testing of this back-up 
path for Participating CMS Providers.
    67. Against that background, the Commission sought comment on 
whether NCE/public broadcast television stations should participate in 
WEA testing, and if so, how this testing should be implemented. The 
Commission asked whether it should implement similar requirements as 
those it adopted for Participating CMS Providers. Additionally, the 
Commission sought comment on whether a different testing regime should 
be implemented given the unique circumstances of NCE/public broadcast 
television stations and digital television technology. Only two parties 
commented in response, both of which noted that, although they 
supported testing of the NCE/public television portion of the system, 
there were inherent limits in what such testing would show.
    68. Given the passage of time, and the advances in WEA technology 
that have occurred during that time, the Commission asks that 
interested parties refresh and update the record on whether and how 
testing of the broadcast-based WEA infrastructure should be 
implemented. The Commission also seeks comment on whether NCE/public 
broadcast television stations have the capability to

[[Page 77307]]

test and analyze the transport of messages, and if not, would they be 
required to purchase testing equipment? Would special procedures and 
test signals need to be developed to NCE/public broadcast television 
stations to effectively test message transmission and diagnose delivery 
problems? Additionally, how would NCE/public broadcast television 
stations report problems? As an alternative, would it be sufficient to 
require NCE/public broadcast television stations to simply receive 
tests originated by the Federal Alert Gateway and re-transmit them to 
the CMS Provider Alert Gateway?
    69. Additionally, the Commission asks commenters to specify the 
benefits and costs of adopting NCE/public broadcast television station 
testing requirements. For example, would the public benefits associated 
with ensuring the reliability of a redundant, back-up system outweigh 
the costs to NCE and public broadcast station licensees and permittees 
in testing equipment? Would an extended implementation timeframe 
mitigate such costs?

G. WEA Prioritization

    70. Section 10.410 of the Commission's WEA rules requires 
Participating CMS Providers' Alert Gateways to process alerts on a 
first in-first out (FIFO) basis, except for Presidential Alerts, which 
must be processed before all non-Presidential alerts. Section 10.320 
reiterates this requirement, and further requires Participating CMS 
Provider's Alert Gateways to support ``a mechanism to manage congestion 
within the CMS provider's infrastructure.'' Further, in the First 
Report and Order, the Commission concluded that ``it would be contrary 
to the public interest if alert messages were to preempt certain active 
voice or data sessions,'' observing that it would not be in the public 
interest if urgent calls for help during crises were preempted by alert 
traffic. This conclusion was consistent with the recommendations of the 
CMSAAC, which stated that ``the presentation of the received [ ] alert 
message should take priority over other mobile device functions except 
for the preemption of an active voice or data session.''
    71. Given the passage of time, and the advances in WEA technology 
that have occurred during that time, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether it should amend section 10.320 of the Commission's rules to 
address prioritization at the Alert Gateway, in transit, and on the 
mobile device. Specifically, with respect to prioritization at the 
Alert Gateway, the Commission seeks comment on whether WEA alerts 
should continue to be processed on a FIFO basis, with the exception of 
the Presidential Alert? Should Imminent Threat Alerts attaining a 
certain threshold level of urgency, severity and certainty be processed 
before other, less extreme Imminent Threats potentially affecting the 
same geographic area? In the event commenters believe a particular type 
of alert should be prioritized over another, the Commission seeks 
comment on the order of prioritization and basis for such 
prioritization. With respect to the prioritization of WEA alerts in 
transit, should the Commission require that WEA alert data have 
priority over all other data in transit? Would this have any unintended 
practical consequences, given that all traffic is increasingly data?

H. Participating CMS Provider Election Process

    72. The Commission's WEA rules allow Participating CMS Providers to 
elect to transmit WEA alert messages ``in a manner consistent with the 
technical standards, protocols, procedures, and other technical 
requirements implemented by the Commission.'' The WEA rules also allow 
Participating CMS Providers to withdraw their election to participate 
in WEA ``without regulatory penalty or forfeiture.'' The Commission 
adopted these rules based on the WARN Act's requirements that CMS 
providers that elect to transmit emergency alerts must agree to follow 
the technical rules adopted by the Commission, and the WARN Act's 
provision that Participating CMS Providers may withdraw their election 
to transmit emergency alerts at any time without penalty upon written 
notification to subscribers. CSRIC IV recommends that the Commission 
modify these election procedures to provide CMS Providers with multiple 
election options. Under CSRIC IV's recommendations, a CMS Provider 
could elect to continue to participate in WEA under the new rules 
adopted by the Commission, or ``under the rules in place at the time of 
the original election.'' CSRIC IV recommends that CMS Providers should 
be required to electronically file with the Commission, within 180 days 
following the adoption of changes or enhancements to WEA rules, a 
letter attesting to the CMS Provider's election as recommended above.
    73. The Commission believes that Participating CMS Providers should 
continue to provide WEA service in a manner consistent with the 
Commission's WEA rules, including any amendments the Commission might 
adopt as a result of this proceeding. Under the WARN Act, CMS Provider 
election to participate in WEA is voluntary, but once a CMS provider 
elects to participate in WEA, participation must be consistent with the 
Commission's rules. The WARN Act plainly states that a CMS Provider 
that elects to transmit alerts under the WARN Act must do so ``in a 
manner consistent with the technical standards, protocols, procedures, 
and other technical requirements implemented by the Commission.'' There 
is nothing in the WARN Act that gives a Participating CMS Provider the 
authority to select which technical standards, protocols, procedures 
and other requirements with which it will comply. The Commission 
observes that to allow each Participating CMS Provider to support a 
substantively or technically different WEA service could introduce 
confusion and potentially impede interoperability, unnecessarily 
complicating the task of alert originators at the very instant when 
lives may depend on getting an accurate and timely alert to the 
community. Moreover, if the Commission were to adopt CSRIC IV's 
recommended revisions to the Commission's election procedures, it would 
threaten to eliminate or severely inhibit the Commission's ability to 
implement the WARN Act's vision that the WEA service should evolve, 
consistent with advancements in the underlying technology.
    74. The Commission believes that the record and stakeholder 
practice support the Commission's position that the Commission should 
revisit its technical rules for WEA as technology evolves in order to 
ensure that WEA remains an effective, life-saving service. It was the 
common understanding among all the CMSAAC stakeholders that WEA would 
evolve with technology. Indeed, many of the proposals in this Notice 
are based upon the CMSAAC recommendations that were not adopted by the 
Commission in previous reports and orders because of technological 
limitations present at the time of their adoption. When the Commission 
adopted the WEA rules, it retained the ``discretion and flexibility'' 
to evaluate the CMSAAC's recommendations in order to advance the policy 
goal underlying the WARN Act, i.e., ``the creation of a [WEA system] in 
which CMS Providers will elect to participate, and which will 
effectively deliver alerts and warnings to the public.'' The Commission 
believes this is consistent with the intent of Congress.
    75. In light of the rapid deployment of smart handsets and 4G 
technology as discussed above, the Commission believes that the 
statutory provisions

[[Page 77308]]

giving rise to WEA authorize the Commission to continue to take a 
leadership role, in cooperation with other federal entities, states, 
localities and Participating CMS Providers, to promote the continued 
effectiveness of WEA as a technologically current element of the 
nation's overall alerting strategy. The Commission also believes that 
competitive forces provide Participating CMS Providers with strong 
incentives to continue to transmit emergency alerts to consumer mobile 
devices and that these market incentives, along with the public safety 
benefits the Commission expects to result from these proposed rules, 
provide a strong argument for continued participation in WEA. The 
Commission seeks comment on this analysis, as well as on CSRIC IV's 
recommendation to allow Participating CMS Providers to offer WEA 
pursuant to different requirements.

I. Implementation Timeframe

    76. As discussed below, the Commission proposes that Participating 
CMS Providers must comply with the Commission's WEA messaging rules 
within one year of their effective date, and with the Commission's WEA 
geo-targeting and testing rules within sixty days of their effective 
date. While all of the Commission's proposed rules are intended to 
leverage commercially available technologies to improve public safety 
at minimal cost to Participating CMS Providers, the Commission 
recognizes that compliance with the Commission's WEA messaging rules, 
unlike the Commission's WEA testing and geo-targeting rules, would 
likely require modifications to existing network and device standards 
in order to ensure that Participating CMS Providers are able to comply 
with these proposed rules in a uniform manner.
    77. CSRIC IV recommends that ``within 180 days of the FCC adoption 
of rules for WEA enhancements, the FCC, Participating CMS [P]roviders, 
FEMA, and Alert Originators jointly identify the timelines for enhanced 
WEA development, testing and deployment,'' taking into consideration 
ATIS/TIA feasibility studies scheduled to be completed within one year. 
In response to this CSRIC IV recommendation, and for ease of reference 
and comment, the Commission provides the table below to set forth the 
timeframes for those instances where the Commission proposes specific 
implementation deadlines.

              Figure 3--Proposed Implementation Timeframes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Proposed implementation
        Proposed Rule Amendment                     timeframe
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increasing Maximum WEA Character Length  Within 1 year of the rules'
                                          effective date.
Classifying Emergency Government         Within 1 year of the rules'
 Information.                             effective date.
Embedding Telephone Numbers and URLs...  Within 1 year of the rules'
                                          effective date.
Multimedia Alerting....................  The Commission seeks comment on
                                          a reasonable timeline for
                                          Participating CMS Providers to
                                          support multimedia in WEA
                                          messages.
Multilingual Alerting..................  The Commission seeks comment on
                                          a reasonable timeline for
                                          Participating CMS Providers to
                                          support multilingual WEA
                                          messages.
WEA Geo-targeting......................  Within 60 days of the rules'
                                          effective date.
Adopting State and Local WEA Testing     Within 60 days of the rules'
 and Proficiency Training.                effective date.
Requiring Alert Logging Test Reporting.  Within 60 days of the adoption
                                          of final State/Local WEA
                                          Testing and proficiency
                                          training rules, or within 60
                                          days of the launch of ETRS,
                                          whichever is later.
WEA Attention Signals and Public         Within 60 days of the rules'
 Service Announcements.                   effective date.
Non-commercial Educational and Public    The Commission seeks comment on
 Broadcast Television Station Testing.    a reasonable timeline for
                                          testing of the broadcast-based
                                          WEA infrastructure to
                                          commence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    78. Proposed WEA Messaging Rules. The Commission proposes that all 
Participating CMS Providers should comply with the Commission's 
proposed WEA messaging rules--specifically, the Commission's proposed 
requirements to extend the maximum WEA message length to 360 
characters, provide Emergency Government Information alert messages, 
and be capable of including phone numbers and URLs in WEA alerts--one 
year from the adoption of final rules. While the Commission believes 
these proposed requirements leverage commercially available 
technologies, the Commission recognizes that implementation of these 
requirements would necessitate standards modifications. In particular, 
according to CSRIC IV, the standards revision process associated with 
increasing the maximum WEA character length would take one year to 
complete. The Commission seeks comment on this timeframe. Commenters 
are encouraged to specify an alternative timeline if compliance within 
one year is considered infeasible, or if compliance can be met earlier, 
including by specifying whether compliance with the Commission's 
proposed rules should be completed in stages. The Commission also seeks 
comment on benefits and costs relating to the Commission's analysis and 
transition period.
    79. Proposed Geo-targeting, Testing, Logging, and Reporting Rules. 
The Commission proposes that all Participating CMS Providers should be 
required to comply with the Commission's WEA testing and geo-targeting 
rules within sixty days of their effective date. Given that some 
Participating CMS Providers are already utilizing a variety of 
techniques discussed above to voluntarily deliver more finely geo-
targeted WEA messages, and that CSRIC IV recommends that the Commission 
establish a waiver process to the extent necessary to allow State/Local 
WEA Testing during the pendency of this rulemaking, the Commission 
believes that Participating CMS Providers are already capable of 
complying with the Commission's proposed geo-targeting and testing 
rules, and that it would serve the public interest to implement these 
requirements in a swift manner. The Commission seeks comment on this 
timeframe and on the Commission's rationale.
    80. The Commission further proposes that Participating CMS 
Providers should comply with WEA alert logging and test reporting 
requirements within sixty days of the adoption of final State/Local WEA 
Testing and proficiency training rules, or within sixty days of the 
launch of ETRS, whichever is later. The Commission notes that the 
Commission required EAS Participants to file test report data in ETRS 
within sixty days of the effective date of the ETRS rules, or within 
sixty days of the launch of the ETRS, whichever was later. The 
Commission anticipates that filing test result data in ETRS will 
present

[[Page 77309]]

Participating CMS Providers with obligations similar to those of EAS 
Participants. If ETRS is not operational within sixty days of the 
adoption of final State/Local WEA Testing rules, the Commission 
proposes to encourage state and local alert originators who engage in 
State/Local WEA Testing to file self-recorded test results in PS Docket 
No. 15-91 using the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) until ETRS 
becomes operational. In this manner, any meaningful data from initial 
State/Local WEA Tests would be captured and recorded, and could be 
leveraged to help improve WEA. Finally, the Commission proposes that 
any amendments to the Commission's WEA rules to allow the use of the 
WEA tones in government-produced PSAs would be effective sixty days 
from their effective date.
    81. Providing Multilingual and Multimedia Alerts. The Commission 
seeks comment on timeframes within which it would be reasonable to 
expect Participating CMS Providers to support WEA messages in languages 
other than English, and messages that contain multimedia. In responding 
to the Commission's requests for comment on the form that rules 
regarding these issues should take, commenters are encouraged to 
provide timetables along which the Commission should reasonably expect 
Participating CMS Providers to comply with such requirements, including 
any interim milestones that the Commission might expect Participating 
CMS Providers to reach along the way to fulfilling the Commission's 
ultimate objectives.
    82. NCE and Public Broadcast Television Station Testing. The 
Commission asks commenters to propose a specific implementation 
timeframe to enable NCE and public broadcast television station 
licensees and permittees to test the installed equipment. For example, 
if the Commission were to require NCE/public broadcast television 
station testing of equipment, should such a requirement be phased in 
over a specific period of time? Under a phased-in approach, what would 
be appropriate milestones to guide implementation of such testing 
requirements? What would be the costs and benefits of a phased in 
approach?

III. Procedural Matters

A. Ex Parte Rules

    83. The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be treated as a 
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's 
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy 
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral 
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a 
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons 
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda 
summarizing the presentation must: (1) List all persons attending or 
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte 
presentation was made; and (2) summarize all data presented and 
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted 
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already 
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other 
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such 
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other 
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where 
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of 
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda 
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, 
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available 
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., 
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding 
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

B. Comment Filing Procedures

    84. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments in response to this Notice on or before the dates indicated on 
the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the 
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic 
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
    [ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
    [ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties that choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket 
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    [ssquf] Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    1. All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the 
Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 
12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 
8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber 
bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before 
entering the building.
    2. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
    3. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must 
be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    [ssquf] People with Disabilities: To request materials in 
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or 
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 
(voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    85. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5 
U.S.C. 604, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this document. 
The IRFA is set forth in Appendix B. Written public comments are 
requested in the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with 
the same filing deadlines as comments filed in response to this Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking as set forth on the first page of this document, 
and have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses 
to the IRFA.

D. Initial Paperwork Reduction Analysis

    86. This document contains proposed new and modified information 
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing 
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information 
collection requirements contained in this

[[Page 77310]]

document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public 
Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork 
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the 
Commission seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the 
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer 
than 25 employees.

E. Further Information

    1. For further information regarding the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking contact James Wiley, Attorney Advisor, Policy and Licensing 
Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 418-1678 
or [email protected] or John A. Evanoff, Attorney-Advisor, Policy and 
Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 
418-0848 or [email protected].

IV. Ordering Clauses

    2. Accordingly, it is ordered that pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i) and 
(o), 201, 303(r), 403, and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (o), 201, 303(r), 403, and 606, as 
well as by sections 602(a), (b), (c), (f), 603, 604 and 606 of the WARN 
Act, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Is hereby adopted.
    3. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking including the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 10

    Communications common carriers, Radio, Emergency alerting.

47 CFR Part 11

    Radio, Television, Emergency alerting.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 10 and 47 CFR 
part 11 to read as follows:

PART 10--WIRELESS EMERGENCY ALERTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 10 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (o), 201, 303(r), 403, and 
606, as well as sections 602(a), (b), (c), (f), 603, 604 and 606 of 
the WARN Act.

0
2. Amend Sec.  10.280 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  10.280  Subscribers' right to opt out of WEA notifications.

    (a) CMS providers may provide their subscribers with the option to 
opt out of the ``Child Abduction Emergency/AMBER Alert,'' ``Imminent 
Threat Alert'' and/or ``Emergency Government Information'' classes of 
Alert Messages.
* * * * *
0
3. Add paragraph (g) to Sec.  10.320 to read as follows:


Sec.  10.320  Provider alert gateway requirements

* * * * *
    (g) Alert Logging. The CMS provider gateway must perform the 
following functions:
    (1) Provide a mechanism to log messages with time stamps that 
verify when messages are received, and when the messages are 
acknowledged or rejected by the Participating CMS Provider Alert 
Gateway, and if an alert is rejected, to provide the specific error 
code generated by the rejection;
    (2) Maintain an online log of active and cancelled alert messages 
for 90 days, and maintain archived logs for at least 36 months that 
should be accessible by Participating CMS Providers for testing and 
troubleshooting purposes; and
    (3) Generate monthly system and performance statistics reports 
based on category of alert, alert originator, alert area, and other 
alerting attributes?
0
4. Amend Sec.  10.350 by revising the section heading and adding 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  10.350  WEA testing and proficiency training requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) State/Local WEA Testing. A Participating CMS Provider must 
ensure that their systems support State/Local WEA Testing and 
proficiency training.
    (1) A Participating CMS Provider's Gateway shall support the 
ability to receive a State/Local WEA Test message initiated by the 
Federal Alert Gateway Administrator.
    (2) A Participating CMS Provider shall distribute a State/Local WEA 
Test to the geographic area specified by the alert originator pursuant 
to the geographic targeting standard established by Sec.  10.450 of 
this chapter.
    (3) A Participating CMS Provider may forego a State/Local WEA Test 
if the State/Local WEA Test is pre-empted by actual alert traffic or if 
an unforeseen condition in the CMS Provider infrastructure precludes 
distribution of the State/Local WEA Test. A Participating CMS Provider 
Gateway shall indicate such an unforeseen condition by a response code 
to the Federal Alert Gateway.
    (4) CMS Providers may provide their subscribers with the option to 
opt in to receive State/Local WEA Tests.
0
5. Revise the introductory text and add paragraph (d) to Sec.  10.400 
to read as follows:


Sec.  10.400  Classification.

    A Participating CMS Provider is required to receive and transmit 
four classes of Alert Messages: Presidential Alert; Imminent Threat 
Alert; Child Abduction Emergency/AMBER Alert; and Emergency Government 
Information.
* * * * *
    (d) Emergency Government Information. An Emergency Government 
Information message is an essential public safety advisory that 
prescribes one or more actions likely to save lives and/or safeguard 
property during an emergency.
0
6. Revise Sec.  10.430 to read as follows:


Sec.  10.430  Character limit.

    A Participating CMS Provider must support WEA Alert Messages 
containing at least 90 characters of alphanumeric text. If, however, it 
is technically feasible for a Participating CMS Provider to support a 
WEA Alert Message of up to 360 characters of alphanumeric text, a 
Participating CMS Provider must transmit such an Alert Message.


Sec.  10.440  [Removed]

0
7. Remove Sec.  10.440.
0
8. Revise Sec.  10.450 to read as follows:


Sec.  10.450  Geographic targeting.

    This section establishes minimum requirements for the geographic 
targeting of Alert Messages. A Participating CMS Provider will 
determine which of its network facilities, elements, and locations will 
be used to geographically target Alert Messages. A Participating CMS 
Provider must transmit any alert message that is specified by a 
geocode, circle, or polygon to a target area not larger than the 
specified geocode, circle, or polygon. If, however, the Participating 
CMS Provider cannot broadcast the alert to an area that accurately 
matches the target area, a Participating CMS Provider may transmit an 
Alert Message to an area that closely approximates the target area, but 
in any case not exceeding the propagation area of a single transmission 
site.

[[Page 77311]]

0
9. Amend Sec.  10.520 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  10.520  Common audio attention signal.

* * * * *
    (d) The audio attention signal must be restricted to use for Alert 
Messages under part 10, except as used for federal Public Service 
Announcements (PSAs) designed to raise public awareness about emergency 
alerting, provided that the federal agency presents the PSA in a non-
misleading manner, including by explicitly stating that the emergency 
alerting attention signal is being used in the context of a PSA for the 
purpose of educating the viewing or listening public about emergency 
alerting.
* * * * *

PART 11--EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM

0
10. The authority citation for part 11 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154 (i) and (o), 303(r), 544(g) and 
606.

0
11. Revise Sec.  11.45 to read as follows:


Sec.  11.45  Prohibition of false or deceptive EAS transmissions.

    No person may transmit or cause to transmit the EAS codes or 
Attention Signal, or a recording or simulation thereof, in any 
circumstance other than in an actual National, State or Local Area 
emergency or authorized test of the EAS, or as specified in Sec.  
10.520(d).

Federal Communications Commission.
Gloria J. Miles,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-31234 Filed 12-11-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P