[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 57 (Thursday, March 24, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15792-15833]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05275]



[[Page 15791]]

Vol. 81

Thursday,

No. 57

March 24, 2016

Part II





Federal Communications Commission





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











47 CFR Part 11





Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System and Wireless Emergency 
Alerts; Proposed Rules

  Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 57 / Thursday, March 24, 2016 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 15792]]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 11

[PS Docket No. 15-94, PS Docket No. 15-91; FCC 16-5


Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System and Wireless Emergency 
Alerts

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes taking the next step towards 
strengthening the nation's public alert and warning systems, the 
Emergency Alert System (EAS) and Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA), as 
community-driven public safety tools capable of ensuring that the 
public is able to receive and properly respond to alerts issued by 
alerting authorities in emergency situations. This document seeks 
comment on proposed rule changes in four areas: Improving alerting 
organization at the state and local levels; building effective 
community-based public safety exercises; ensuring that alerting 
mechanisms are able to leverage advancements in technology, including 
IP-based technologies; and securing the EAS against accidental misuse 
and malicious intrusion. By this action, the Commission 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 EAS and WEA as an alerting tool.

DATES: Comments are due on or before May 9, 2016 and reply comments are 
due on or before June 7, 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 May 23, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 15-94 
and 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 at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking in PS Docket Nos. 15-94 and 15-91, FCC 16-5, 
released on January 29, 2015. The documents are available for download 
at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0129/FCC-16-5A1.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).
    This document contains proposed information collection 
requirements. 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 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. 
Public and agency comments on the PRA proposed information collection 
requirements are due May 23, 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 and (e) ways to further reduce the information 
collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees. 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.
    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 Title of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A 
copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.
    OMB Control Number: 3060-0207.
    Title: Part 11--Emergency Alert System (EAS), NPRM, FCC 16-5.
    Form Number: Not applicable.
    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, not-for-profit 
institutions, and state, local, or tribal government.
    Number of Respondents and Responses: 63,080 respondents; 3,597,086 
responses.
    Estimated Time per Response: 51 hours.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement and 
recordkeeping requirement.
    Obligation to Respond: Obligatory for all entities required to 
participate in EAS. Statutory authority for this collection of 
information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and 606 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended.
    Total Annual Burden: 116,933 hours.

[[Page 15793]]

    Total Annual Cost: None.
    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).
    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission seeks comment 
on whether any aspects of State EAS Plans submitted via the State EAS 
Plan Filing Interface (SEPFI) should be made confidential and, further, 
whether it would be sufficient to provide such data with the same level 
of confidentiality as test data submitted to the Commission via the 
Electronic Test Reporting System (ETRS). The Commission has stated that 
it will allow such data to be shared on a confidential basis with other 
Federal agencies and state government emergency management agencies 
that have confidentiality protection at least equal to that provided by 
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552 (2006), amended by 
OPEN Government Act of 2007, Pub. L. 110-175, 121 Stat. 2524). The 
Commission also seeks comment on the degree of confidentiality that 
should be provided for the security certifications and false alert and 
lockout notifications submitted to the Commission via ETRS. 
Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on its tentative conclusion 
that the act of filing an annual certification and the responses on the 
face of such certification forms should not be treated as presumptively 
confidential but that the act of filing addenda to the certification 
describing alternative approaches or corrective action with respect to 
performance of required security measures, as well as the contents of 
such addenda, should be treated as presumptively confidential. The 
Commission also seeks comment on its tentative conclusion that the mere 
fact of filing or not filing a false alert report or lockout 
notification should not be treated as presumptively confidential, while 
the information submitted in the report should be treated 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 
(NPRM). 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 comments on the NPRM provided in section III of the NPRM. 
The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
(SBA).

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

    2. With this NPRM, the Commission takes another step towards 
strengthening the Emergency Alert System (EAS) and Wireless Emergency 
Alerts (WEA) as community-driven public safety tools by proposing 
revisions to the EAS and WEA rules to ensure the public is able to 
receive and properly respond to alerts issued by alerting authorities 
in emergency situations. The Commission's proposals fall into four 
categories, improving alerting organization at the state and local 
levels, building effective community-based public safety exercises, 
ensuring that alerting mechanisms are able to leverage advancements in 
technology (including IP-based technologies), and securing the EAS 
against accidental misuse and malicious intrusion. With respect to 
improving alerting organization at the state and local levels, the 
Commission proposes to adopt EAS designations that more accurately 
reflect the current roles and responsibilities of key EAS Participants; 
streamline and update the State EAS Plan filing process by requiring 
State Emergency Communications Committees (SECCs) to file their plans 
electronically in an online State EAS Plan filing system; and adopt a 
standard online template for State EAS Plan content to allow the SECCs 
to file plans that fully detail their strategy for delivering 
Presidential and other life-saving alerts in an evolving technological 
landscape. With respect to building effective community-based alerting 
exercise programs, the Commission proposes to expand the EAS testing 
regime to include ``live'' code tests as community public safety 
exercises and to allow the use of EAS header codes and emergency 
alerting Attention Signal in Public Service Announcements (PSAs) by 
entities aiming to raise public awareness of, and alert initiator 
proficiency with EAS. The Commission seeks comment on how to best 
ensure that community based exercises address the needs of individuals 
with limited English proficiency and individuals with disabilities. The 
Commission seeks comment on several issues that reflect the extent to 
which evolving technologies are changing the alerting landscape. 
Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on whether to retain the 
current forced tuning and selective override provisions in light of 
stakeholder feedback and advances in technology. Further, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether an EAS Participant cable or 
Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) provider should be required to 
deliver EAS alerts and tests over any channel, whether ``programmed'' 
or not, if it is controlled by the EAS Participant and viewable by the 
consumer. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on potential 
technological advancements to improve alert accessibility.
    3. This NPRM 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 
NPRM 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 
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 NPRM may be found in 
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(o), 301, 303(b), (g) and (r), 303(v), 
307, 309, 335, 403, 544(g), 606, 613, 615 and 1302; Sections 602(a), 
(b), (c), (d), (f), 603, 604, and 606 of the Warning, Alert and 
Response Network (WARN) Act, Title VI of the Security and 
Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006, Public Law 109-347, 120 
Stat. 1884 (2006); Twenty-First Century Communications and Video 
Accessibility Act of 2010, Public Law 111-260 and Public Law 111-265.

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. 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). 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

[[Page 15794]]

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. Below, the Commission describes and estimates 
the number of small entity licensees that may be affected by the 
proposed rules.
    6. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. 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. Radio Stations. This Economic Census category comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by 
radio to the public. Programming may originate in the station's own 
studio, from an affiliated network, or from an external source. The SBA 
defines a radio broadcasting entity that has $38.5 million or less in 
annual receipts as a small business. According to Commission staff 
review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Radio Analyzer Database as 
of June 5, 2013, about 90 percent of the 11,340 of commercial radio 
stations in the United States have revenues of $38.5 million or less. 
Therefore, the majority of such entities are small entities. The 
Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial radio 
stations to be 3,917. The Commission does not have revenue data or 
revenue estimates for these stations. These stations rely primarily on 
grants and contributions for their operations, so the Commission will 
assume that all of these entities qualify as small businesses. The 
Commission notes that in assessing whether a business entity qualifies 
as small under the above definition, business control affiliations must 
be included. In addition, to be determined to be a ``small business,'' 
the entity may not be dominant in its field of operation. The 
Commission notes that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria 
in the context of media entities, and the Commission's estimate of 
small businesses may therefore be over-inclusive.
    8. Low-Power FM Stations. The same SBA definition that applies to 
radio broadcast licensees would apply to low-power FM (``LPFM'') 
stations. The SBA defines a radio broadcast station as a small business 
if such station has no more than $38.5 million in annual receipts. 
Currently, there are approximately 864 licensed LPFM stations. Given 
the nature of these services, the Commission will presume that all of 
these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.
    9. Television Broadcasting. The SBA defines a television 
broadcasting station as a small business if such station has no more 
than $38.5 million in annual receipts. Business concerns included in 
this industry are those ``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. These establishments also 
produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast 
television stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public 
on a predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in the station's 
own studio, from an affiliated network, or from an external source.
    10. According to Commission staff review of the BIA Financial 
Network, Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database as of March 31, 
2013, about 90 percent of an estimated 1,385 commercial television 
stations in the United States have revenues of $38.5 million or less. 
Based on this data and the associated size standard, the Commission 
concludes that the majority of such establishments are small. The 
Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial 
educational (``NCE'') stations to be 396. The Commission does not have 
revenue estimates for NCE stations. These stations rely primarily on 
grants and contributions for their operations, so the Commission will 
assume that all of these entities qualify as small businesses. In 
addition, there are approximately 567 licensed Class A stations, 2,227 
licensed low-power television (``LPTV'') stations, and 4,518 licensed 
TV translators. Given the nature of these services, the Commission will 
presume that all LPTV licensees qualify as small entities under the 
above SBA small business size standard.
    11. The Commission notes that in assessing whether a business 
entity 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 affected by the proposed 
rules, because the revenue figures on which this estimate is based do 
not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.
    12. 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 and in this context to define or 
quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific 
television station is dominant in its market of operation. Accordingly, 
the foregoing estimate of small businesses to which the rules may apply 
does not exclude any television stations from the definition of a small 
business on this basis and is therefore over-inclusive to that extent. 
An additional element of the definition of ``small business'' is that 
the entity must be independently owned and operated. 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.
    13. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 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.'' 
Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications 
network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, 
such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services; wired 
(cable) audio and video programming distribution; and wired broadband 
Internet services. By exception, ``establishments providing satellite 
television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure 
that they operate are included in this industry.'' In this category, 
the SBA deems a wired telecommunications carrier to be small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows 3,188 firms in 
this category. Of these, 3,144 had fewer than 1,000 employees. On this 
basis, the Commission estimates that a substantial majority of the 
providers of

[[Page 15795]]

wired telecommunications carriers are small.
    14. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. This industry 
comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating studios and 
facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a subscription or fee 
basis. The broadcast programming is typically narrowcast in nature 
(e.g., limited format, such as news, sports, education, or youth-
oriented). These establishments produce programming in their own 
facilities or acquire programming from external sources. The 
programming material is usually delivered to a third party, such as 
cable systems or direct-to-home satellite systems, for transmission to 
viewers. The SBA size standard for this industry establishes as small 
any company in this category which receives annual receipts of $38.5 
million or less. U.S. Census data for 2007 show that 396 firms operated 
for the entire year. Of these, 349 operated with annual receipts of 
less than $25 million a year. Based on this data, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of firms operating in this industry is 
small.
    15. Cable System Operators (Rate Regulation Standard). The 
Commission has developed its own small business size standard for cable 
system operators, for purposes of rate regulation. Under the 
Commission's Rules, a ``small cable company'' is one serving 400,000 or 
fewer subscribers nationwide. Industry data indicate that there are 
currently 4,600 active cable systems in the United States. Of this 
total, all but nine cable operators nationwide are small under the 
400,000-subscriber size standard. In addition, under the Commission's 
rate regulation rules, a ``small system'' is a cable system serving 
15,000 or fewer subscribers. Current Commission records show 4,600 
cable systems nationwide. Of this total, 3,900 cable systems have fewer 
than 15,000 subscribers, and 700 systems have 15,000 or more 
subscribers, based on the same records. Thus, under this standard, the 
Commission estimates that most cable systems are small.
    16. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard 
for small cable system operators, which is ``a cable operator that, 
directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 
percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated 
with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the 
aggregate exceed $250,000,000.'' There are approximately 52,403,705 
cable video subscribers in the United States today. Accordingly, an 
operator serving fewer than 524,037 subscribers shall be deemed a small 
operator if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual 
revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the 
aggregate. Based on available data, the Commission finds that all but 
nine incumbent cable operators are small entities under this size 
standard. The Commission notes that it neither requests nor collects 
information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with 
entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Although it 
seems certain that some of these cable system operators are affiliated 
with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, the 
Commission is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision 
the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable 
operators under the definition in the Communications Act.
    17. Satellite Telecommunications. This category comprises firms 
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other 
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by 
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of 
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' This category 
has a small business size standard of $32.5 million or less in average 
annual receipts, under SBA rules. For this category, Census Bureau data 
for 2007 show that there were a total of 512 satellite communications 
firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 482 firms had 
annual receipts of less than $25 million. Consequently, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are 
small entities that might be affected by the Commission's action.
    18. Other Telecommunications. This category includes 
``establishments primarily engaged in . . . providing satellite 
terminal stations and associated facilities operationally connected 
with one or more terrestrial communications systems and capable of 
transmitting telecommunications to or receiving telecommunications from 
satellite systems.'' The SBA definition of Other Telecommunications 
entities comprises those that have $32.5 million or less in average 
annual receipts. For this category, Census Bureau data for 2007 show 
that there were a total of 2,383 firms that operated for the entire 
year. Of this total, 2,346 firms had annual receipts of under $25 
million and 37 firms had annual receipts of $25 million to $49,999,999. 
Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of Other 
Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by 
the Commission's action.
    19. The Educational Broadcasting Services. In addition, the SBA's 
placement of Cable Television Distribution Services in the category of 
Wired Telecommunications Carriers is applicable to cable-based 
Educational Broadcasting Services. Since 2007, these services have been 
defined within the broad economic census category of Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers, which was developed for small wireline 
businesses. This 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. Establishments in this industry use the wired 
telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a 
variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP 
services; wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution; and 
wired broadband Internet services.'' The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for this category, which is: All such businesses 
having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there 
were 31,996 establishments that operated that year. Of this total, 
30,178 establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 
establishments had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size 
standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of businesses can 
be considered small entities. In addition to Census data, the 
Commission's internal records indicate that as of September 2014, there 
are 2,207 active EBS licenses. The Commission estimates that of these 
2,207 licenses, the majority are held by non-profit educational 
institutions and school districts, which are by statute defined as 
small businesses.
    20. Direct Broadcast Satellite (``DBS'') Service. DBS service is a 
nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and 
audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic ``dish'' antenna 
at the subscriber's location. DBS is now included in SBA's economic 
census category ``Wired Telecommunications Carriers.'' This category is 
defined as follows: ``This industry comprises establishments primarily 
engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities 
and infrastructure that they

[[Page 15796]]

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. 
Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications 
network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, 
such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services; wired 
(cable) audio and video programming distribution; and wired broadband 
Internet services. The SBA has developed a small business size standard 
for this category, which is: All such businesses having 1,500 or fewer 
employees. Census data for 2007 shows 3,188 firms in this category. Of 
these, 3,144 had fewer than 1,000 employees. Based on that data, the 
Commission concludes that the majority of wireline firms are small 
under the applicable standard. However, based on more recent data 
developed internally by the Commission, currently only two entities 
provide DBS service, which requires a great deal of capital for 
operation: DIRECTV and DISH Network. Accordingly, the Commission must 
conclude that internally developed Commission data are persuasive that 
in general DBS service is provided only by large firms.
    21. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). This 
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining 
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the 
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and 
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular phone services, 
paging services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video services. 
The appropriate size standard under SBA rules for the category Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite) is that a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 show 
that there were 1,383 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this 
total, 1,368 firms had employment of fewer than 1000 employees. Thus 
under this category and the associated small business size standard, 
the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless 
telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small.
    22. 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 
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.
    23. 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.
    24. 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.
    25. 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.
    26. 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.

[[Page 15797]]

    27. 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.
    28. 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.
    29. 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 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.
    30. 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, the Commission 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.
    31. 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.
    32. 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.
    33. 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

[[Page 15798]]

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 
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.
    34. 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.
    35. 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.
    36. 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 $38.5 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.
    37. 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.
    38. The Commission has 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 for Small Entities

    39. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to expand the scope 
of State EAS Plans to include additional information necessary to 
reflect advances in technology, and to ensure the successful 
transmission of a Presidential Alert, such as uniform EAS designations, 
a description of SECC governance structure, expanded descriptions of 
emergency alerting procedures, a more accurate statement of monitoring 
requirements, a statement of the extent to which states leverage one-
to-many/many-to-one communications, expanded testing procedures and 
security elements. It proposes that such Plans be submitted via an 
online State EAS Plan Filing Interface (SEPFI) designed to minimize 
filing burdens attendant to the Commission's State EAS Plan 
requirements, and to offset any additional burden that the Commission's 
expanded requirements may impose.
    40. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking also proposes adding an 
annual certification to the existing Form 1 of the mandatory electronic 
reporting system, Electronic Test Reporting System (ETRS), that EAS 
Participants have done the following: (1) Kept their systems updated 
with the latest firmware and software patches, (2) put a program in 
place to control access to EAS devices that includes changing default 
passwords, requiring password complexity, and removing or disabling 
expired accounts, (3) ensured that all EAS devices are not directly 
accessible from the Internet, and that, if required, any remote access 
is properly secured and logged, and (4) configured EAS devices to 
validate digital signatures on CAP messages if the source of the CAP 
message requires this feature. Depending on whether the employee 
checking for performance of required security measures is also the 
certifying official, including a certification on Form 1 could take 
between five minutes and an hour for the many EAS Participants that 
already have performed all required security measures. The Commission 
estimates that additional time, and legal and managerial resources may 
be needed for some EAS Participants to complete this certification in 
the first instance only. For those who are not using best

[[Page 15799]]

practices, the Commission estimates it should take no more than four 
hours per device to perform the necessary changes. Given the importance 
of maintaining basic security hygiene, the Commission proposes that the 
impact on small entities of this annual certification would not impose 
an undue burden.
    41. The Commission also proposes extending ETRS to include a false 
alert and lockout reporting requirement. An initial report including 
only the EAS header codes and time discovered of the false message may 
be required within fifteen to thirty minutes of identification of a 
false EAS message transmission, and a final report may be required 
within seventy-two hours including the root cause of the improper 
transmission. Because EAS security incidents have occurred at a rate of 
one or two per year and EAS Participants must already investigate 
unauthorized EAS alert matters as they occur, a reporting requirement 
for false alerts and lockouts would likely have a very minimal impact 
on small entities.

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

    42. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its conclusions, 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 or 
reporting requirements under the rule for 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 small entities.'' 5 
U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).
    43. With respect to the State EAS Plan filing process, converting 
the paper-based filing process into an online process is intended to 
reduce reporting costs and associated burdens for SECCs. With respect 
to State EAS Plan contents, the Commission seeks comment on whether the 
same EAS designations and plan components can be applied universally to 
all states, and have taken steps to allow states flexibility to 
stipulate EAS Plans that fit their individual needs. With respect to 
live code tests, the Commission seeks comment on whether removing the 
need for SECCs to request a waiver of the Commission's rules to conduct 
live code tests will reduce costs and remove regulatory burdens. With 
respect to forced tuning and selective override provisions, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether small entities should be subject to 
different requirements than their larger counterparts.
    44. With respect to security, smaller entities often face 
particular challenges in maintaining awareness of current security 
measures, due to limited human, financial or technical resources; 
however, the Commission is merely proposing performance of required 
security measures to which many EAS Participants, including smaller 
entities, already adhere. Because proper patching and updating and 
basic account management are common best practices accepted across the 
sector, the assumption is that there would be no additional impact on 
small entities to keep EAS systems current. An annual certification 
allows small entities to comply even if they choose to update patches 
semi-annually rather than quarterly, and small entities may 
alternatively explain why they are unable to certify. Digital signature 
authentication has more of an impact on states, which must modify EAS 
plans, and smaller entities often have the advantage of simpler setups 
than those of large entities.
    45. The Commission seeks comment on whether the Presidential Alert 
warrants additional/heightened security measures whose costs may exceed 
the benefits when applied to alerts that are issued more commonly, and 
that have a less immediate impact on national security. The Commission 
seeks comment on whether to except EAS Participants currently 
designated as PN stations from some or all of the security requirements 
the Commission proposes. The Commission also seeks comment on whether 
and how it should consider excepting EAS Participants that qualify as 
``small businesses'' under the Small Business Association (SBA) 
standard their respective industries from some or all of the security 
requirements it proposes. Finally, the Commission proposes 
implementation timeframes for each of its rules that are intended to 
allow EAS Participants to come into compliance with its rules in a 
manner that balances the need for improving EAS organization and 
effectiveness as soon as possible, with any potential burdens that may 
be imposed by adoption of its proposals.

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

    46. None.

Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    47. Technological advancements continue to change the landscape of 
alerting for emergency managers. Alerting tools such as EAS and WEA 
that had previously occupied fundamentally different infrastructures 
now share common platforms and a common language. Social media such as 
Google and Twitter provide emergency managers with entirely new ways of 
informing the public of dangers to life and property, and new ways of 
assessing the public's response. The interactivity enabled by IP-based 
systems may provide emergency managers with the opportunity to receive 
rapid feedback from the public on the effectiveness of alerts and 
warnings.
    48. The Commission is obligated to ensure that the President can 
reach the public in times of national emergency. In light of continuous 
technological advancements, the Commission has taken significant steps 
to ensure that the nation's public alert and warning systems perform 
this function in an effective and accessible manner. At the same time, 
the Commission must continue to review its rules to ensure that the EAS 
and WEA perform this important function in a manner that minimizes 
burdens for stakeholders and safeguards these alerting systems against 
inherent vulnerabilities and attacks. Accordingly, this NPRM proposes 
rules and seeks comment on alerting issues in an evolving technological 
climate in order to continue to provide emergency managers with 
effective tools to assess and coordinate available alerting systems to 
securely deliver an alert from the President during a national crisis, 
and to improve the ability of emergency managers to alert and train 
those communities to take protective action in response to national, 
regional and local emergencies.
    49. As discussed in greater detail below, the Commission estimates 
that the cost of the proposed changes would be more than offset by the 
public benefit of lives saved, together with the reduction in human 
suffering and property loss. One measure against which the Commission 
can balance costs associated with complying with its proposed rules is 
the Department of Transportation (DOT) model, which estimates the value 
of risk reduction, measured in terms of an expected life saved, to be 
$9.1 million. Using the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) as a 
benchmark, even one life saved could more than offset the one-time 
costs potentially imposed by the

[[Page 15800]]

Commission's proposals. The Commission anticipates that its proposed 
rules represent an incremental improvement to the nation's alerting 
capability that could readily save multiple lives per year in the 
foreseeable future. The Commission seeks comment on this analysis, and 
on whether the DOT statistic is the most appropriate yardstick to 
measure the benefits our proposals. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether there is a better measure for quantifying the benefits of 
establishing a new alerting paradigm. If so, commenters should specify 
what specific measure should be used. The Commission encourages 
commenters to include with their comments any data relevant to its 
analysis of the costs and timing involved with the implementation of 
today's proposals.

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Improving Alert Organization at the State and Local Levels

1. EAS Designations
    50. The Commission created EAS designations to ``use succinct 
terminology to more clearly define EAS functions.'' The current EAS 
designations are:
     Primary Entry Point (PEP) System. Defined in Section 11.2, 
47 CFR 11.2, as ``a nationwide network of broadcast stations and other 
entities connected with government activation points . . . used to 
distribute EAS messages . . . formatted in the EAS Protocol . . . , 
including the [Emergency Action Notification (EAN)] and EAS national 
test messages'' that includes ``some of the nation's largest radio 
broadcast stations,'' as approved by FEMA, and is ``designated to 
receive the Presidential alert from FEMA and distribute it to local 
stations.''
     National Primary (NP) stations. Defined in Section 11.2 as 
``the primary entry point for Presidential messages delivered by FEMA . 
. . responsible for broadcasting a Presidential alert to the public and 
to State Primary stations within their broadcast range,'' and by 
Section 11.18 simply as ``a source of EAS Presidential messages.''
     State Primary (SP) stations. Defined in Section 11.2 as 
``the entry point for State messages, which can originate from the 
Governor or a designated representative.'' Section 11.18 defines SP 
stations as ``a source of EAS State messages'' and adds that such 
messages originate from the ``State Emergency Operating Center (EOC) or 
State Capital,'' and that such messages ``are sent via the State Relay 
Network.''
     State Relay Network. Defined in Section 11.20 as a network 
composed of ``State Relay (SR) sources, leased common carrier 
communications facilities or any other available communication 
facilities. The network distributes State EAS messages originated by 
the Governor or designated official.''
     State Relay (SR). Defined in Section 11.18 as ``a source 
of EAS State messages'' that is ``part of the State Relay Network and 
relays National and State common emergency messages into Local Areas.''
     Local Primary (LP) stations. Defined in Section 11.2 as 
radio or TV stations that act as key EAS monitoring sources, stating 
that each LP station ``must monitor its regional PEP station and a 
back-up source for Presidential messages.'' LPs are further defined in 
Section 11.18 as ``a source of EAS Local Area messages . . . 
responsible for coordinating the carriage of common emergency messages 
from sources such as the National Weather Service or local emergency 
management offices as specified in its EAS Local Area Plan.'' According 
to Section 11.18, if an LP ``is unable to carry out this function, 
other LP sources in the Local Area may be assigned the responsibility 
as indicated in State and Local Area Plans'' and ``LP sources are 
assigned numbers (LP-1, 2, 3, etc.) in the sequence they are to be 
monitored by other broadcast stations in the Local Area.''
     Participating National (PN) sources. Defined in Section 
11.18 as sources that ``transmit EAS National, State or Local Area 
messages . . . for direct public reception,'' as defined in Section 
11.18.
     NP, SP, LP and SR stations are defined collectively in 
Section 11.21 as ``key EAS sources.''
    51. Since the Commission defined these EAS designations, SECCs have 
taken disparate approaches to their implementation, leading to the 
inconsistent use of these terms among State EAS Plans. For example, not 
all State EAS Plans contain an NP-designated station, and it is unclear 
whether, in some states, the designations PEP and NP are used 
interchangeably. Further, while some State EAS Plans refer to primary 
sources of state and local alerts as SPs, others identify primary 
sources as SRs. A number of State EAS Plans term the system of 
transmitting state alerts from SR to LP stations and from LP stations 
to PN stations and the public as the State Relay Network, but many 
State EAS Plans do not include SR or State Relay Network designations 
at all. As the Nationwide EAS Test Report indicated, such disparate use 
of what should be common terminology makes it difficult for Commission 
staff to determine how the distribution systems described in various 
state plans can be aggregated into a single comprehensive nationwide 
alerting architecture.
    52. In order to ensure that the Commission can meaningfully review 
and confirm states' preparedness to deliver Presidential Alerts the 
Commission proposes to revise its EAS designation scheme to more 
accurately and consistently describes key EAS sources. Specifically, 
the Commission proposes to continue to designate the primary entry 
point for a Presidential Alert as a PEP, as that is a designation 
determined by FEMA. For each State EAS Plan, however, the Commission 
proposes that the entity tasked with primary responsibility for 
delivering the Presidential Alert to that state's EAS Participants will 
be designated as the National Primary (NP). Thus, for a state that has 
a FEMA-designated PEP, that station would also be designated as that 
state's NP. For a state that does not have a PEP, another station would 
have to be identified to act as the state's NP. The Commission further 
proposes that an entity tasked with initiating the delivery of a state 
EAS alert will be designated as a State Primary (SP). An SP may be a 
broadcaster, a state emergency management office, or other authorized 
entity capable of initiating a state-based EAS alert. The Commission 
proposes that the same entity may be designated as an SP and as an NP. 
In that case, each designation for that station would have to be 
separately listed in the State EAS Plan. The Commission would retain 
the current definition of Participating National (PN) and Local Primary 
(LP). In cases where geography or other reasons necessitate another 
layer of monitoring and retransmission between the LP and PN levels, 
the Commission proposes that such stations be designated in State EAS 
Plans as ``Relay Stations.'' The Commission anticipates that this 
proposed terminology scheme would more clearly define key EAS functions 
in a manner that could be used consistently across all State EAS Plans. 
As discussed in further detail below, the standard SEPFI template 
provides an opportunity to ensure that, going forward, these terms are 
used pursuant to a common understanding of their meaning.
    53. The Commission seeks comment on the designations it has 
identified, based on its analysis of State EAS Plans, as necessary for 
the successful distribution of Presidential, state and local EAS 
alerts. The Commission also seeks comment on whether additional EAS 
designations may be needed, for

[[Page 15801]]

example to encompass new roles EAS Participants may play in an evolving 
technological environment, non-traditional monitoring sources, CAP-
formatted alerts, and a more accurate way to account for the 
significant number of viewers served by cable service providers. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether its proposed designations could be 
used as a uniform vernacular to clarify the roles of EAS Participants, 
including key EAS sources, in each state and territory.
    54. Roles and Designations. Do the current EAS designations limit 
SECCs ability to adequately assign roles and responsibilities to EAS 
Participants in their respective states? Or, on the other hand, does 
the Commission currently maintain more EAS designations than are 
necessary for this task? The Commission seeks comment on how SECCs 
currently distinguish between PEPs and NP stations. Can one station 
have both designations? Do the meanings of these terms overlap, as they 
are used in State EAS Plans? If not every state contains a PEP station, 
do states designate as NP the station or stations in their state 
responsible for monitoring the nearest PEP? If so, how does this 
designation differ from that of an SP station? Are some SPs also 
denominated as NPs where they act as the primary entry point for both 
the presidential and some or all state and local alerts? If the 
definitions of the terms PEP, NP, and SP significantly overlap, is it 
appropriate that the Commission simplifies its EAS denominations by 
eliminating extraneous terms?
    55. Do all state and local alerts originate at the same source? If 
not, should the Commission provide SECCs with terms that allow them to 
distinguish among the primary initiation points for the various types 
of state and local alerts that are initiated in their respective 
states? What would be an appropriate title for such designations? For 
example, would it be appropriate to designate the source responsible 
for originating an AMBER Alert as a State AMBER Alert Primary? 
Conversely, are some state or local alerts likely to initiate from more 
than one source, frustrating the use of a single designation? Is it 
appropriate that the Commission continues to use LP as the denomination 
for those stations that are monitored by PN stations? Is it appropriate 
that the Commission continues to use the term PN for stations that are 
not monitored, in light of the fact that the Non-Participating National 
(NN) designation was deleted from the rules when the Commission 
required all EAS Participants to carry the Presidential Alert? If not, 
what designation would be preferable?
    56. Uniform Vernacular. Can the designations the Commission 
proposes be used as a uniform vernacular for referring to the roles of 
EAS Participants in State EAS Plans? CSRIC IV notes that there is ``no 
one-size-fits-all framework'' that can be applied to every SECC because 
SECCs have limited resources to write State EAS Plans. Although each 
SECC must create a State EAS Plan that addresses the needs of their 
respective states, fundamental components of EAS are uniformly 
implemented nationwide. In the Commission's analysis, these 
commonalities are sufficient to support successful implementation of a 
uniform set of EAS designations, and the uniform designations that the 
Commission proposes to adopt are sufficient to describe states' varied 
approaches to EAS. The Commission seeks comment on this analysis, and 
on any idiosyncrasies in states' approaches to EAS that may merit 
special consideration. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the 
same EAS designations can be used both for EAS Participants' role in 
transmitting the Presidential Alert, as well as for state and local EAS 
alerts. Finally, the Commission also seeks comment on CSRIC IV's 
conclusion that limitations on state resources frustrate the use of 
uniform designations. What additional resources, if any, would be 
necessary to utilize the EAS designations that the Commission proposes 
to adopt?
    57. Additional Designations. Are additional EAS designations 
necessary to reflect changes in the alerting landscape? Should EAS 
designations reflect the service provided by the designated entity in 
light of the fact that EAS Participants are no longer only 
broadcasters, and that many EAS Participants monitor non-broadcast 
sources, such as satellite? For example, would it be appropriate for 
State EAS Plans to designate a ``satellite NP?'' Are EAS designations 
useful for CAP monitoring, or does the fact that most EAS Participants 
receive an EAS alert by monitoring a CAP feed preclude the need for 
designations? Further, the Commission seeks comment on whether any EAS 
Participants other than broadcasters (e.g., analog and digital cable 
systems, wireline video systems, wireless cable systems and direct 
broadcast satellite) are currently designated as key EAS sources. 
Should they be? The Commission notes, for example, that an individual 
cable headend can be responsible for delivering an EAS alert to as many 
as 803,000 subscribers. In light of these facts, the Commission 
believes that the ability of cable providers, DBS providers and 
wireline video providers to effectively transmit an EAS alert would be 
crucial to the American public's ability to receive a Presidential 
Alert. Should the Commission update EAS designations to add a category 
for cable and other Multichannel Video Programming Distributors (MVPDs) 
that monitor LPs but serve a significant number of people? What about 
any other EAS Participant that serves a significant portion of the 
public? Should the EAS Participants with the most extensive coverage or 
subscribership in a state be given a specific EAS designation? Should 
they be considered key EAS sources, notwithstanding the fact that they 
are not monitored by other EAS Participants? Should entities other than 
broadcasters be monitored by EAS Participants? The Commission also 
seeks comment on the extent to which non-broadcaster EAS Participants 
are members of or otherwise involved in the operations of their SECCs. 
What steps can the Commission take to facilitate increased 
participation by representatives of these entities in the SECC and 
State EAS Plan process?
2. State EAS Plan Filing Interface (SEPFI)
    58. The Commission adopted rules requiring states to file State EAS 
Plans that ``contain guidelines which must be followed by EAS 
Participants' personnel, emergency officials, and National Weather 
Service (NWS) personnel to activate the EAS.'' These rules maintain the 
role of state and local committees in strategically organizing state 
and local EAS Participants into a network capable of ensuring the 
proper dissemination of, inter alia, the Presidential Alert. State EAS 
Plans are required to be submitted for review and approval by the 
Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) prior to 
their implementation ``to ensure that they are consistent with national 
plans, FCC regulations, and EAS operation.'' This requirement was 
adopted in light of commenters' assertions that the Commission must 
adopt safeguards to ensure that EAS is not abused, and that alerts are 
used only for genuine emergencies.
    59. Following the first nationwide EAS test in 2011, the Bureau 
recommended that the Commission ``consider whether to make the State 
EAS Plan filing process into an online, rather than a paper-based 
process'' in light of inconsistencies identified in the structure of 
State EAS Plans. Subsequently, in the Sixth Report and Order, the 
Commission adopted the Electronic Test Reporting System

[[Page 15802]]

(ETRS), which provides a standardized, online reporting mechanism for 
the submission and analysis of monitoring assignment data that can be 
cross-referenced with the EAS Participant designations and monitoring 
assignments contained in the State EAS Plans. Further, the Commission 
tasked CSRIC IV with recommending actions to improve the State EAS Plan 
filing process, and received a recommendation that State EAS Plans 
should be filed online. CSRIC IV also adopted recommendations regarding 
access to the recommended online platform, State EAS Plan template 
design, and identification mechanisms for facilities and geographic 
areas contained within State EAS Plans. The Commission seeks comment on 
these recommendations below.
    60. The Commission proposes to convert the paper-based filing 
process for State EAS Plans into a secure, online process using a State 
EAS Plan Filing Interface (SEPFI) that would be designed to 
interoperate with the ETRS. The data collected in SEPFI would 
complement the monitoring assignment data already collected by ETRS. 
The data collected via ETRS and SEPFI would provide an end-to-end 
picture of the EAS distribution architecture for each state that could 
be used to populate an EAS Mapbook. The Commission proposes that the 
entry format for State EAS Plan data into SEPFI would be a pre-
configured online template to be designed by the Bureau in 
collaboration with SECCs and other stakeholders, using a similar to 
process to the one the Commission directed the Bureau to use when 
designing the templates for ETRS. CSRIC IV observes that State EAS 
Plans are inconsistent in both structure and content, and that ``[t]his 
lack of consistency makes it difficult for the FCC to determine if a 
proper distribution network exists for . . . distribution [of the 
Presidential Alert] in each state.'' The Commission seeks comment on 
this proposed online filing process below.
    61. Costs. The Commission seeks comment on the cost savings likely 
to result from adopting SEPFI. The EAS collection approved by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates that each State EAS 
Plan takes twenty hours to complete, and that the average hourly wage 
of an individual who completes a State EAS Plan is $25 per/hour. 
Accordingly, OMB approves of the Commission's estimate that the 
production of State EAS Plans, nationwide, costs $25,000. How much 
reporting time and cost would be saved by bringing this process online 
if certain aspects of State EAS Plans could be automatically updated 
and populated by cross-referencing data already collected by the FCC, 
as recommended by CSRIC IV? For example, could SEPFI be pre-populated 
with data contained in the Consolidated Database System (CDBS), 
Licensing and Management System (LMS), or other relevant databases? The 
Commission seeks comment on CSRIC IV's recommendation. Would additional 
time and cost be saved by offering users drop-down menus for each EAS 
designation that could include every licensed EAS Participant in the 
state? The Commission also seeks cost on any legal fees that SECCs may 
incur in order to ensure compliance with its proposed State EAS Plan 
requirements. In light of these potential improvements, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether any cost associated with requiring SECCs to 
reenter State EAS Plan data online would be significantly lower than 
those required to draft a new paper-based plan, and would be outweighed 
over time by the efficiency and/or other benefits (such as 
standardization of the information offered by the State EAS Plans, as 
described below) of an online, template-based process.
    62. With respect to the potential administrative cost savings, the 
Commission anticipates that the proposed use of a template will 
facilitate the agency's review of the Plans. Because the State Plans 
currently are submitted in differing formats, with different levels of 
detail and using inconsistent terminology, it can be time-consuming and 
difficult to conduct a review that ensures that each Plan contains the 
elements required by the rules, or that the Plans, in concert, will 
function efficiently and effectively as a nationwide daisy chain that 
can pass along alerts in a seamless manner. The Commission believes 
that with the use of an on-line template, the Commission's ability to 
review the Plans for compliance with the required elements and to 
identify potential problems that might hinder achieving the basic goals 
of the EAS will be improved by enabling us to conduct such reviews in a 
quicker and more accurate fashion. Facilitating the review process in 
this manner may not only improve the effectiveness of the EAS, but it 
could yield significant administrative cost savings to the extent that 
FCC review and approval of the Plans could be automated, at least in 
part. The Commission seeks comment on the likelihood and weight of such 
potential benefits.
    63. Standardization. Would adopting a standardized online template 
dramatically increase the consistency and thoroughness of State EAS 
Plans? According to CSRIC IV, ``SECCs need the resource of a federal 
government database to assure EAN dissemination.'' The Commission seeks 
comment on CSRIC IV's conclusion. On the other hand, CSRIC IV notes 
that there is ``no one-size-fits-all framework'' that can be applied to 
every SECC, because SECCs have limited resources to write State EAS 
Plans. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which a 
standardized template for State EAS Plans would contribute to improving 
the efficacy and standardization of EAS, as well as streamline the 
development of State EAS Plans by identifying the appropriate 
informational parameters for State EAS Plans. What resource limitations 
do SECCs encounter that potentially challenge their ability to produce 
standardized State EAS Plans, and what measures could the Commission 
take to help address these constraints?
    64. Structure. What is the optimal structure for the SEPFI 
template? CSRIC IV recommends that the Commission should follow the 
matrix-based model exemplified by the Washington State EAS Plan to 
quickly, clearly, and efficiently identify the dissemination path of 
the Presidential Alert through each state. The Commission seeks comment 
on whether the SEPFI template should be based on the matrix used by the 
Washington State EAS Plan. Could this matrix be adapted to also 
illustrate the dissemination path for alerts formatted in CAP, 
including state and local alerts? The Commission seeks comment on how 
the SEPFI template should identify EAS Participants. CSRIC IV 
recommends that EAS Participants be identified by FCC Facility ID as 
well as by a station's call letters in order ``to reduce the need for 
frequent changes and updates to the database, and state plans due only 
to changes in call letters.'' The Commission seeks comment on CSRIC 
IV's recommendation, as well as on the optimal implementation of other 
structural elements of SEPFI.
    65. Security. The Commission seeks comment on whether access to 
State EAS Plan data should be limited and secured, as CSRIC IV 
recommends, and on the steps the Commission should take to safeguard 
against unauthorized access to SEPFI. Specifically, CSRIC IV recommends 
that the Commission should follow the Disaster Information Reporting 
System (DIRS) access model. The Commission observes that DIRS utilizes 
a two-layer access model and provides a secure methodology for multiple 
company employees to access the DIRS database, causing the

[[Page 15803]]

Commission to believe that the model could be easily adaptable to the 
State EAS Plan context. The Commission seeks comment on whether access 
to SEPFI should be based on access provisions for DIRS. Similar to 
DIRS, should SEPFI utilize a two-layer security system, requiring both 
a SECC ID and an individual User ID to prevent any unauthorized person 
from establishing a fraudulent User ID under the company's name? The 
Commission seeks comment on the identifying information that SECCs 
should be required to provide for the individuals authorized to access 
the SEPFI. Should such information include a contact name, affiliated 
company name, office and cell phone numbers, and an email address? 
Should additional information be required?
    66. What is the most cost-effective way to protect potentially 
sensitive data contained in State EAS Plans? The Commission seeks 
comment on specific aspects of State EAS Plan data that may implicate 
national security or that otherwise could present security concerns 
when aggregated into a single database. Are there any particular 
aspects of State EAS Plans that should be made confidential in light of 
this sensitivity? Would it be sufficient to provide such data with the 
same level of confidentiality as test data submitted to the Commission 
via ETRS? If not, how should sensitive SEPFI data be protected? Even if 
data contained in an individual State EAS Plan may not be sensitive or 
present national security concerns, would State EAS Plan data become 
more sensitive when aggregated via SEPFI? If so, what additional 
protections should be afforded to aggregated data versus individual 
state data, and how could this be implemented? What costs, if any, 
would those additional protections impose on reporting entities?
    67. National Advisory Committee (NAC). The NAC succeeded the 
Emergency Broadcast System Advisory Committee (EBSAC) as the Federal 
Advisory Committee responsible for assisting the Commission with 
administration of the EAS. CSRIC IV recommends that the Commission 
should reestablish a NAC to facilitate communication with SECCs. The 
Commission seeks comment on CSRIC IV's recommendation. Is there a need 
for additional and routine communication with another organization that 
is not already taking place today between the Commission and the SECCs? 
Could a reestablished NAC be charged with initial approval of State EAS 
Plans? Could they be charged with performing outreach to SECCs to 
answer any questions about the Commission's new State EAS Plan filing 
process, and encouraging the timely completion of up-to-date State EAS 
Plans? With what other responsibilities should the NAC be charged? 
Should membership in the NAC continue to consist of SECCs Chairs, and 
representatives from the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), 
the Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE) and the NWS? If not, then how 
should the membership of the NAC be modified?
3. State EAS Plan Contents
    68. The Commission's EAS rules currently state that State EAS Plans 
must contain the following elements:
    (1) A list of the EAS header codes and messages that will be 
transmitted by key EAS sources;
    (2) Procedures for state emergency management and other state 
officials, NWS, and EAS Participant personnel to transmit emergency 
information to the public during an emergency using EAS;
    (3) A data table, in computer-readable form, clearly showing 
monitoring assignments and the specific primary and backup path for the 
EAN formatted in the EAS Protocol from the PEP to each station in the 
plan;
    (4) A description of how CAP-formatted messages will be aggregated 
and distributed to EAS Participants within the state, including the 
monitoring requirements associated with distributing such messages;
    (5) A statement of any unique methods of EAS message distribution;
    (6) Instructions for state and local activations of EAS, including 
a list of all authorized entities participating in State or Local Area 
EAS; and
    (7) Procedures for conducting special EAS tests.
    The EAS rules require that EAS operations must be conducted as 
specified in State EAS Plans in order to ensure that the Presidential 
Alert can be effectively delivered. The Commission adopted these 
requirements in the EAS Deployment Order, communicating expectations 
for the structure and administration of State EAS Plans and for the 
SECCs that create them. SECCs and State EAS Plans have fallen short of 
these expectations in some respects, including a lack of active cable 
service provider participation in SECCs, and the failure of some states 
to file State EAS Plans.
    69. In 2013, the Commission evaluated the state of SECCs and State 
EAS Plans in the EAS Nationwide Test Report, summarizing the successes 
of the first nationwide EAS test, but observing specific shortcomings 
in EAS operations, including a lack of clarity in State EAS Plans. 
Specifically, the EAS Nationwide Test Report observed that the 
Commission's rules do not require SECCs Participants to provide 
monitoring assignment data below the LP level. The EAS Nationwide Test 
Report further observed that many State EAS Plans did not identify the 
alternative monitoring sources that EAS Participants relied upon to 
receive the EAN during the first nationwide EAS test, or define SECCs' 
administration and governance practices. Accordingly, the Bureau 
recommended that the Commission ``consider reviewing its State EAS Plan 
rules.'' CSRIC IV further recommends that the role of the SECC should 
be strengthened, and that ``SECCs must be free to design and maintain 
their respective state's own robust and redundant EAS relay networks in 
the best and most practical ways possible.'' The Commission seeks to 
address the substantive shortcomings in State EAS Plans identified by 
CSRIC IV and the EAS Nationwide Test Report.
    70. Since the adoption of State EAS Plan rules in 1994, the 
alerting landscape has dramatically changed. Local alerts now originate 
from a wider array of sources, such as Public Safety Answering Points 
(PSAPs) and nuclear power plants. Local weather alerts continue to 
increase in frequency, and new alerting platforms such as WEA, SMS- and 
social media-based alerts are being rapidly added to the toolbox 
available to each community's alerting authority. For many alert 
initiators, WEA acts in concert with the EAS and other systems to 
transmit alerts to the public. Further, alert initiators may offer both 
EAS and WEA through IPAWS-OPEN, which serves as an interconnected CAP 
alert aggregator for previously siloed alerting platforms. In the EAS 
Nationwide Test Report, the Commission observed that many EAS 
Participants utilized the satellite-based National Public Radio (NPR) 
News Advisory Channel (Squawk Channel) to receive the Presidential 
Alert, as opposed to their regular monitoring assignment in the daisy 
chain. Even for state and local alerts, many EAS Participants use 
satellite-based distribution systems to supplement or replace the 
traditional alert distribution architecture. The Commission seeks 
comment on the extent to which these developments, as discussed in 
greater detail below, need to be included in State EAS Plans to provide 
the FCC with the information necessary for it to ensure that the EAS 
can allow the President to reach the entire American public in time of 
national emergency.

[[Page 15804]]

    71. The Commission proposes to amend Section 11.21 to integrate 
State EAS Plan requirements contained in other portions of Part 11, and 
to include new elements designed to enhance the value of State EAS 
Plans as community alerting tools, as well as to inform the Commission 
that the EAS remains an efficient and effective method to deliver a 
Presidential Alerts in an evolving technological landscape. The 
Commission proposes that State EAS Plans should include organizational, 
operational, testing/outreach, and security elements, as set forth 
below, and seeks comment on these proposals. While the Commission 
proposes to afford states considerable flexibility within these 
categories, to provide information they deem relevant to designing and 
maintaining their respective states' own robust and redundant EAS relay 
networks, the Commission believes these general categories will help 
establish a baseline level of information across states nationwide.
a. Organizational Elements
    72. State EAS Plans and the SECCs that create them are designed to 
organize EAS Participants representing a variety of industries and 
regions into a cohesive whole capable of efficiently and reliably 
distributing emergency information to the public, including the 
Presidential Alert. In order to fulfill this purpose, SECCs and EAS 
Participants must be well organized. Accordingly, the Commission 
proposes that State EAS Plans filed with the Commission via SEPFI 
template include uniform designations for the roles of EAS 
Participants, a list of entities authorized to activate EAS, a 
description of SECC governance structure, and a clear role for Local 
Area EAS Plans, should they continue to be necessary.
    73. Uniform Designations. The Commission proposes that SECCs input 
State EAS Plan monitoring assignment data into an online template using 
the uniform designations for key EAS sources that it proposes above. 
The Commission notes that in Section III(A)(1) it seeks comment on 
whether additional roles within the alert distribution hierarchy should 
be defined and given designations in order to reflect their importance 
to the success of EAS. The Commission also seeks comment on whether any 
of these additional designations should be included in State EAS Plans.
    74. A List of Entities Authorized to Activate EAS. The Commission 
proposes that State EAS Plans should contain a list of all entities 
authorized to activate EAS for state and local emergency messages 
(e.g., Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs)) whose transmissions 
might be interrupted by a Presidential Alert. The Commission seeks 
comment on this proposal. The Commission notes that the Presidential 
Alert is required to take priority over all other alerts, and as such, 
might interrupt alerts initiated by any state-based entities. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether state and local alert originators 
would have reason to activate the EAS during a national crisis 
concurrent with a Presidential Alert. If so, is it reasonable to 
require that all entities authorized to activate the EAS should be 
included in State EAS Plans? Would such an inclusion ensure that SECCs 
are able to conduct outreach to these entities in order to organize and 
coordinate emergency managers' alert messaging should a Presidential 
Alert become likely, and to mitigate the potentially chaotic alerting 
situation that could result from a national crisis?
    75. A Description of SECC Governance Structure. The Commission 
proposes that State EAS Plans should specify the SECC governance 
structure used to organize state and local resources to ensure the 
efficient and effective delivery of a Presidential Alert, including the 
duties of SECCs, the membership selection process utilized by the SECC, 
and the administrative structure of the SECCs. The Commission seeks 
comment on this proposal in light of the expectations expressed by the 
Commission in the EAS Deployment Order for the administration and 
governance of SECCs, and subsequent observations by the Bureau, CSRIC 
IV and EAS stakeholders that the Commission should provide further 
guidance on the issue. The Commission seeks comment on whether by 
soliciting information on SECC administration in State EAS Plans, both 
in the form of comments in this docket and via the SEPFI, the 
Commission can develop a basis for analysis of SECC administration that 
it may leverage to produce best practices for SECC governance or 
otherwise offer guidance to these volunteer committees, as requested by 
CSRIC IV. Is there a need for a consistent, uniform governance 
structure for SECCs nationwide to ensure effective functioning of EAS? 
If so, what specific elements should such structure contain? Should the 
Bureau coordinate with SECCs to determine an optimal, uniform 
governance structure? The Commission acknowledges that CSRIC IV did not 
find that a ``one size fits all'' approach would work for SECC 
governance. Given the disparity of size and resources from state to 
state, is there guidance the Commission can issue that could clarify 
the roles and responsibilities of SECCs in a manner that would be 
useful in each state?
    76. LECCs and Local Area EAS Plans. Finally, the Commission seeks 
comment on the role that LECCs continue to perform, and whether they 
serve a vital role in the delivery of EAS messages to local areas. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether LECCs perform a function that 
requires a separate Local Area EAS Plan to be filed with the 
Commission, or whether Local Area EAS Plans could be subsumed within 
State EAS Plans. CSRIC IV observes that ``[a]ll federal emergency alert 
systems, of which EAS is an essential component, depend on local 
distribution'' and recommends that policies be developed ``that will 
encourage local communications distribution systems to participate in 
the emergency warning process.'' Consistent with that observation, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether SECCs currently have the expertise 
to describe and plan local alerting responsibilities. Do LECCs and 
Local Area EAS Plans provide an additional value not captured by SECCs 
and State EAS Plans? Does the size of some large states or the lack of 
SECC resources present challenges for comprehensive local planning? 
With SEPFI, information relevant to state and local plans will be filed 
in a single system. Will there be a continued need for local plans, 
assuming the Commission moves forward with implementing SEPFI?
b. Operational Elements
    77. The primary purpose of EAS is to transmit a message from the 
President to the public during an emergency of national significance. 
In order to achieve that purpose, SECCs must maintain a detailed 
understanding of how multiple alerting platforms operate in concert 
with one another to create a seamless information distribution system 
within their respective states. Accordingly, the Commission proposes 
that State EAS Plans should include emergency alerting procedures for 
EAS alerts transmitted via all available alert distribution mechanisms 
that the state utilizes (e.g., EAS and WEA, as well as any alternative 
mechanisms the state may use, such as the NPR Squawk Channel, highway 
signs, and social media), up-to-date monitoring assignments for each 
key EAS source that reflect how those entities actually receive alerts, 
and a description of whether and to what extent these elements work in 
concert to create a cycle of information sharing through a

[[Page 15805]]

``many-to-one/one-to-many'' alerting dynamic.
    78. Expanded Emergency Alerting Procedures. The Commission proposes 
that State EAS Plans should contain a comprehensive listing of 
procedures by which state emergency management officials, local NWS 
forecasting stations, and EAS Participant personnel transmit emergency 
information to the public during an emergency using regulated alerting 
tools (e.g., EAS and WEA) as well as any alternative alerting 
mechanisms (e.g., the NPR Squawk Channel, highway signs, and social 
media). The Commission proposes that this revised language would 
subsume the Section 11.21 language that State EAS Plans include a 
``statement of any unique methods of EAS message distribution such as 
the use of the Radio Broadcast Data System (RBDS).'' The Commission 
seeks comment on this proposal. Would this proposed rule change allow 
SECCs to adequately capture the different alerting methods that EAS 
Participants may leverage? Would it accurately reflect how emergency 
managers utilize the suite of alerting tools available to them?
    79. In light of the monitoring assignments that EAS Participants 
used successfully during the first nationwide EAS test, and for the 
reasons provided below, the Commission proposes to encourage SECCs to 
specify a satellite-based source, such as the NPR Squawk Channel, in 
State EAS Plans as an alternate monitoring assignment for the 
Presidential Alert where it presents a reliable source of EAS messages. 
The Commission seeks comment on this approach. In the Second Report and 
Order, the Commission observed that ``the vast coverage area of 
satellite signal footprints would allow immediate alerting of 
substantial portions of the country with appropriate equipment'' and 
that satellite systems are ``generally immune from natural disasters 
and therefore may provide critical redundancy in the event that 
terrestrial wireline or wireless infrastructure is compromised.'' CSRIC 
IV notes that many EAS Participants are currently unable to meet their 
requirement to monitor two sources for the Presidential Alert without 
recourse to such satellite-based communications technologies because of 
incomplete PEP coverage. NPR states that in instances where EAS 
Participants monitored both the Squawk Channel and their regular 
monitoring assignment, the Squawk Channel actually triggered EAS 
equipment ahead of the terrestrial relay network by 10-20 seconds in 
most cases. Does the NPR Squawk Channel provide a faster and equally 
reliable alternative to the daisy chain process? Do other satellite-
based monitoring sources, such as EMnet? Are such technologies 
sufficiently reliable to serve as a primary or secondary EAS monitoring 
assignment for the Presidential Alert? If so, how should use of the 
Squawk Channel and other satellite-based communications resources 
approved by FEMA be codified in the Commission's EAS rules?
    80. The Commission also seeks comment on whether and how alert 
originators use alternative alert distribution platforms, such as 
social media and highway signs, to supplement their traditional 
alerting channels. What is the extent to which emergency managers at 
the federal, state, and local levels currently leverage targeted 
feedback during emergency situations to disseminate and gather 
information? The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which social 
media has served as a reliable and effective source of crowdsourced 
data about developing situations. To what extent have alert originators 
begun taking advantage of social media's crowdsourced communications 
functionality in order to establish a real-time conversation with 
individuals and communities in crisis? Is the information generated by 
social media platforms reliable enough to be trusted by emergency 
managers, and if not, what challenges are involved? The Commission 
seeks comment on the steps that emergency managers currently take to 
confirm the accuracy of crowdsourced reports of emergency situations in 
order to act on, correct or clarify, or otherwise respond to such 
reports. Are the platforms secure enough to be used in emergency 
situations? To what extent has the use of social media platforms 
supplemented alert accessibility, either by providing translations of 
alerts in languages other than English or by providing alerts in 
multiple formats? To what extent has the personalization of alerts 
facilitated and encouraged public engagement and participation with 
alerting platforms, and, in turn, instigated more rapid protective 
action taking? The Commission seeks comment on whether state and local 
use of social media alerting tools should be included in State EAS 
Plans. Further, the Commission seeks comment on the extent to which 
highway signs are used to retransmit EAS alerts formatted in CAP. If 
IPAWS-OPEN is capable of distributing CAP-formatted alerts to highway 
signs, do any barriers currently exist to such use? The Commission 
seeks comment on what, if any, other alternative alerting systems alert 
originators are relying upon to supplement their use of EAS and WEA, 
and seeks comment on its proposal that this information be specified in 
State EAS Plans.
    81. Are there examples of best practices from the Commission's 
federal, state and local government partners for using crowdsourced 
information in an emergency situation? The Commission observes that the 
Peta Jakarta initiative in Indonesia may provide an example of how a 
government alert initiator can leverage crowdsourced data to increase 
the overall effectiveness of alerts. The Peta Jakarta project piloted a 
program that monitored Twitter for posts mentioning the word for 
``flood'' during flooding season. The system would automatically 
respond to such messages, asking whether the user saw flooding, at 
which point the user could confirm their report either by turning geo-
location on in their device settings, or by responding, in turn, with 
the word for ``flood.'' Peta Jakarta then incorporated the results of 
this information-gathering process into a live, public crisis map that 
depicted in real time areas in the city that were affected by flooding. 
To what extent would it be possible to leverage this model as a best 
practice for automated crowdsourcing of reliable emergency response 
data, using regulated alerting platforms in the United States? To what 
extent is a similar model to the one utilized by Peta Jakarta feasible 
using EAS and/or WEA, in order to provide an authoritative source of 
information? The Commission observes that emergency managers used 
Twitter in a 2013 flood in Boulder, Colorado to prioritize deployment 
of satellite- and drone-based imaging platforms to the most severely 
impacted areas. To what extent could community feedback via EAS or WEA 
be similarly used to prioritize emergency managers' information 
gathering efforts?
    82. Monitoring Assignments. In this section, the Commission 
proposes rules and seeks comment on issues designed to optimize 
monitoring assignments in State EAS Plans. First, the Commission seeks 
comment on methods of improving and clarifying monitoring assignments 
as currently implemented in State EAS Plans. Specifically, the 
Commission seeks comment on how to define operational areas, on whether 
to include CAP-based monitoring assignments in State EAS Plans, and on 
how to remove single points of failure from EAS monitoring assignments. 
Next, the Commission proposes to expand the monitoring assignments 
section of State EAS Plans to reflect

[[Page 15806]]

more accurately the various methods that EAS Participants use to 
monitor sources for EAS. Specifically, the Commission proposes that 
State EAS Plans should include the extent to which monitoring 
assignments for state and local alerts differ from monitoring 
assignments for the Presidential Alert. Finally, the Commission 
proposes to clarify that EAS operations must be implemented in a manner 
consistent with guidelines established in a State EAS Plan submitted to 
the Commission.
    83. The Commission proposes that State EAS Plans should continue to 
divide their respective states into geographically-based operational 
areas, specifying primary and backup monitoring assignments for EAS 
Participants to receive the Presidential Alert in each operational 
area. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission 
seeks comment on whether dividing states into operational areas 
facilitates EAS administration by more clearly defining 
responsibilities for EAS alert distribution by geographic area for key 
EAS sources. CSRIC IV notes a lack of uniformity among State EAS Plan 
definitions of ``operational areas,'' and recommends that such service 
areas should be uniformly identified. The Commission seeks comment on 
CSRIC IV's conclusion. Is it possible to standardize the definition of 
an operational area nationwide? If so, how should SEPFI define 
operational areas? Could the definition of an operational area have 
implications for President's ability to transmit a regional 
Presidential Alert?
    84. The Commission proposes to remove the current restriction that 
State EAS Plans include monitoring assignments for Presidential Alerts 
formatted in the EAS Protocol only. The Commission seeks comment on 
this proposed change. As technologies evolve, the Presidential Alert 
may not necessarily be issued using the EAS Protocol, and the 
Commission seeks to remain technologically neutral so that its rules 
may evolve correspondingly. The Commission seeks comment on the extent 
to which EAS Participants are prepared to receive a Presidential Alert 
formatted in CAP. The Commission observes that new alerting protocols 
may be developed in the future, and the Commission seeks comment on 
whether removing this technology-specific limitation from its rules 
better prepares the nation for receiving the Presidential Alert.
    85. CSRIC IV observes that, as currently written, State EAS Plans 
reflect the requirement in the EAS rules that each EAS Participant 
monitor at least two sources for the Presidential Alert by including 
two monitoring assignments for the Presidential Alert, but also 
observes that merely listing two monitoring sources may not serve to 
remove single points of failure from EAS alert distribution where, for 
example, both monitored EAS sources, in turn, monitor the same source. 
The Commission agrees with CSRIC IV's observation and seeks comment on 
whether it should require that the two sources that EAS Participants 
are required to monitor for the Presidential Alert as specified in 
their State EAS Plan, cannot, in turn, monitor the same key EAS source. 
Are there further steps that the Commission can take to remove single 
points of failure within the EAS Protocol-based alert distribution 
architecture, and from EAS in general, and if so, what are they?
    86. The Commission further proposes that State EAS Plans should 
include the extent to which monitoring assignments for state and local 
alerts differ from monitoring assignments for the Presidential Alert. 
To what extent do states' Presidential and local alerting strategies 
differ? The Commission seeks comment on whether the importance of 
transmitting state and local alerts to communities has had any impact 
on the ability of the community to deliver a Presidential Alert. Has 
the use of alternative alerting structures led to innovations that 
augment the ability of EAS Participants to efficiently and effectively 
receive and retransmit a Presidential Alert during a national crisis? 
Alternatively, has the use of such alternatives resulted in lack of use 
of the EAS and lack of proficiency in its use by local emergency 
managers and EAS Participants? In either case, would including in State 
EAS Plans a description of the extent to which a state's alerting 
strategy for the Presidential Alert differs from their state and local 
alerting strategy serve to facilitate dialogue at the state and local 
level about the extent to which new and emerging technologies could be 
used to improve the ability of EAS Participants to receive and 
retransmit the Presidential Alert?
    87. In order to address all State EAS Plan monitoring requirements 
in the same Section of Part 11, the Commission proposes to relocate 
State EAS Plan requirements currently contained in Sections 11.52 and 
11.55 to Section 11.21. The Commission proposes to merge those 
requirements into one Section by amending Section 11.21 to state that 
EAS Participant monitoring assignments and EAS operations must be 
implemented in a manner consistent with guidelines established in a 
State EAS Plan submitted to the Commission, and by removing that 
language from Sections 11.52 and 11.55. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether this proposal is consistent with CSRIC IV's recommendation that 
the Commission amend Section 11.21 to state that ``[s]tates that want 
to use the EAS shall submit a State EAS Plan.'' The Commission seeks 
comment on whether the data submitted in State EAS Plans must 
accurately reflect actual monitoring assignments for the EAS Mapbook to 
be a useful tool to analyze and address issues with EAS functionality. 
Would State EAS Plans be more up-to-date, inclusive, and effective 
given the improvements the Commission proposes in this NPRM? If so, 
does this militate for the use of State EAS Plan provisions other than 
monitoring assignments (e.g., expanded emergency alerting and testing 
procedures) as mandatory instructions for participation in EAS? The 
Commission seeks comment on whether, contrarily, failing to require EAS 
Participant monitoring assignments to be implemented pursuant to State 
EAS Plans would risk making the state EAS planning process a hollow 
exercise without bearing on the actual organization of EAS.
    88. A Description of ``One-to-Many, Many-to-One'' Alerting 
Implementation. The Commission proposes that State EAS Plans should 
describe the extent to which alert originators coordinate alerts with 
community feedback mechanisms, such as 9-1-1, to make full use of 
public safety resources. The Commission seeks comment whether 9-1-1 
call takers are well positioned as a nexus of communications between 
first responders and communities in crisis. The Commission seeks 
further comment on whether, notwithstanding that this has been true in 
the context of state and local emergencies, it would also be the case 
during a national crisis giving rise to a Presidential Alert. The 
Commission seeks comment on the extent to which alert originators are 
prepared to gather, analyze and act upon community feedback in crafting 
and initiating alert content. Relatedly, the Commission seeks comment 
on the extent to which first responder entities, such as PSAPs, are 
currently authorized as alert originators, and, if desirable, on the 
steps that the Commission can take to facilitate increased 
participation. Can PSAPs play an important role in ensuring that alerts 
are accessible or available in languages other than English if the 9-1-
1 call(s) giving rise to the alert suggest that such measures

[[Page 15807]]

could facilitate alert interpretation and impact? Finally, the 
Commission seeks comment on the impact that any potential next 
generation television capabilities may have on the ability to support 
two-way communications.
c. Testing/Outreach Elements
    89. In order to properly utilize EAS to fulfill its purpose to 
transmit a Presidential Alert, emergency managers must be assured that 
the alerting platforms available to them will function as intended when 
needed, and the public must be assured that those alerts will be made 
accessible to them, irrespective of disability or language preference. 
To this end, the Commission proposes that State EAS Plans include 
testing procedures and security elements.
    90. Testing Procedures. The Commission proposes that State EAS 
Plans should continue to contain procedures for special EAS tests, as 
required by Section 11.61, including the new ``live code'' tests that 
the Commission proposes to include as part of its Part 11 testing 
regime below. The Commission also proposes that State EAS Plans should 
be required to include procedures for Required Monthly Tests (RMTs), 
Required Weekly Tests (RWTs) and national tests designed to ensure that 
the system will function as designed when needed for a Presidential 
Alert. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission 
seeks comment on whether specifying the schedule, origination source, 
and script are necessary components of the successful operation of 
RMTs, RWTs, and national tests, and on whether SECCs already 
communicate this information to EAS Participants in their state even 
where it is not included in State EAS Plans. Further, the Commission 
proposes that this section of State EAS Plans should include a 
description of the extent to which State/Local WEA Tests are utilized 
by alert originators as a complement to the Presidential Alert 
distribution system to verify that WEA is both capable of disseminating 
a Presidential Alert, and informing the public that a Presidential 
Alert is presently being delivered over EAS. The Commission seeks 
comment on these proposals.
    91. The Commission seeks comment on whether State EAS Plans should 
include a listing of the manners in which a state or community conducts 
such live code tests. Should the Plan include the language of the 
notification to be provided during the test (e.g., audio voiceovers, 
video crawls) to make sure the public understands that the test is not, 
in fact, a warning about an actual emergency? The Commission also seeks 
comment on whether the notification requirement should incorporate the 
new accessibility component of Section 11.51 of the Commission's EAS 
rules, which establishes requirements for the visual message portion of 
an alert. Should the Plan contain pre-test outreach procedures to 
coordinate with EAS Participants, state and local emergency 
authorities, and first responder organizations and the public?
    92. The Commission seeks comment on whether each of these testing 
procedures continues to play an important role in ensuring system 
readiness for a Presidential Alert. In particular, with respect to 
State/Local WEA Testing, the Commission seeks comment on whether the 
ubiquity of smartphone technology makes it likely that, in the event of 
a Presidential Alert, members of the public would likely have their 
smartphone closer at hand than any traditional EAS source. If so, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether it is likely that the first medium 
through which members of the public would receive notice that a 
Presidential Alert is occurring is through their smartphone, 
notwithstanding the fact that the actual alert may be aired over EAS. 
The Commission seeks comment on whether this makes State/Local WEA 
Testing procedures a necessary component of state-level preparedness to 
receive a Presidential Alert. If so, should the manner in which a state 
or community uses smartphone technology, through WEA or otherwise, to 
augment an EAS alert be included in State EAS Plans?
d. Security Elements
    93. Security and reliability are critical components of an alerting 
system, especially one that may be used by the President. A public 
safety communications system that is vulnerable to mistaken use or 
malicious intrusion poses as much of a threat to public safety as an 
efficient, secure system offers a benefit. A compromised alerting 
system could be used to misdirect public safety resources, or lead 
members of the public into harm's way. Accordingly, the Commission 
proposes to require certification of performance of required security 
measures, as discussed in greater detail below. Should State EAS Plans 
also describe the measures EAS Participants have taken to comply with 
the Commission's proposed security requirements? Should State EAS Plans 
include any additional information regarding their approach to cyber 
risk management, including if and how they use tools like the National 
Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework 
(NSF), or other risk management construct, and how this has been 
extended to their emergency alerting system? In the alternative, do the 
certifications proposed below provide adequate disclosures regarding 
EAS Participants' security efforts, obviating the need for the separate 
inclusion of such information in State EAS Plans?

B. Building Effective Community-Based Alerting Exercise Programs

1. Live Code Tests
    94. Section 11.45 of the Commission's 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.'' The Commission adopted this 
restriction because it found that a specific prohibition against the 
misuse of the EAS audio Attention Signal and codes was necessary in 
light of the ``enormous detriment to the system'' that might result 
from improper use. As a general matter, the EAS audio Attention Signal 
is used exclusively to alert the public that an emergency message is 
about to be distributed. Section 11.31(e) lists the ``live'' event 
header codes that are used for alerts in specific emergency situations, 
e.g., tornadoes, tsunamis, and other natural and weather-related 
emergencies, as well as the specific test codes that are to be used for 
national periodic, required monthly and required weekly tests, as well 
as for practice/demonstration warnings. In the Live Code Testing Public 
Notice, the Bureau noted that EAS Participants have expressed a desire 
to use live EAS header codes and the EAS audio Attention Signal to 
conduct local public awareness and proficiency training EAS exercises, 
and stated that engaging in such activity would require a waiver of 
Section 11.31(c) of the Commission's EAS rules. The Bureau also 
provided the following guidance to SECCs on the recommended contents of 
their waiver requests:
    (1) A description of the test and test participants, including when 
the test is scheduled to occur, when it will conclude, and what 
notification is being provided during the test (e.g., audio voiceovers, 
video crawls) to make sure the public understands that the test is not, 
in fact, warning about an actual emergency, plus a statement whether 
the proposed test is designed to substitute for a ``RWT'' (required 
weekly

[[Page 15808]]

test) or a ``RMT'' (required monthly test) or would constitute a 
``special test,'' pursuant to 47 CFR 11.61;
    (2) An explanation why the EAS Participant or the state authority 
conducting such tests has concluded that use of live codes is 
necessary; e.g., what live code testing is expected to achieve that 
could not be achieved by using standard test codes;
    (3) A statement about how the test has been coordinated among EAS 
Participants and with state and local emergency authorities, as well as 
first responder organizations such as police and fire agencies; and
    (4) A description of those public information steps that have been 
taken before the test occurs to notify the public about the test 
(specifically, that live event codes will be used, but that no 
emergency is in fact occurring). This should include a statement about 
all media that have participated in the public awareness/information 
campaign (e.g., broadcasters, cable, print media, etc.).
    Live code tests are currently performed as ``special'' tests under 
Section 11.61. A ``special'' test may fulfill an EAS Participant's 
weekly testing obligation provided that the test includes transmission 
of the EAS header codes and End of Message (EOM) codes, and may fulfill 
an EAS Participant's monthly testing obligation provided that the test 
also includes the emergency alerting Attention Signal and emergency 
message. In either case, the test message must meet a minimum standard 
of accessibility, as discussed in further detail below.
    95. The Commission proposes to amend its EAS rules to authorize EAS 
Participants to conduct periodic EAS exercises using live event header 
codes, provided that they are used in a non-misleading manner, and that 
steps are taken to prevent public confusion prior to and during the 
test. Specifically, the Commission proposes to amend Section 11.61 to 
include ``Live Code Tests'' as a separate category of alerting exercise 
that may be undertaken periodically provided that:
    (1) The state or local entity provides accessible notification 
during the test (e.g., audio voiceovers, video crawls) to make sure the 
public understands that the test is not, in fact, warning about an 
actual emergency;
    (2) Coordinates the test among EAS Participants and with state and 
local emergency authorities, as well as first responder organizations 
such as Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs), police and fire 
agencies; and
    (3) Notifies the public before the test (specifically, that live 
event codes will be used, but that no emergency is in fact occurring).
    The Commission further proposes to amend Section 11.45 to exempt 
state-designed EAS live code exercises from the Commission's 
prohibition against false or misleading use of the EAS Attention 
Signal. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.
    96. Benefits. Would expanding the Commission's Part 11 rules to 
permit live code testing facilitate opportunities for system 
verification, proficiency building, and raising public awareness about 
EAS? The Commission seeks comment on whether, as certain SECCs claim, 
using a live code enables more realistic system verification because 
use of a live code is the only way to determine how EAS equipment will 
react to certain live event header codes that are not activated by 
default in EAS equipment. Further, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether live code testing promotes alert originator proficiency by 
providing an opportunity for alert originators to practice selecting an 
appropriate event code for simulated emergency events, and practice 
crafting a message that informs the public of the occurrence of that 
specific event that would effectively motivate the public to take 
protective action. The Commission also seeks comment on whether live 
code testing facilitates opportunities for EAS stakeholders to raise 
public awareness about EAS. Some SECCs requesting a live code waiver 
state that their live code testing will coincide with ``Severe Weather 
Preparedness Week'' scheduled in their state, and the live code 
presents a visual crawl that is distinct from the visual crawl 
associated with test messages that better facilitates schools' 
businesses' and homeowners' own emergency preparedness drills. The 
Commission seeks comment on this claim. Finally, the Commission seeks 
comment on the extent to which live code testing offers superior public 
awareness and proficiency training opportunities than RMT and RWTs 
because they present testing conditions that more accurately reflect 
actual emergency conditions.
    97. Notification and Outreach. The Commission seeks comment 
regarding the steps that EAS stakeholders could take to minimize any 
public confusion that may result from live code testing. The Commission 
seeks comment on the methods used by EAS Participants to inform the 
public that the Attention Signal they hear does not indicate an actual 
emergency. Is it necessary to codify specific notification procedures, 
or are available best practices sufficient? The Commission seeks 
comment on the extent to which outreach to first responder agencies has 
mitigated public confusion about the use of live codes. How can first 
responder organizations, such as PSAPs, be utilized as an integral part 
of an alerting exercise in a manner that harnesses their potential as a 
nexus for emergency information? The Commission seeks comment on 
whether the Commission's proposed rule adequately circumscribes the use 
of the emergency alerting attention signal in a manner that maximizes 
its utility while minimizing over-alerting and public confusion.
    98. Frequency of Live Code Testing. How often should live code 
testing occur? The Commission observes that some EAS stakeholders have 
requested a waiver of the Commission's EAS rules to conduct live code 
tests as often as annually. The Commission seeks comment on whether the 
removal of this regulatory burden would lead EAS stakeholders to engage 
in more frequent live code testing. If so, the Commission seeks comment 
on whether it should limit how often live code tests may occur in a 
particular geographic area, and, if so, on what that limit should be. 
The Commission observes that its EAS rules currently allow special 
tests to be conducted as often as daily. Are there steps that the 
Commission should take to prevent over-alerting and alert fatigue? On 
the other hand, should SECCs be required to conduct live code EAS tests 
at certain predetermined intervals in order to ensure that emergency 
managers in each state have opportunities for system verification, 
proficiency training, and public awareness outreach?
    99. Cost Savings. Would this action remove regulatory burdens for 
EAS stakeholders and reduce costs? The Commission seeks comment on the 
anticipated extent of these cost savings. The Commission also seeks 
comment on any operational concerns that EAS stakeholders believe to be 
implicated by this proposal.
2. EAS PSAs
    100. EAS Participants may use Public Service Announcements or 
obtain commercial sponsors for announcements, infomercials, or programs 
explaining the EAS to the public to increase awareness of the EAS. The 
Commission's rules state that ``[s]uch announcements and programs may 
not be a part of alerts or tests, and may not simulate or attempt to 
copy alert tones or codes.'' Since that time, the Commission has 
granted requests for waiver to use the emergency alerting Attention 
Signal in PSAs to entities other than EAS Participants in order to 
raise public awareness about EAS. The

[[Page 15809]]

Commission has also granted similar requests from FEMA to use the 
emergency alerting Attention Signal in WEA PSAs provided that the PSA 
presents the tones in a non-misleading manner. In light of the value of 
the success of these PSAs, in the WEA Fourth NPRM, the Commission 
proposed to allow the use of the WEA Attention Signal in WEA PSAs, 
subject to the same limitation.
    101. Consistent with the Commission's approach to the use of the 
emergency alerting attention signal in PSAs in the WEA Fourth NPRM, the 
Commission proposes to amend Section 11.46, which currently prohibits 
the use of the EAS alert tones or codes in otherwise permitted PSAs, to 
allow federal, state and local government entities to issue PSAs that 
use the EAS header codes and Attention Signal, provided that they are 
presented in a non-misleading and technically harmless manner. In so 
doing, the Commission allows entities other than EAS Participants to 
conduct EAS PSAs, and allow such PSAs to be used in connection with 
testing exercises that may include use of live event codes and the 
emergency alerting Attention Signal. The Commission seeks comment on 
these proposals. The Commission seeks comment on whether limiting the 
use of PSAs to EAS Participants and federal, state, and local 
government entities offer an optimal balance between ensuring that the 
emergency alerting Attention Signal is not over-used, on the one hand, 
and ensuring that the public is familiar with the EAS and understands 
its public benefits on the other hand? The Commission seeks comment on 
whether this is the appropriate subset of entities who should be able 
to use the emergency alerting Attention Signal in PSAs.
    102. How can the Commission ensure that PSAs designed to raise 
public awareness about EAS do not have the unintended consequence of 
causing public confusion about whether the use of the EAS header codes 
and Attention Signal signify that an actual emergency is occurring? The 
Commission seeks comment on whether it should require entities that 
wish to use PSAs to coordinate with other EAS Participants and state 
and local authorities and the public to minimize any confusion. As with 
the use of the EAS header codes and Attention Signal for live code EAS 
tests, should entities seeking to use the EAS header codes and 
Attention Signal for EAS PSAs provide notification during the PSA to 
make sure the public understands that the use of the EAS header codes 
and Attention Signal does not, in fact, signify the occurrence of an 
actual emergency? Should entities seeking to use the EAS header codes 
and Attention Signal for use in EAS PSAs be required to coordinate the 
test among EAS Participants and with state and local emergency 
authorities, as well as first responder organizations such as PSAPs, 
police and fire agencies?
    103. The Commission seeks comment on whether there is a negative 
public perception of EAS that deserves to be redressed, and on whether 
the public has a clear understanding of what EAS is. In its requests 
for waiver, FEMA stated that ``many people are startled or annoyed when 
hearing the WEA Attention Signal for the first time.'' The Commission 
notes that the WEA Attention Signal is a loud, attention-grabbing, two-
tone audio signal that uses frequencies and sounds identical to the 
distinctive and familiar Attention Signal used by the EAS. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether alerts become more annoying when 
multiple alerts are received at the same time on a variety of 
platforms. The Commission also notes that it has received a number of 
complaints from individuals stating that the EAS Attention Signal is 
intrusive, and annoying. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on 
the public perception of EAS, and the EAS Attention Signal. To this 
point, the Commission also seeks comment on whether PSAs would be a 
useful tool for changing public perceptions about EAS for the better 
by, for example, providing them with information on how EAS saves lives 
and helps people to protect their property. As a testament to the 
success of the WEA PSA in this regard, FEMA offers that it has earned 
over $30 million in free media, and that the WEA PSA is currently the 
most played FEMA PSA. The Commission seeks comment on the success of 
any EAS PSAs that EAS Participants have issued pursuant to Section 
11.46. Further, the Commission seeks comment on additional steps that 
EAS stakeholders could take to improve the efficacy of EAS PSAs at 
raising public awareness about, and shifting public perceptions of EAS. 
What effect on public perception would likely result were EAS PSAs 
allowed to be conducted in connection with EAS tests, including live 
code tests?
3. Accessible Alerting Exercise
    104. Accessibility is a crucial aspect of alerting exercises 
because members of communities with disabilities or with limited 
English proficiency are particularly vulnerable to being excluded from 
community preparedness initiatives. Accordingly, in order to substitute 
for an RMT, a live code test must ``comply with the visual message 
requirements in Section 11.51,'' and in order to substitute for an RWT, 
it must comply with both the aural and visual requirements contained 
therein. Recently, the Bureau granted a request from Emergency and 
Community Health Outreach (ECHO), in partnership with Twin Cities 
Public Television (tpt) and FEMA, for a waiver of the Commission's 
rules to allow use of the WEA and EAS attention signal, as well as an 
audible portion of the EAS tones in PSAs, in conjunction with providing 
EAS PSAs in languages other than English, including Spanish, Hmong and 
Somali. The Bureau reasoned that including the EAS Attention Signal in 
educational media materials is essential to ensure that members of the 
public, including individuals with limited English proficiency, are 
familiar with EAS as an alert and warning methods.
    105. The Commission seeks comment on how to best ensure that 
community-based alerting exercises address the accessibility needs of 
individuals with limited English proficiency and individuals with 
disabilities. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the extent 
to which live code testing may be used by local emergency managers to 
target the particular needs of communities with accessibility needs, 
such as individuals with sensory disabilities and individuals with 
limited English proficiency, and on how to better prepare such 
communities for emergencies through PSAs.
    106. Accessible Live Code Testing. Is an accessible video crawl or 
full-screen replacement slide sufficient to overcome the public's 
preconception of the meaning of the Attention Signal? Are there 
additional steps that the Commission should take to ensure that the 
public is not misled or confused by state use of live codes for testing 
purposes? For example, might persons with cognitive or intellectual 
disabilities benefit from color-coding a border around different 
categories of warning, such as weather, terrorism, or earthquake? What 
technical and operational issues might be implicated by such an 
approach? The Commission observes that many entities requesting waiver 
of the Commission's Part 11 rules in order to conduct a live code test 
do so because of their concern that a ``test'' code might not be 
relayed through law enforcement communication, thus weakening the 
designation of a ``statewide exercise.'' In this way, does live code 
testing facilitate the transmission of EAS tests over a larger variety 
of media, and therefore improve their accessibility?

[[Page 15810]]

    107. Further, the Commission observes that live code testing often 
does not occur in a vacuum, and is requested to supplement larger 
efforts to raise public awareness of emergency response resources, such 
as during a ``Severe Weather Preparedness Week.'' Does live code 
testing promote and facilitate such community engagement? Do such 
events provide opportunities for those that might not normally be able 
to access the emergency alerting attention signal to create community 
response mechanisms that ensure that some community members, such as 
those who do not speak English or those with disabilities, are not left 
behind during an emergency? What role should community stakeholders, 
including those who deliver alerts as well as those who benefit from 
the receipt of alerts, play in the design, execution, and subsequent 
evaluation of live code tests and subsequent alerts? How can the 
Commission work with public safety officials, SECCs, EAS Participants 
and other stakeholders to facilitate the inclusion of the entire 
community, including non-English speakers and those with disabilities, 
in such planning, execution and evaluation? Would the Commission's 
proposed testing rules provide transparency and allow collection of 
best practices results that would enhance this facilitation role? How 
should broadcasters and other EAS Participants, as well as PSAPs and 
emergency managers that coordinate live code tests, be equipped with 
the tools necessary to serve multilingual communities and communities 
of individuals with disabilities? Could tests be designed to allow 
broadcasters and other EAS Participants to share resources during an 
emergency, such as non-English speaking personnel and air time, to 
ensure that non-English speakers maintain access to EAS and emergency 
information?
    108. How, if at all, should the Commission conduct outreach and 
gather feedback on the ability of public safety officials, SECCs, EAS 
Participants and other stakeholders to plan and execute community tests 
and exercises to reach populations with limited English proficiency and 
individuals with disabilities? How should the Commission evaluate the 
results? What steps, if any, should the Commission take in response to 
any such information it may collect? For example, should the Bureau 
conduct outreach to EAS Participants and other stakeholders in 
particular regions that have non-English speaking communities to gather 
information about best practices for ensuring alerts reach non-English 
speaking communities? What accountability measures should be instituted 
or encouraged if the tests fail to reach citizens due to their lack of 
English proficiency or disability?
    109. Accessible PSAs. The Commission seeks comment on whether EAS 
PSAs in languages other than English are particularly effective at 
informing individuals who would otherwise not be able to understand the 
contents of an English-language EAS message about how to respond should 
they hear the common alerting Attention Signal. The Commission notes 
that notwithstanding the ubiquity of the EAS and its familiar audible 
signal, the tpt/ECHO waiver request indicates that at least one 
population, i.e., recently arrived individuals with limited English 
proficiency, was not familiar with the EAS Attention Signal, and needed 
the PSAs to become familiar with these sounds and their meaning. Are 
there other groups or individuals for which EAS PSAs would provide this 
value? Would it be helpful if EAS PSAs were made available in American 
Sign Language (ASL) in order to better meet the needs of certain 
individuals with hearing loss? To what extent can PSAs transmitted over 
the Internet, including via OTT services, offer enhanced utility and 
accessibility to the public, as well as to individuals with 
disabilities?

C. Leveraging Technological Advancements in Alerting

    110. In this section, the Commission seeks comment on the extent to 
which the communications infrastructure underlying the nation's 
alerting capability should be--and already is--taking steps to leverage 
technological advancements to improve the content, accessibility and 
security of emergency alerts. In addressing these issues, the 
Commission intends to initiate a dialogue about creating a voluntary 
industry roadmap for further enhancing the capability of the nation's 
alerting infrastructure to carry a Presidential Alert in a manner 
consistent with consumer expectations of IP-based communications 
technologies.
1. Cable Force Tuning and Selective Override
    111. The EAS ``force tuning'' provisions allow wireless and digital 
cable service providers and wireline video service providers to satisfy 
the general requirement that they transmit EAS audio and visual 
information over all channels by automatically tuning the subscribers' 
set top boxes (STB) to a designated channel (usually an otherwise empty 
control channel) that carries the required audio and video EAS message. 
The Commission's ``selective override'' provisions allow cable service 
providers to elect not to deliver EAS audio and visual information over 
channels that are carrying news or weather related emergency 
information with state and local EAS message. Such elections are made 
pursuant to a written agreement between the cable service provider and 
broadcaster. Use of selective override by the cable service provider is 
voluntary.
    112. The Commission has received requests that it reexamine the 
selective override policy. Most recently, for example, the NAB 
requested that the Commission ``permit local television stations to opt 
out of cable system-wide overrides, provided such stations participate 
in the EAS system.'' NAB contends that cable overrides ``disrupt 
viewers' access to the critical, often life-saving emergency 
information provided by local television broadcasters, including 
shelter-in-place or evacuation directions, storm pathways, and the 
status of power outages . . . [and] frequently cause confusion and 
distress among viewers.'' NAB proposes that cable operators be required 
to ``implement `selective override,' so that certain [broadcast] 
channels can be selectively omitted during a cable system's EAS 
interruption,'' thus providing local broadcast television stations with 
the ability to opt out of the cable system's universal forced-tuning of 
all cable channels, enabling the station to offer uninterrupted 
emergency information.
    113. The Commission is also aware of reported instances where force 
tuning STBs has caused the subscriber's picture and audio to freeze, 
sometimes requiring a reboot of the STBs to restore normal access to 
channels. Viewers have claimed that during the period when the force 
tuned alert was active, they were unable to change channels and were 
stuck on the force-tuned EAS channel for extended periods of time. For 
example, on March 30, 2015, an in-house test conducted by a cable 
service provider was inadvertently distributed beyond the cable 
provider's test environment equipment to cable subscribers across 
several states, force-tuning most, if not all of them to a control 
channel where they were denied access to programming for approximately 
ten minutes. Commission staff has learned that over two million STBs 
likely were affected in that one example alone.
    114. The Commission seeks comment on the propriety of its selective 
override and forced tuning rules in an evolving alerting landscape. 
Specifically, the

[[Page 15811]]

Commission seeks comment on whether its existing cable force tuning and 
selective override provisions continue to serve the public interest, 
and whether technological advancements should impact that analysis. The 
Commission seeks comment on the extent to which alerting functions 
incorporate (or are being modified to incorporate) advanced technology, 
in order to improve functionality and better support the conveyance of 
emergency information. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on 
technical issues that may suggest that forced tuning has an 
unacceptably negative impact on consumers viewing force tuned broadcast 
and cable channels.
    115. Impact of Technological Advancements. In light of 
technological advancements or other factors that may impact cable 
operators' capacity to implement selective override, should selective 
override remain an acceptable voluntary EAS alternative for cable 
systems, or should all cable system providers refrain from interrupting 
local broadcast programming where the broadcast provider is 
participating in the EAS system and thus transmitting state and local 
EAS alerts? Alternatively, are there reasons why smaller cable systems 
(e.g., those serving fewer than 5,000 subscribers), would need the 
selective override option, in contrast to the larger systems, and would 
a regime that maintained the option for smaller cable systems only--
while larger systems uniformly delivered broadcast-originated state and 
local EAS alerts, news or weather-related emergency information--make 
sense? If smaller cable providers need this exception, should it be 
permanent? If not, for how much time should smaller cable systems fit 
into an excepted category?
    116. Have technological advancements enabled cable operators' 
ability to selectively override broadcast signals? For example, cable 
services now benefit from the introduction of digital technologies, 
including ``smart'' STBs. How do these and related technologies affect 
the use of selective override? Have STB and headend technologies 
advanced to the point where selective override on a channel-by-channel 
basis can be readily programmed into cable equipment, without imposing 
undue burdens on cable providers? Is it reasonable to assume that all 
content delivered by STB shall be interruptible, such that EAS warnings 
could be delivered in banner form or otherwise for all content (without 
directing the subscriber to another channel through force tuning or by 
other means)? Have technological advances in EAS equipment made it 
easier and more affordable to engage in selective override? The 
Commission notes in this regard that some parties maintain that force 
tuning via the STB is not the only way that MVPD EAS Participants can 
display EAS information.
    117. Does the widespread and growing availability of programming 
distributed by IP-based networks, including STBs and ``smart'' TVs 
capable of ``on-screen'' graphical user interface (GUI) user input, 
suggest that greater user control with respect to EAS acknowledgement 
and/or feedback should be supported or encouraged? Do the Commission's 
current cable force tuning and selective override requirements affect 
emergency operators' ability to leverage these technological 
advancements to rapidly and efficiently obtain feedback from consumers, 
in response to EAS messages? What regulatory obstacles exist that might 
unnecessarily impede greater consumer interaction with received 
alerting messages? Would facilitating this interaction introduce the 
capability for crowdsourced citizen feedback during emergencies and 
disasters that would improve community, state and national response? 
What possible consequences or potential for abuse, if any, would need 
to be addressed in harnessing this capability?
    118. Delivery of EAS Messages through Different Platforms. Looking 
only at the content of the EAS messages transmitted through the EAS 
system, are there or can there be any differences between the EAS 
messages that consumers see when viewing the alert on their local 
broadcast channel as compared to the EAS alert transmitted by a cable 
system provider? Are those EAS messages always identical in a given 
geographic area regardless of whether it is transmitted over the air or 
through a cable provider's system? Should they be identical? 
Specifically, has the implementation of Common Alert Protocol (CAP)-
based alerting made it more likely that cable providers can relay more 
detailed EAS alert information (e.g., based upon the enhanced text in a 
CAP message) than what has been possible in the past or via the 
traditional broadcast-based EAS architecture? If so, have cable 
providers been originating EAS messages that have a greater emergency 
response value when using the force tuning option? Is there a 
significant difference in the accessibility of alerts offered by 
broadcasters and cable providers? To what extent, if at all, do cable 
franchise agreement provisions govern whether cable operators may 
participate in selective override where local broadcast providers are 
delivering state and local EAS alerts, news or weather-related 
emergency information? How should any differences in the actual EAS 
messages impact the Commission's analysis of the force tuning and 
selective override issues? Does the variation stemming from selective 
override complicate response from community emergency managers?
    119. Technical Issues. Can STB technology advancements 
significantly reduce the risk that force tuning will cause the picture 
and/or audio to freeze, or lock out consumers from changing back to the 
channels they were watching? Are there any changes to the manner in 
which force tuning is implemented that could ensure that subscribers 
are not locked on the designated EAS channel? More broadly, are there 
steps or precautions cable service providers could take to prevent such 
events in the future? In light of technological advancements, does any 
public interest benefit remain by allowing cable service providers to 
satisfy their requirements to transmit EAS audio and visual information 
by force tuning? If not, would the immediate (``flash cut'') 
elimination of the force tuning option create any avoidable or 
unnecessary hardships, and, if so, would a sunset period for force 
tuning provide any relief?
2. EAS on Programmed Channels
    120. As discussed above, the Part 11 EAS rules allow wireless and 
digital cable provider EAS Participants to comply with their 
obligations to deliver EAS messages by force tuning viewers to a 
channel that carries the alert or test. The rules limit the obligation 
of a cable EAS Participant to deliver EAS to ``programmed channels,'' 
which, under the current rules do not include ``channels used for the 
transmission of data such as interactive games,'' ``channels used for 
the transmission of data services such as Internet,'' or ``channels 
used for the transmission of data services such as Internet access.''
    121. The Commission initially seeks comment on what basis exists 
today, when technical advances have expanded the scope of programming 
and other services delivered by cable and other MVPD EAS Participants, 
to distinguish channels as ``programmed channels'' for purposes of 
receiving EAS messages. Is there a technical basis to continuing the 
distinction among channels? If so, is there some other basis that would 
be more suitable for making this distinction? For example, should the 
distinction be based on channels

[[Page 15812]]

that are made available for consumer use versus channels not for 
consumer use and/or not part of the services that EAS Participants 
offer their customers? Channels not for consumer use would include 
diagnostic channels used to monitor the health and quality of the 
system, those used to transfer and manipulate metadata necessary to 
create the user interface (e.g., the program guide), or those used to 
deliver broadband access. Would it serve the public interest to require 
EAS Participants to support EAS alerts on all channels over which they 
offer services to the consumer? Is there a reason to exempt any such 
channels from the Commission's EAS rules?
    122. The Commission also seeks comment on the public safety 
benefits that could be derived from requiring that EAS Participants 
support EAS alerts over all channels that are part of the service 
package offered to the consumer. To what extent would requiring support 
for EAS alerts on all such channels increase the likelihood that the 
public will receive potentially life-saving alerts? To what extent 
might such channels offer opportunities to improve alert quality or 
accessibility? Further, what additional costs, if any, would EAS 
Participants expect to result from requiring EAS alerts to be supported 
on all channels that are part of the service package offered to the 
consumer by the EAS Participant? Would this approach fully address 
National Security and community alerting needs in the evolved 
technology landscape for typical residential consumers? Would this 
approach require hardware and/or software replacement? What standards, 
if any, would be affected by these proposed changes? How long should 
the Commission expect that it would take industry to comply with this 
alternative approach?
3. EAS Alerting and Emerging Video Technology
    123. The Commission has consistently striven to ensure that, as 
technologies evolve, EAS continues to meet consumer expectations for 
basic emergency communications. For example, in preparation for the 
transition to digital television, Commission staff held a series of ex 
parte meetings with affected industry segments to ensure that the EAS 
would continue uninterrupted throughout the HD transition. As a result, 
when the Commission ultimately adopted the rules that included wireline 
video providers among EAS Participants, the record reflected almost 
unanimous support for the new rules. Now, emerging technologies are 
changing the EAS landscape again. A wealth of video content is now 
available to consumers online. For instance, Multichannel Video 
Programming Distributors (MVPDs) are beginning to offer IP-based 
versions of their programming, including providing consumers with apps 
to view content. Broadcast television is exploring IP-based offerings 
as well. A number of other entities are also entering the video space. 
Accordingly, in this section the Commission seeks to initiate a 
conversation regarding how the EAS may remain durable as the ways in 
which consumers view content evolves.
    124. In order to implement the Commission's statutory obligations 
in a manner consistent with the public interest, the Commission seeks 
to understand whether and how the way in which consumers view content 
has changed consumer expectations for how they will receive EAS 
messages. In this regard, the Commission seeks to ensure that EAS 
alerts endure and remain reliable as technology advances. The 
Commission seeks comment on the extent to which entities offering 
content outside of traditional broadcast or pay TV modes of 
architecture are making EAS alerts available to consumers. From a 
technical perspective, what hardware, software, and standards updates 
would need to be addressed before alerts could be delivered via 
alternative means, such as via IP-based platforms? Are the potential 
issues with offering alerts outside traditional broadcast or pay TV 
delivery mechanisms? What kind of strategies could be employed to 
standardize the availability of alerts across technologies, 
applications, and platforms? To what extent are these efforts already 
underway?
    125. The Commission further seeks comment on whether consumers have 
an expectation that alerts will be durable across different technology 
platforms. Do consumers expect that the alerts provided with 
programming offered via traditional technologies would still be 
provided when programming is offered through some other means, such as 
through an online offering? To the extent that commenters believe the 
Commission should take action to address consumer expectations with 
respect to receiving EAS alerts through new technologies, on what 
statutory basis would the Commission take such action? Commenters 
should also address any possible unintended consequences of Commission 
action.
    126. The Commission seeks comment on whether EAS alerts offered 
through different technologies may have a greater potential to meet the 
emergency information needs of the public than do alerts offered via 
traditional media. What, if any, potential do these services have to 
improve EAS geo-targeting, for example, by using a devices' geolocation 
technology when the consumer is viewing content over the Internet? The 
Commission seeks comment on this assertion. Could alerts via non-
traditional platforms offer consumers greater personalization options? 
For example, could consumers elect to receive alerts for geographic 
areas other than the location in which their device is located, in 
order to remain vigilant of prospective threats to loved ones living in 
other parts of the country? Further, the Commission seeks comment on 
how new technologies could facilitate consumer feedback on, and 
interaction with alert content. Could the text crawl of such alerts 
potentially contain clickable URLs and phone numbers directing the 
recipient to additional resources and information about developing 
emergency situations? The Commission seeks comment on the extent to 
which the advancements in technology may allow for customer feedback on 
alerts, such as confirming that an individual is threatened by a 
certain emergency condition, or enabling that individual to request 
specific emergency assistance by interacting with an alert. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether these technologies could give rise 
to a cycle of information sharing consistent with a ``many-to-one/one-
to-many'' alerting dynamic.
4. WEA Alerts to Tablets
    127. Section 10.10 of the Commission's WEA rules defines a ``mobile 
device'' as ``the subscriber equipment generally offered by CMS 
providers that supports the distribution of WEA Alert Messages.'' 
Pursuant to Section 10.500, support for the distribution of WEA Alert 
messages entails ``(a) Authentication of interactions with CMS Provider 
infrastructure; (b) Monitoring for Alert Messages; (c) Maintaining 
subscriber alert opt-out selections, if any; (d) Maintaining subscriber 
alert language preferences, if any; (e) Extraction of alert content in 
English or the subscriber's preferred language, if applicable; (f) 
Presentation of alert content to the device, consistent with subscriber 
opt-out selections . . . ; and (g) Detection and suppression of 
presentation of duplicate alerts.'' Electing to participate in WEA 
entails a commitment by the Participating CMS Provider ``to support the 
development and deployment of technology for . . . mobile devices with 
WEA functionality.'' Pursuant to the

[[Page 15813]]

Commission's CMS Provider election procedures, Participating CMS 
Providers must support WEA on at least one device. The Department of 
Homeland Security's (DHS) report on WEA penetration strategy states 
that ``[t]he most significant WEA penetration gap over the long term 
regarding mobile wireless devices is the lack of WEA capability in the 
tablet computers.'' DHS recommends that the Commission should find a 
way to encourage Participating CMS Providers and tablet computer 
manufacturers to add WEA capability to their tablet offerings that have 
wireless cellular data connectivity.
    128. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should consider 
tablets that consumers use to access mobile services as ``mobile 
devices'' under the Commission's Part 10 WEA rules. Do 4G LTE-enabled 
tablets currently support the distribution of WEA messages? If not, the 
Commission seeks comment on what, if any, standards, software, or 
hardware modifications would be required to enable 4G-LTE-enabled 
tablets to support the distribution of WEA messages? Would 4G-LTE 
tablets be able to receive WEA alerts when they are connected to a Wi-
Fi network or other unlicensed spectrum, based on the user's preference 
(such as when the user is at home and connected to their own Wi-Fi 
network), but while the tablet still remains within range of the 
Participating CMS Providers' 4G-LTE network? The Commission seeks 
comment on any costs commenters believe would likely be attendant to 
providing WEA alerts to 4G LTE-enabled tablets. The Commission also 
seeks comments on any benefits likely to result from the delivery of 
WEA alerts to 4G LTE-enabled tablets. Specifically, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether modernizing alerting platforms in this manner 
would increase the likelihood that individuals would receive 
potentially life-saving alerts by requiring that they be transmitted to 
the devices and services they use most. Are Participating CMS Providers 
prepared to develop a voluntary roadmap for providing WEA alerts to 4G 
LTE-enabled tablets?
5. Technological Potential for Improvements in Accessibility
    129. The Commission seeks comment on the potential of new and 
emerging technologies to improve alert accessibility. In particular, 
the Commission seeks comment on the state of technology for machine-
generated translation (i.e., the use of software to translate text or 
speech from one language to another), to provide emergency alerts in 
non-English languages, and whether and how such technology could be 
leveraged by both the EAS and WEA systems. Are languages such as 
Spanish, that share a character set with English, more easily machine 
translatable than languages that use other character sets? How advanced 
are machine translation technologies for English to ideographic 
languages, such as Chinese? Could such translators be incorporated into 
EAS equipment? The Commission also seeks comment on the potential 
utility of platform-based video relay service capabilities to enhance 
the understanding of alerts and warnings for individuals with hearing 
and vision disabilities. The Commission seeks comment on these 
questions in order to gain a better understanding of achievable alert 
accessibility technologies.
    130. Further, the Commission seeks comment on the ability of OTT 
alerting to improve EAS alert personalization. Could OTT EAS alerting 
be leveraged to improve alert accessibility for all Americans, 
including those with sensory disabilities those with limited English 
proficiency? For example, could the availability of URLs make it 
possible for alert content to be presented in languages other than 
English and in American Sign Language (ASL)? Could consumers 
personalize alert preferences with respect to text size, crawl speed, 
and contrast based on their unique needs? Could alerting via OTT 
services facilitate the use of symbols as accessible replacements or 
supplements to alert messages? Is it technically feasible and should 
consumers be given the ability to control the volume of the emergency 
alerting Attention Signal or audio message, independent of the volume 
settings in place for other activity on their device, in order to 
ensure that the alert is audible from anywhere in the home, or at least 
is appropriate for the user who may be deaf or hard of hearing? 
Similarly, is it technically feasible and should there be a requirement 
for any consumer, with or without a disability, to be given the 
flexibility and capability to control other settings of the alerting 
signals and audio levels, such as the type and intensity of vibrations 
and flashing lights, in order to accommodate their individual needs? 
Alternatively, would it be appropriate to enable users to lower the 
volume of an EAS alert in certain circumstances?
    131. In the WEA NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on the 
feasibility of providing WEA messages in languages other than English 
and on the extent to which accessibility requirements would improve the 
presentation of multimedia content in WEA messages. Would extending WEA 
rules to include tablets and other mobile devices, as defined in the 
Commission's Part 10 rules, further enhance the accessibility of 
alerting to the public and to persons with disabilities? To what extent 
should WEA messages be subject to Commission accessibility 
requirements? Would the larger screen of tablet computing devices 
enable them to provide WEA messages that are more accessible to 
individuals with visual disabilities?

D. Securing the EAS

    132. As described below, several high-profile and other less 
widely-known EAS security breaches in recent years have demonstrated 
that there are significant vulnerabilities in the nation's EAS 
infrastructure that must be addressed comprehensively. The Commission 
is concerned about the severity, frequency and nature of the risks 
associated with these EAS attacks and the related implications for the 
readiness of the nation's critical means of alerting and informing 
citizens of threats to safety of life and property, consistent with the 
Commission's statutory mission. The Commission starts to address those 
concerns with the proposals in this NPRM, including those discussed in 
this section and upon which the Commission seeks comment, which will 
help to ensure that the nation is better prepared in its ability to 
alert citizens of such threats, particularly to support the need of the 
President to communicate with the public during times of emergency and 
the need to ensure the system is reliable and secure in advance, in 
order to preserve that capability.
a. Recent EAS Security Incidents
    133. February 11, 2013 Incident. On February 11, 2013, unidentified 
hackers accessed EAS equipment at several TV stations to perpetrate a 
``zombie attack'' hoax. The false alerts affected television stations 
KRTV in Great Falls, Montana, WBUP and WNMU in the vicinity of 
Marquette, Michigan, and other stations in Michigan, Utah, New Mexico 
and California. The stations were vulnerable to this particular attack 
because they failed to change manufacturer default passwords on their 
EAS equipment, install firewalls, or take other appropriate security 
measures, which left the equipment easily accessible from the Internet.
    134. October 24, 2014 Incident. On October 24, 2014, station WSIX-
FM in Nashville, Tennessee aired a false emergency alert during the 
broadcast of the nationally-syndicated ``The Bobby

[[Page 15814]]

Bones Show.'' Bobby Bones, the show's host, ran an audio clip from a 
November 9, 2011 nationwide EAS test that contained the live EAN code 
reserved for Presidential EAS activations. Mr. Bones' apparent intent 
was to mock a local cable company's airing of a mandatory monthly EAS 
test during the second game of the 2014 World Series. The ``gag,'' 
however, had serious consequences: The clip was replayed by other radio 
stations, as well as cable TV and wireline video television systems in 
32 states and the District of Columbia. Indeed, for approximately two 
hours, more than half a million television subscribers found their set 
top boxes locked on a false EAS message stating that regular 
programming had been interrupted by order of the White House. Had an 
appropriate authentication mechanism or date validation EAS protocol 
been established and installed on equipment that received the false 
alert, this incident likely would have been prevented.
    135. Other Incidents. While the incidents described above are 
perhaps the most widely known EAS security breaches in the recent past, 
they are not isolated. Other, less notorious system breaches have 
occurred that also generate cause for serious concern. One fairly 
common scenario in this regard involves inadvertent activation/improper 
test alerts. For example, in December 2010, an unauthorized EAN alert 
was issued by WBLE, a radio station operating in northwest Mississippi. 
According to WBLE, a part-time engineer attempting to issue a required 
monthly EAS test accidentally pressed the wrong button and issued an 
EAN alert instead. This error, according to AT&T, affected 
approximately 17,000 U-verse subscribers in their Memphis Video Hub 
Office (VHO). The impact was similar to that of the Bobby Bones Show 
Incident in that subscribers' set top boxes were force tuned to the 
designated EAS alert channel and remained locked on that channel for 
approximately four-and-a-half hours. Proper originator authentication 
included in the EAS protocol would have prevented the incident.
    136. Additionally, on June 26, 2007, a government contractor 
installing satellite equipment in Springfield, Illinois triggered an 
accidental EAN activation when he incorrectly left the receiver 
connected to a state EAS transmitter before final testing of that 
delivery path had been completed. The false EAS alert repeatedly 
interrupted programming for three or four minutes at a time and, in 
Chicago, triggered channel switchovers to a single area broadcaster, 
WGN. Proper originator authentication included in the EAS protocol 
would have prevented the incident.
    137. Improper retransmission of dated EAS alerts, similar to the 
Bobby Bones Show incident, are also somewhat common. On February 12, 
2013, for example, WIZM-FM in La Crosse, Wisconsin inadvertently 
triggered an EAS warning on neighboring station WKBT-DT by playing a 
recording of the Zombie Attack Hoax incident during its morning show. 
Another inadvertent retransmission occurred in a September 2010 
advertisement for ARCO/BP aired by stations in several states including 
Oregon and Kansas. The advertisement included the EAS attention signal 
and header codes from an EAS RWT that triggered EAS devices in multiple 
stations nationwide. The inclusion of originator authentication or date 
validation in the EAS protocol would have prevented the incident.
    138. Collectively, the incidents described above reveal an 
unacceptably high risk of unauthorized EAS signal broadcasts and 
insufficient real-time Commission awareness of, and visibility into the 
possible negative impacts of unauthorized alerts. In combination, they 
point to troubling security vulnerabilities associated with the 
nation's EAS. Unless appropriate actions are taken to enhance the 
broadcast network security environment through which the nation's EAS 
operates, these risks, vulnerabilities, and resulting problems are 
likely to persist, and indeed grow. That potential is likely to be 
exacerbated by the Nation's ongoing national transition to CAP alerts 
because of the increasing reach and number of originators capable of 
transmitting alerts.
b. Earlier Commission-Related Efforts
    139. Until now, the Commission has sought to ensure EAS security by 
encouraging EAS Participants to voluntarily adopt EAS security best 
practices. These efforts, however, have not always borne the intended 
fruits of a highly secure, highly reliable and unquestionably credible 
system. Indeed, the record tends to suggest a certain level of 
complacency by at least some EAS Participants with respect to system 
security. A brief discussion of that history illustrates the 
shortcomings of the voluntary approach and further highlights the need 
for the new approach the Commission explores below.
    140. Best Practices--CSRIC IV. On June 18, 2014, CSRIC IV 
unanimously adopted a set of voluntary best practices to be recommended 
to the EAS Participant community for the improvement of EAS security. 
Shortly thereafter, on November 7, 2014, the Bureau sought comment on 
CSRIC IV's recommendations. Surprisingly, the Commission received no 
substantive comments from EAS Participants, which raises questions 
regarding the extent to which EAS Participants are taking appropriate 
measures to manage security risk and ensure system performance at the 
levels necessary to achieve national public safety goals.
    141. Also on November 7, 2014, the Bureau released a Public Notice 
announcing an inquiry into the impact of false EAS alerts on the 
security, reliability and integrity of EAS. As part of this inquiry, 
the Bureau held meetings with EAS Participants, FEMA, equipment 
manufacturers and other EAS stakeholders. The record developed through 
these activities suggests that the EAS' present authentication 
methodology warrants further examination in terms of its adequacy, 
systemic security, and reliability.
    142. Bobby Bones Show Incident and Other Assessments. As discussed 
above, Commission staff studied the Bobby Bones Show Incident, a 
separate ``zombie attack'' hoax and other similar incidents to identify 
causes and issues associated with EAS security. All of these incidents 
involved a lack of built-in EAS user authentication and validation 
procedures, as well as weak implementation of other readily employable 
security best practices that would have prevented such unauthorized 
actors from entering and misusing the system.
2. Improving EAS Network Security
    143. Unauthorized EAS alerts generate a host of ills, from consumer 
inconvenience and frustration over TV lockouts, to broad public fear 
and confusion about the existence and nature of threats. False alerts 
divert public safety and other government resources from other 
important activities, impose costs on licensees that have to deal with 
many of the consequences of false alerts and, ultimately, desensitize 
the public to legitimate alerts. The Commission, consistent with its 
fundamental public safety mandate, must ensure that the public has 
complete confidence in the EAS as one of the nation's essential public 
safety communications tools. Thus, if EAS Participants cannot 
effectively secure the system through voluntary mechanisms, the 
Commission must explore regulatory solutions to achieve EAS security. 
Accordingly, the Commission now proposes rules designed to safeguard 
the EAS and

[[Page 15815]]

maintain continued public trust in the system.
    144. In this section, the Commission seeks comment on proposals 
intended to decrease the likelihood of false or malicious EAS 
broadcasts, and to codify best practices consistent with CSRIC IV's 
recommendations. The Commission also proposes rules requiring the 
reporting of false alerts, i.e., alerts issued in situations other than 
a bona fide emergency, test, or public awareness campaign, and 
lockouts, and new rule changes for alert authentication and validation. 
The Commission also believes that these proposed rules--backed by an 
annual certification of specific actions from EAS Participants 
demonstrating adherence to the security best practices recommended by 
CSRIC IV--will fundamentally enhance the security of the EAS and help 
provide a baseline of actions from which to initiate risk management 
processes to protect the EAS. Additionally, the proposed reporting 
requirements would provide a minimum set of actions to assist in the 
communication of incident detection and response. These proposals are 
intended to complement, rather than replace, the Commission's current 
support for voluntary implementation of best practices developed 
through cooperation with industry and advisory bodies. Each proposal is 
intended to be flexible, so commenters should describe in detail how 
they propose to implement any preferred approach they may have, and how 
those choices advance the goals of this NPRM. The Commission encourages 
EAS Participants to examine all of their approaches to managing 
security risk, including planning and recovery, to inform their 
recommendations for improvements.
    145. Also, the Commission invites alternative proposals from 
commenters on how best to promote EAS security. Commenters should 
support such proposals with sufficient information and analysis to 
provide a basis for thorough consideration. Given the importance of 
ensuring the authenticity and security of presidential EAN messages, 
the Commission also seeks comment on whether its proposed changes are 
sufficient for all EAS messages, or whether additional measures should 
be taken to secure particular alerts, such as the EAN. Assuming such 
additional measures are indicated, commenters should describe them and 
explain how they would better secure the EAS. Finally, commenters 
should address relative costs and benefits of the Commission's proposed 
rules as well as any proffered alternative proposals.
a. Annual Certification
    146. In light of the issues raised above, the Commission proposes 
action to ensure that EAS Participants are following EAS security best 
practices, which in turn will make the Commission's nation's alerting 
system more secure and reliable. The Commission proposes that EAS 
Participants must submit an annual reliability certification form that 
attests to performance of required security measures with a baseline 
security posture in four core areas, as described in the following 
sections. The Commission believes this annual certification would 
establish minimum expectations for security, and provide the Commission 
with the necessary assurances that EAS Participants are adhering to 
industry best practices and therefore taking appropriate measures to 
secure the EAS. The Commission believes this requirement would be 
minimally burdensome, and would allow EAS Participants ample 
flexibility in implementing core security mechanisms based on the 
individual entity's particular needs. As an initial matter, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether an annual certification would 
achieve these objectives, and on the relative costs and benefits of 
this approach. The Commission expects that the information required to 
make a determination by the certifying official is readily available as 
part of the Participant's normal operations, and that the amount of 
legal and management review is negligible given that the best practices 
to which they certify are well known and have been carefully assessed 
by industry in the CSRIC process. The Commission estimates that 
certification should add an average of fifteen minutes to the annual 
update of the ``identifying information'' section in ETRS, resulting in 
an increased cost to industry of approximately $549,360 per year. If 
additional legal and management review would be required, the 
Commission assumes it would only be required the first year to ensure 
appropriate internal processes were in place and would amount to no 
more than an average of one hour per company for an additional 
$2,179,440 the first year. For those EAS Participants who are not using 
best practices, the Commission estimates it should take no more than 
four hours per device to perform the necessary changes, resulting in an 
estimated cost of $879,040 to industry. The Commission seeks comment on 
the accuracy of the estimates of the expected number of Participants 
that are not using best practices, the accuracy of the assumptions 
underlying the amount of time required for compliance, and the accuracy 
of cost estimates. Are there additional costs that are not sufficiently 
captured by these proposed cost estimates? Administratively, should the 
``identifying information'' section of ETRS be used to provide an EAS 
Participant's certification, or should a different mechanism be used 
for making and recording the certification? Is it reasonable and 
efficient to require the certification to be part of the current 
required annual update of ETRS identifying information? What ways might 
there exist to further reduce the burden on EAS Participant while 
achieving the same result? Would the longer term burden be reduced by 
including a provision to review the certification requirement in five 
years with the intent to sunset the requirement if it becomes clear 
that Participants are effectively managing cybersecurity risk through 
mature implementation of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework or suitable 
equivalent as demonstrated through the planned cyber risk assurance 
meetings and Sector Annual Report recommended by CSRIC IV?
    147. Further, the Commission seeks comment on each of the four core 
elements that would be addressed in the annual certification. 
Particularly, the Commission asks whether these four areas of 
certification provide sufficient assurance that security best practices 
are being followed. Are there any additional--or alternative--areas 
that should be subject to certification to achieve system security 
assurance aims? Are there measures that the Commission or industry 
stakeholders can take to ensure performance of the proposed security 
measures are minimally burdensome for all EAS Participants, from the 
largest broadcasters and cable systems to the smallest independent 
operators? For example, could industry organizations at the national 
and state levels work with their members to conduct outreach to smaller 
and less resourced EAS Participants to educate them and otherwise help 
them to successfully certify their compliance with the security 
guidelines the Commission proposes today? What, if any, should the 
Commission's role be in such an outreach effort? The Commission notes 
in this regard that the Bureau has already released a Public Notice 
reminding EAS Participants of the EAS security best practices 
recommended by the CSRIC IV Initial EAS Security Report and has

[[Page 15816]]

participated in a number of industry-related panels discussing 
cybersecurity as well as a webinar on cybersecurity for broadcasters. 
Are there other outreach steps in the CSRIC IV Final EAS Security 
Report that the Commission should undertake to raise public awareness 
regarding EAS security and to help EAS Participants incorporate EAS 
security best practices?
(i) Patch Management
    148. A basic network security hygiene practice for any 
communications- and computer-based system--EAS included--is ensuring 
that the system runs up-to-date, secure software and firmware. This 
practice is included in various best practice documents, surveys and 
security guidelines, including one of the ``first five'' controls from 
the SANS Institute Critical Security Controls, control CSC 3-2. For 
more than a decade, the Commission and a series of communications 
security authorities and expert bodies have stressed the importance of 
regular system patching and updating, starting with Network Reliability 
and Interoperability Council (NRIC) V, and continuing through NRIC 7, 
CSRIC 2, and CSRIC 3. Despite continued attention to patching as a 
needed part of basic security hygiene, attackers continue to exploit 
unpatched systems. According to Verizon's 2015 Data Breach 
Investigations Report, 99.9 percent of all computer system exploits 
target vulnerabilities that have persisted for at least a year. 
Additionally, SANS control CSC 6-1--updating to the most current 
software and firmware version and patch level--would be the recommended 
mitigation strategy in 24 percent of all incidents Verizon reviewed.
    149. In the Bobby Bones Show incident, for example, vendors with 
properly updated software and firmware for their EAS equipment resisted 
the false alert. Others, whose system software/firmware were unpatched, 
either broadcast the false alert or queued it for later broadcast. Had 
all equipment been updated to the latest version and in the correct 
configuration, it is highly likely the alert would not have been 
rebroadcast.
    150. Proactive management of system vulnerabilities tends to reduce 
or eliminate the potential for exploitation and involve considerably 
less time and effort than responding after an exploitation has 
occurred. Accordingly, the Commission proposes, and seeks comment on, 
requiring EAS Participants to certify annually that they keep their 
systems updated with the latest firmware and software patches. The 
Commission observes that three of the thirteen best practice controls 
recommended by CSRIC IV cover patch management. Specifically, 
Recommended Control No. 1 states that ``EAS participants should 
regularly monitor EAS Manufacturer information resources (e.g., Web 
sites) to obtain vendor patch/security notifications and services to 
remain current with new vulnerabilities, viruses, and other security 
flaws relevant to systems deployed on the network''; Recommended 
Control No. 6 states that EAS Participants should ``regularly seek and 
install software updates and patches''; and Recommended Control No. 7 
states that they should ``expedite general system updates and security 
patching.''
    151. Would effective implementation of best practice Control Nos. 
1, 6 and 7 be assured by requiring participants to certify that they 
have followed a program to identify and install updates and patches to 
EAS devices and attached systems in a timely manner, verified EAS 
devices are running the current version and patch level of software and 
firmware, and verified that systems connected to EAS devices are 
running the current version and patch level of software and firmware? 
If so, is that sufficient to demonstrate basic security hygiene in the 
EAS? What alternatives would be acceptable if a participant does not 
comply with the above elements? Should the Commission allow 
participants to instead certify the measures they have taken to provide 
equivalent security or the explanation of how the above elements do not 
apply to their network? How extensive should such descriptions or 
explanations be? What issues could arise from requiring that the 
certification apply to both EAS equipment and all network equipment on 
the same network? Are there any reasons to refrain from applying the 
certification requirement to all network equipment connected to an EAS 
device? Is an annual performance certification from an EAS Participant 
sufficient? If not, what is a more appropriate interval for filings 
attesting to performance of required security measures? Alternatively, 
should the Commission require EAS Participants to update their systems 
when a patch or update is released and report that they have done so to 
the Commission? How much time would EAS Participants need to comply 
with a requirement to identify, acquire, test, apply and verify such 
updates? Are any of the specific actions proposed above unnecessary, 
and, if so, why? Alternatively, what other measures should be included 
in the certification?
    152. The Commission seeks comment on the cost of complying with an 
annual requirement to certify as part of the required information in 
ETRS that systems are fully patched and running the most current 
firmware. Since ensuring proper patching and updating is already a 
common best practice across the communications sector, the Commission 
assumes that, for most EAS Participants, there would be no additional 
cost related impact to keeping EAS related systems current. Is this a 
reasonable assumption? Are there other factors that should be taken in 
to account when determining whether complying with this particular best 
practice would require additional effort? Would the benefits from 
increased performance of required security measures for EAS 
Participants who are not currently practicing them outweigh the costs 
of filing? The Commission requests that commenters be specific about 
costs and provide support and documentation accordingly.
(ii) Account Management
    153. A second basic security hygiene practice is proper control, 
assignment and management of user and administrative accounts. Poor 
password practices are directly responsible for the Zombie Attack Hoax 
that had an impact on multiple stations in the northern and western 
regions of the nation. Due to stations not changing the manufacturer 
default passwords on their Internet-accessible equipment, hackers were 
able to log in, generate and send false EAS alerts. As a result, the 
Commission issued an urgent notice to change default passwords on EAS 
devices.
    154. Despite the existence of well-known user account management 
best practices, the security breaches described above show that a 
number of EAS Participants fail to follow them. Thus, the Commission 
proposes a rule that would require EAS Participants to certify that 
they are following specific, common, EAS user account management best 
practices. Had such a rule been in effect at the time of the Zombie 
Attack Hoax, the targeted entities would have had certifications on 
file with the Commission that they had changed the default password for 
the system, had removed or disabled improper accounts, and routinely 
enforced complex passwords. The Commission believes such 
certifications, submitted upon penalty for false statements, would have 
induced the stations to change their default passwords, thus preventing 
the Zombie Attack Hoax. The Commission

[[Page 15817]]

seeks comment on this belief and on its underlying analysis.
    155. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on rules requiring 
EAS Participants to certify annually that they have a control system in 
place to restrict access to EAS devices, that all EAS devices and 
connected system passwords have been changed from the default 
passwords, that password complexity is required, and that default, 
unnecessary, and expired accounts have been removed or disabled. Would 
these requirements be sufficient to ensure proper control over EAS 
device access? If not, what other user account management requirements 
should be added? What account management alternatives would be 
acceptable in lieu of these specific elements? In that vein, should 
participants be required instead to certify as to measures taken to 
provide equivalent security, or to explain how the account management 
elements described do not apply to their network? How extensive should 
such descriptions or explanations be? Should they apply to both EAS 
equipment and all network equipment on the same network? Should the 
ETRS identifying information section be used to provide an EAS 
Participant's certification? Is there a better method of recording 
certification? Is it reasonable and efficient to require certification 
as part of the currently required annual update of ETRS identifying 
information?
    156. The Commission also seeks comment on the costs of complying 
with this particular element of the certification process. Since 
accepted best practices require basic account management, the 
Commission assumes that there would be little or no additional effort 
required to implement those best practices. Is this a reasonable 
assumption? The Commission requests that commenters be specific about 
costs and their sources.
(iii) Segmentation
    157. In the Zombie Attack Hoax, outside actors used default 
passwords to gain remote Internet access to EAS devices allowing them 
to transmit false alerts. Had the impacted stations implemented best 
practices to prevent unauthorized remote access, it is far less likely 
that the intruders would have been able to penetrate the systems and 
log in with the default password. A firewall or other architectural 
separation would have impeded their ability to discover, access and 
utilize the EAS devices, and would likely have prevented the intrusion. 
Further, proper remote access security would have provided indications 
of the access attempt to system administrators who, in turn, could have 
acted upon that information to safeguard the system.
    158. Accordingly, the Commission proposes requiring EAS 
Participants to certify annually that they have achieved a minimum 
level of segmentation of the EAS system. The Commission defines 
segmentation here for certification purposes as a category of best 
practice-based actions that logically group and compartmentalize assets 
and restrict trusted access to those compartments. Specifically the 
Commission proposes that EAS Participants certify that none of their 
EAS devices is directly accessible through the Internet, (for example, 
by configuring a firewall to deny access from the public Internet) and 
that any other type of remote access is properly secured and logged. 
The Commission believes this would have prevented the fraudulent remote 
access experienced in the Zombie Attack Hoax and in other similar 
attacks. The Commission specifically seeks comment on the effectiveness 
and desirability of the proposed rule. Would such a requirement 
adequately ensure proper separation of EAS equipment from Internet-
connected network equipment? What other specific actions normally 
included in best practices to segregate control traffic from public 
access should be included in the certification? What segmentation 
alternatives would be acceptable to prevent unauthorized remote access? 
Should participants be required to certify as to the taking of 
specified measures or, in lieu of those measures, explain how the 
elements described do not apply to their network? How extensive should 
such descriptions or explanations be? The Commission also seeks comment 
on the definition and use of segmentation as a category of 
certification items. Should the ETRS identifying information section be 
used to report EAS Participants' certification, or should a different 
mechanism be employed?
    159. The Commission seeks comment on the cost of complying with an 
annual certification requirement that EAS devices are not directly 
accessible from the Internet. The Commission further seeks comment on 
the cost of complying with a requirement that any means of remote 
access is properly secured and logged. Since accepted best practices 
(as well as recommendations in vendor guides and industry publications) 
specify a firewall or other method of segmenting the EAS device from 
the Internet, the Commission's assumption is that there would be no 
additional cost associated with having to institute these best 
practices. Is this a reasonable assumption? Are there other factors 
that should be taken in to account when determining whether complying 
with the best practice would require additional effort?
(iv) Annual Certification of CAP Digital Signature Validation
    160. Based on comments received in response to the Commission's 
inquiry into the Bobby Bones Show Incident, it is apparent that EAS 
Participants may opt not to filter CAP messages based on the digital 
signature parameter, or may only filter based on digital signature for 
selected CAP monitoring sources. This raises the risk that even if 
State or Local authorities include a digital signature in a CAP-
formatted message, EAS Participants may disregard the signature if the 
message was received from a source other than IPAWS-OPEN. By ensuring, 
and accordingly certifying, that their equipment is configured to 
validate CAP digital signatures on all CAP messages that include them, 
EAS Participants increase the security of the entire system by ensuring 
that CAP messages are unmodified and have been sent by a party with a 
valid digital certificate and, thus, are trustworthy messages.
    161. The Commission seeks comment on the effectiveness and 
desirability of rules requiring EAS Participants to certify annually 
that their EAS devices are configured to validate digital signatures on 
CAP messages if the source of the CAP message includes this feature. 
Are there any technological or other barriers to certifying devices 
that are configured to validate digital signatures? If so, what actions 
could be taken to mitigate or remove those barriers?
    162. The Commission also seeks comment on the cost of complying 
with an annual requirement to certify, as part of the required 
information in ETRS, that EAS devices are configured to validate 
digital signatures on CAP messages for all CAP messages that include a 
digital signature. The Commission requests that commenters be specific 
about costs and their sources.
b. False Alert Reporting
    163. There currently is no requirement that EAS Participants report 
to the Commission or FEMA that they have generated a false EAS alert or 
what circumstances led to the false alert; thus requiring the 
Commission to rely on reports from the public and the press. This 
situation has often hampered the Commission's real-time awareness and 
ability to respond to a crisis or emergency associated with these 
activities. The Commission's experience over the last decade of 
collecting and

[[Page 15818]]

analyzing communications network outage data through its Network Outage 
Reporting System (NORS) shows the value of acquiring network 
reliability data. False EAS alerts, if reported, could similarly 
provide situational awareness about the health of the EAS to the 
Commission in real time, and facilitate the Commission's ability to 
take action to mitigate the effects of the alert.
    164. Accordingly, the Commission proposes, and seeks comment on, a 
rule requiring EAS Participants to report the issuance or 
retransmission of a false EAS message via ETRS. Should an initial 
report including only EAS header codes, source, area affected, and time 
discovered of the false message be required? Is that information 
sufficient for an initial report? Is it reasonable to require such 
information or should less be required of the initial report? What 
other information should be included? The Commission also seeks comment 
on whether EAS Participants should be required to file their false 
alert report in ETRS within thirty minutes of identification of a false 
EAS message transmission. Is there a more appropriate time frame for a 
required initial report? Should a final report be required 72 hours 
after the initial report that includes an explanation of the root cause 
of the improper transmission? What other information should be 
included? Is that time frame long enough for EAS Participants to 
provide a final report? Is there a more appropriate time frame for the 
final report? Should any information in the final report be considered 
confidential? If so, what information should be covered as such? The 
Commission seeks comment on the effectiveness and appropriateness of 
using the ETRS as a reporting tool. Is there a better method of 
reporting false message transmission?
    165. Finally, the Commission requests comments on the costs, 
burdens and benefits of the proposed mandatory reporting requirement; 
whether the requirement would promote the reliability, resiliency and 
security of EAS services; and whether the Commission could more 
narrowly tailor the requirement or otherwise pursue an alternative that 
would maximize the potential benefits to society or would accomplish 
the proceeding's objectives in a less costly, less burdensome, or more 
effective manner. Based on similarities with the Commission's Part Four 
outage reporting requirements for the notification and initial reports, 
the Commission estimates that complying with the reporting requirement 
will require approximately fifteen minutes for the initial report and 
forty-five minutes for the final report, for a total of one hour and an 
estimated cost of $46,400 per year. The Commission seeks comment on the 
reasonableness and accuracy of this estimate. Commenters should be 
specific about costs and their sources.
c. Lockout Notifications
    166. As described above, the Bobby Bones Show Incident's audio clip 
did not contain the EOM code to return subscribers to regular 
programming. This resulted in 667,195 AT&T U-verse customers across the 
United States being locked out for several hours, unable to change 
their television to other programming while leaving them wondering what 
was happening. During this lockout period, the viewers were left 
confused about the validity of the alert, placing the credibility of 
the alert messaging system in question. The Commission believes that 
viewers must be able to rely on the alerting system for timely, 
accurate alerting information on which they can depend. The Commission 
believes that EAS reliability would be greatly enhanced by taking 
necessary steps to prevent the conditions that would result in the 
inability of devices to resume normal operation after an EAS alert. The 
Commission believes this would further public safety interests and 
address credibility issues that currently linger with the current 
system. Mandatory reporting via ETRS of instances when EAS Participant 
equipment causes, contributes to, or participates in a lockout that 
adversely affects the public would assist the Commission in identifying 
and assessing the nature and extent of the lockout issue, as well as 
the impact of false alerts reported separately.
    167. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on a proposed rule 
to require all EAS Participants to report instances when their EAS 
equipment causes, contributes to, or participates in a lockout that 
adversely affects the public (e.g., when multiple cable STBs cannot 
return to normal operation due to the failure to receive an EOM signal 
or otherwise correctly process an EAS alert). Is this definition of a 
lockout sufficient to capture all such events where the public's access 
to cable programming a cable-based alerts are concerned? The Commission 
seeks comment on whether there are some lockouts below a certain 
threshold that would be unnecessary to report because of limited effect 
on consumers. To what extent would excluding some lockouts from 
reporting requirements reduce the burden on EAS Participants? What 
threshold would strike an optimal balance between minimizing costs and 
keeping the Commission informed of significant incidents? Is there a 
better reporting method or definition for what constitutes a lockout 
that would provide the Commission with the appropriate amount of 
information to monitor and address this issue? Given that such false 
EAS alert-driven lockouts can have a significant impact on potentially 
millions of viewers, should an initial report should be required within 
fifteen minutes of identification of such an incident? Is there a more 
appropriate timeframe for a required initial report? The Commission 
also seeks comment on the scope of information that should be included 
with a lockout notification. For example, would the date and time, 
message source, affected device type(s), and estimate of the number of 
devices affected be sufficient for an initial report? If not, what 
other information should be included? Should a final report be required 
seventy-two hours after the initial report including the root cause of 
the incident? Is that time frame sufficient to provide a complete and 
thorough final report? The Commission seeks comment on the 
effectiveness and appropriateness of using the ETRS as a reporting tool 
for this type of incident.
    168. Finally, the Commission requests comments on the costs, 
burdens and benefits of the proposed mandatory reporting requirement; 
whether the requirement would promote the reliability, resiliency and 
security of EAS services; and whether the Commission could more 
narrowly tailor the requirement or otherwise pursue an alternative that 
would maximize the potential benefits to society or would accomplish 
the proceeding's objectives in a less costly, less burdensome, or more 
effective manner. The Commission estimates that complying with the 
reporting requirement will require approximately fifteen minutes for 
the initial report and forty-five minutes for the final report, for a 
total of one hour and an estimated cost of $800 per year. The 
Commission seeks comment on the reasonableness and accuracy of this 
estimate. The Commission requests that commenters be specific about 
costs and their sources.
d. Alert Authentication
    169. The EAS Protocol does not currently include a method to ensure 
that an alert received by EAS equipment was originated by an authorized 
source, i.e., that the message is ``authenticated.'' EAS equipment will 
respond as designed to any Presidential Alert regardless of the actual 
originator or broadcaster. There are two approaches, described below, 
that could effectively address this issue. The first approach

[[Page 15819]]

leverages the existing features of digital signatures available on CAP-
formatted messages--transmitted via IPAWS-OPEN or other IP-based 
connections, and the second approach explores the possibility of adding 
analog authentication mechanisms to EAS Protocol messages.
    170. CAP allows for the use of a digital signature to be used as 
one method of message authentication. A message may be authenticated by 
using a digital signature when a federal, state or local CAP alert 
originator signs a CAP message using its unique originator key, and 
that signature is decrypted using a single decryption key provided by 
FEMA/DHS. An EAS Participant can know that a message was sent from a 
trusted source if it contains a digital signature that can be decrypted 
by the FEMA/DHS-provided key. Currently, all IPAWS-OPEN-originated CAP 
messages require digital certificate authentication, but some state and 
local CAP systems do not, and EAS Participants may elect not to filter 
CAP messages on the digital signature parameter for all, or only for 
selected CAP monitoring sources. As EAS Participants and federal 
authorities comply with CAP-related requirements in accordance with the 
EAS Second Report and Order, there is a clear and practical 
opportunity, presumably, to implement digital signature EAS 
authentication concurrently with those efforts. The Commission believes 
digital signature authentication for CAP messages adds a significant 
layer of security to EAS. Thus, the Commission proposes to require that 
EAS Participants process and validate digital signatures when handling 
CAP-formatted EAS alerts, and discard as invalid any CAP message where 
the digital signature does not match an authorized source from FEMA or 
from a designated source specified in the State EAS Plan.
    171. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on the desirability 
and feasibility of discarding CAP formatted EAS alerts where the 
digital signature is invalid. What barriers to the implementation of 
such a rule exist? Is a requirement for all EAS Participants to treat 
as invalid any CAP-formatted message signed with an invalid signature 
sufficient to achieve the desired goals? The Commission also seeks 
comment on the desirability and feasibility of digital signature 
authentication for all CAP messages, not only those originated by 
IPAWS-OPEN. Should the Commission require all CAP-formatted messages to 
be digitally signed? Are there any technical barriers to such a 
requirement? Is the current process for digitally signing CAP messages 
for IPAWS-OPEN sufficient? Could it be effectively used for all CAP 
messages? Should the Commission specify a method of ensuring that all 
EAS Participants can properly authenticate the alert originators they 
are responsible for monitoring, or should that be specified within the 
State EAS Plans? Are State EAS Plans the appropriate location for 
defining the authentication process for State and Local digital 
signatures? What impact would there be to state and local authorities 
from requiring all CAP-formatted EAS messages be digitally signed? Is 
this rule--in conjunction the certification requirement described 
above--the most effective and efficient means of ensuring performance 
of required security measures? If not, what other methods of ensuring 
performance of required security measures should be adopted? Would any 
of the questions or proposals in this paragraph apply equally to the 
WEA system? If so, then to what extent? Commenters should include 
detail concerning such proposals, including costs and benefits of 
applying these types of security measures to the WEA system.
    172. While CAP digital signatures can provide authentication for 
messages propagated via IPAWS-OPEN or other IP-based systems, they do 
not address traditional analog EAS messages transmitted over the air 
using the EAS Protocol. To address this issue previous commenters have 
suggested two methods of adding analog authentication mechanisms to EAS 
Protocol messages. Some EAS stakeholders support the use of an analog 
version of the CAP digital signature to confirm the authenticity of EAS 
messages originated in the EAS Protocol. To confirm the authenticity, 
Monroe proposes a solution of adding a unique message ID or 
authenticator after the existing EAS header codes. As an example, their 
TDX solution utilizes Audio Frequency Shift Keyed (AFSK) data in the 
audio portion of the message to provide an analog version of the CAP 
digital signature to be decoded downstream. Monroe suggests that ``the 
use of only a few bits of data could suffice as an authenticator 
value,'' and that ``such a solution would not overly burden the EAS 
message, lasting only two to four seconds, and would significantly 
improve message security.'' According to Monroe, such a solution would 
allow authentication of EAS Protocol messages without reference to an 
ulterior authentication source. There may be other potential solutions 
leveraging an analog version of the CAP digital signatures that would 
prevent retransmission of unauthorized audio alerts. If such an analog 
version of a digital signature had been in use during the Bobby Bones 
Show Incident, EAS equipment would have treated the unauthorized EAN 
alert as inauthentic because it lacked a signature. The same is true in 
the case of the February 12, 2013 retransmission of the Zombie Attack 
Hoax, and in the case of the ARCO/BP Advertisement Incident. 
Additionally, utilizing such an analog signature would have prevented 
the airing of a number of mistaken test events where an EAN was sent 
instead of a required test alert, including the December '10 
Unauthorized EAN and the Springfield, Illinois Incident.
    173. A second solution to EAS alert authentication that could be 
applied to alerts formatted in the EAS Protocol is a Virtual Red 
Envelope (VRE) system. While the EAS's predecessor, the Emergency 
Broadcast System (EBS), used red envelopes to send authentication codes 
to EAS Participants so that the EAS Participant could confirm the 
authenticity of subsequent alerts, this proposed virtual solution would 
use ``IPAWS servers to distribute a short validation code as part of 
the Required Weekly Test.'' The Broadcast Warning Working Group (BWWG) 
advises that such a method could maintain fidelity to the EAS Protocol 
by appending the validation field to the end of the EAS message header. 
The message would be considered valid only if the validation code 
provided in the most recent required monthly test (RMT) matched a 
corresponding code included in the EAN message. Under the VRE model, 
``[t]he code match would compel the recipient equipment to 
automatically and immediately proceed to forward the entire enhanced 
EAS message in accordance with the Commission's EAS requirements.'' On 
the other hand, if the code did not match, this would trigger an alarm 
within the VRE system which would prompt manual authentication of the 
message. If a VRE system had been in use during the Bobby Bones Show 
Incident, EAS equipment would have treated the unauthorized 
Presidential EAS alert as inauthentic because it would have lacked an 
authentication code. Further, if the alert used for the first 
Nationwide EAS test in November 2011 had contained an authentication 
code, that code would not have matched the authentication code 
specified for alerts received in October 2014, which would have 
prevented retransmission. If EAS equipment were programmed to respond 
to such a mismatch by holding such an alert for manual inspection, the

[[Page 15820]]

inspection would have revealed that the message was not sent by a 
trusted source, and it could have been discarded.
    174. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on the desirability 
and feasibility of including a unique message ID and/or authenticator 
ancillary to the EAS Protocol header codes and how to accomplish this 
in a manner that respects technological neutrality. The Commission 
seeks comment on the advantages and disadvantages of including a 
digital signature in CAP- and EAS Protocol-formatted EAS messages. The 
Commission also seeks comment on the desirability and feasibility of 
adopting a VRE solution to alert authentication that includes an 
authentication code within the EAS alert. Is a technical solution 
currently available that would allow the community to rapidly implement 
such a capability? What advantages and disadvantages would such a 
solution have? What would the impact of requiring such a solution be on 
small and medium businesses? What would the costs of such an 
implementation be? Should one, two or all of these solutions be 
required? Should each be considered an independent means of compliance?
e. Alert Validation
    175. Alert message ``validation'' refers to a technical check of a 
message by EAS equipment that allows for confirmation that a message 
received is in fact a valid EAS message. The sole method currently 
available to EAS equipment for performing alert message validation 
makes use of a time stamp, which contains an inherent ambiguity in that 
no year parameter is specified in the time stamp. EAS equipment, 
therefore, is not always capable of determining whether an alert is 
valid. The Broadcast Warning Working Group (BWWG) notes that ``[i]f a 
fake EAS event is sent or an operator makes a mistake but has the right 
credentials and timestamp, it will be propagated as programmed, even if 
it is a recording of a previous alert.''
    176. EAS alert validation could be improved by revising Section 
11.31 of the Commission's EAS rules to include a year parameter 
``YYYY'' in the time stamp (``JJJHHMM''), and requiring devices to 
ensure the expiration time of the alert is in the future. If a year 
field had been included in the time stamp during the Bobby Bones Show 
Incident, EAS equipment would have recognized that it was dated and, 
thus, could have prevented the unauthorized EAS alert from being 
processed as valid by downstream equipment. Such date validation also 
could have prevented the ARCO/BP Advertisement Incident and the 
Springfield, Illinois Incident since they were also caused by replay of 
previous outdated alerts.
    177. Further, the Station identification (ID) header code 
(``LLLLLLLL'') could be a useful validation parameter if the station ID 
parameter is based on a static designation, such as a station's 
Physical System ID (PSID), and if EAS Participants accurately maintain 
the station ID parameter of their EAS equipment as well as the station 
IDs of the facilities they are assigned to monitor. If EAS equipment 
always verifies that the station indicated by an alert's station ID 
header code matches the station ID of an EAS Participant's assigned 
monitoring sources, use of station ID as a validation parameter could 
increase the security and reliability of the EAS ecosystem by not 
retransmitting EAS messages that have originated from outside its area.
    178. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on the desirability 
and feasibility of amending Part 11.31 to include a year parameter in 
the time stamp, and to require devices to only transmit valid alerts. 
What hardware or software changes would be necessitated by adding a 
year parameter to the time stamp? How could any costs associated with 
this change be mitigated? Should the Commission define as valid only 
alerts with an expiration time in the future? Are there other 
validation criteria the Commission should consider based on the date-
time fields? Are there other actions that the Commission should specify 
EAS Participants must take based on date-time fields? The Commission 
also seeks comment on the desirability and feasibility of requiring 
that the station ID header code be anchored to a static identifier, and 
on amending the Commission's EAS rules to require alert validation 
based on the station ID header code. Is PSID an appropriate unique 
station identifier suitable for use as the station ID header code? Are 
there other existing identifiers that would be more suitable? Is 
requiring devices to validate that the station ID header code matches 
one of the monitoring stations listed in the State EAS Plan, alone or 
in combination with other methods, a reasonable and effective way of 
ensuring stations do not retransmit alerts from unauthorized sources?
    179. There are some indications that checking for interstitial 
alerts as a means of alert validation might have prevented the Bobby 
Bones Show Incident. Recent recommendations from CSRIC IV, however, 
advise against discarding all interstitial alerts, as some such alerts 
may be damaged or otherwise inappropriate for retransmission, and some 
such alerts may be valid and appropriate. In light of the CSRIC IV 
recommendations on this issue, the Commission seeks comment on the 
desirability and feasibility of revising Part 11 of the rules to 
require discard of none, some or all interstitial alerts.
    180. Finally, the Commission requests comments on the costs, 
burdens and benefits of the above proposed changes; whether the changes 
would reduce the incidence of inadvertent or false alerts; and whether 
the Commission could more narrowly tailor the changes or otherwise 
pursue an alternative that would maximize the potential benefits to 
society or otherwise would accomplish the proceeding's objectives in a 
less costly, less burdensome, and/or more effective manner. In the 
Sixth Report and Order, the Commission estimated the total cost to EAS 
Participants to modify software and firmware to accommodate the ``six 
zeroes'' nationwide location code at $2.2 million. Would the changes to 
include a year parameter and to check validity based on time and the 
station ID header code entail similar costs and would that estimate be 
accurate for this purpose?
3. Confidentiality and Information Sharing
    181. In this section, the Commission seeks comment on the degree of 
confidentiality that should be provided for security certifications and 
reporting-related information submitted to the Commission via ETRS. 
Under Sections 0.457(d)(1)(vi) and 4.2 of the Commission's rules, the 
Commission currently treats reports that are filed in its Network 
Outage Reporting System (NORS) as presumptively confidential, thus 
allowing such reports to be withheld from routine public inspection. 
This presumption recognizes both the ``likelihood of substantial 
competitive harm from disclosure of information'' and the Commission's 
concern that ``the national defense and public safety goals that we 
seek to achieve by . . . these . . . reports would be seriously 
undermined if we were to permit these reports to fall into the hands of 
terrorists who seek to cripple the nation's communications 
infrastructure.'' The Commission currently shares NORS reports with the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which may ``provide information 
from those reports to such other [federal] governmental authorities as 
it may deem to be appropriate.''

[[Page 15821]]

    182. Treatment of Certification-Related Information. The Commission 
seeks comment on whether it should treat certification-related 
information with the same confidentiality as the Commission treats NORS 
information. The Commission recognizes that the EAS presents a somewhat 
different set of circumstances than NORS. EAS is not a revenue-
generating apparatus designed by EAS Participants as part of the 
delivery of services to customers for remuneration. Rather, EAS is a 
system that exists solely for the generation of critical public safety 
messages. Further, EAS Participants do not risk competitive 
disadvantage due to disclosure of the kind of information the 
Commission now seeks. Against this backdrop, the Commission must weigh 
the public's presumed benefit in being able to assess, in real time, 
the security of its EAS, and the Commission tends to generally favor 
disclosure over confidentiality. In the alternative, should the 
Commission treat certification-related information as presumptively 
confidential, as it does in DIRS?
    183. The Commission tentatively concludes that the act of filing an 
annual certification should not be treated as presumptively 
confidential; however, the Commission recognizes that the data reported 
on the certification should be treated as presumptively confidential. 
The Commission recognizes the potential utility in treating as 
presumptively confidential information submitted in addition to annual 
certifications that describe alternative measures employed by the EAS 
Participant to mitigate the risks of nonconformance with certification 
elements. Accordingly, the Commission proposes the act of filing, and 
the contents of that addenda to EAS Participants annual certifications 
describing alternative approaches to performance of required security 
measures should be treated as presumptively confidential. The 
Commission believes this approach and rationale are consistent with 
other similar certification reporting requirements. The Commission 
seeks comment on these tentative conclusions, and on its analysis.
    184. Treatment of Reporting-Related Information. Following the same 
underlying rationale for treatment of certifications above, the 
Commission tentatively concludes that the mere fact that an EAS 
Participant has filed a false alert report or lockout notification, as 
described in this NPRM, should not be treated as presumptively 
confidential. The Commission seeks comment on this tentative 
conclusion.
    185. The Commission believes that a need exists to presumptively 
treat as confidential the information submitted by an EAS Participant 
pursuant to reporting on the issuance or retransmission of a false EAS 
message via ETRS, or on instances when an EAS Participant's equipment 
causes, contributes to, or participates in an incident that adversely 
affects the public and equipment does not return to normal operation 
after receiving an EAS alert. The Commission recognizes that some of 
the information in both contexts may contain material that, if 
disclosed, could potentially cause substantial competitive harm to the 
EAS Participant or even undermine national defense and public safety. 
Conversely, the same information may provide valuable insight into EAS 
vulnerabilities, information detailing specific corrective action(s) 
taken, the need for specific corrective action(s), or reasons why the 
EAS may have functioned sub-optimally. Given these competing concerns, 
the Commission tentatively concludes that treating such information in 
a presumed confidential manner is justified. The Commission seeks 
comment on this view. The Commission also seeks comment on whether 
there are sound reasons why it should treat submissions related to EAS 
annual certifications, false alert reporting, and lockout notifications 
differently with respect to their respective presumptive confidential 
treatment.
    186. Sharing with Other Entities. In the Commission's effort to 
strengthen the nation's public alert and warning systems as community-
driven public safety tools capable of ensuring that the public can 
receive and respond to alerts issued by alerting authorities in an 
effective, timely manner, it will be essential to integrate and enhance 
timely cooperation and information exchanged among federal, state and 
local officials. The Commission therefore seeks comment on whether, if 
it adopts presumptively confidential reporting and certification 
requirements, as proposed above, the Commission should share the 
information with other federal agencies, as it deems appropriate and 
consistent with the requirements of Section 0.442 of its rules? Should 
the Commission restrict such sharing to only certain named federal 
agencies? The Commission asks for commenters to share their views not 
only on the extent and limits of such sharing, but provide underlying 
rationale to support their views. With which state entities, if any, 
should the Commission share this information? With which non-
governmental entities, if any, should it share this information?
    187. The Commission further seeks comment on whether information 
should be shared under Part 11 with the National Coordinating Center 
for Communications (NCC), a government-industry initiative led by DHS 
representing 24 federal agencies and more than 50 private-sector 
communications and information technology companies. Would access to 
data collected pursuant to Part 11 contribute to the NCC's mission? 
Under what terms, if any, should such access be provided? Should the 
Commission instead leave to the discretion of the EAS Participants what 
Part 11 information they chose to share with the NCC? Would the 
Commission's sharing of Part 11 information with NCC discourage Part 11 
reporting? Is there a subset of data proposed to be collected under 
Part 11 that the Commission should share with the NCC while upholding 
the confidentiality presumption that the Commission proposes be 
established for information submitted pursuant to Part 11? Would the 
sharing of Part 11 data in aggregate or generalized form be useful to 
NCC? Finally, it would appear that such information sharing would not 
have any appreciable cost impact. The Commission seeks comment on this 
view.
    188. Conditions on Sharing. The Commission seeks comment on whether 
before it should allow data sharing with other entities as it did in 
the Sixth Report and Order that a state be required to first certify 
that it will keep the data obtained confidential and that it has in 
place confidentiality protections in place at least equivalent to those 
set forth in the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). If the 
Commission allows the sharing of Part 11 information to another entity, 
what conditions, if any, should be placed on the use of such 
information? Should use of Part 11 information by shared entities be 
restricted to activities relating to protecting public safety, health 
or national security? Should the entities with which the Commission 
authorizes the sharing of information be limited in terms of access to 
the ETRS database on a ``read-only'' basis? Balancing EAS Participant 
interest in confidentiality with the need for timely sharing of 
information when appropriate, it would seem that Part 11 information 
sharing should be permitted by the Commission only if stringent 
measures are in place to protect the data from public disclosure. The 
Commission seeks comment on this analysis and what measures, if any, 
should be in place if

[[Page 15822]]

the Commission shares Part 11 information with any appropriate entity.
    189. Given the national security and critical infrastructure 
concerns with having access to this data, what additional assurances 
can the Commission provide to ensure that any Part 11 information 
shared with appropriate entities will be properly safeguarded? Should 
personnel charged with obtaining Part 11 information be required to 
have security training? Should the identity of these individuals be 
supplied to the Commission? Should states be required to report 
breaches of confidentiality of information obtained as a result of 
compliance with the Commission's Part 11 rules? Should an EAS 
Participant be permitted to audit a state's handling of its information 
submitted in accordance with Part 11?
    190. Potential Alternative, Incremental Approach. One way for the 
Commission to gain experience on the best path forward for the sharing 
of confidential information under the Commission's proposed Part 11 
rules may be to study the issues involved by developing an interim 
information sharing capability. As appropriate, the Commission may 
implement a prototype exchange of Part 11 information sharing with 
interested states and EAS Participants on mutually agreeable terms, as 
a means of building confidence among stakeholders and informing its 
development of proposed rules. As another example, the Commission could 
seek to establish a negotiated, temporary information-sharing program 
with the NCC for a specified period of time (e.g., eighteen months), 
after which time the program would be evaluated by the Commission, NCC, 
its members and other stakeholders for its effectiveness and whether it 
should continue unchanged, continue with modifications, or be 
terminated. The Commission seeks comments on this possible incremental 
approach.
    191. In addition to any EAS information that the Commission 
ultimately may receive through the reporting processes outlined in this 
NPRM, the Commission may also obtain information through other sources 
(public and non-public) revealing vulnerabilities in the EAS. While the 
Commission proposes to treat information contained in certifications as 
presumptively confidential, as discussed above, it does not presently 
have an established regime for other information that it may receive 
that is in addition to information received through the reporting 
processes. As potential threats increase, and as the Commission 
receives more information on related threats to EAS and its potential 
vulnerabilities, should the Commission establish a set of controls 
within the Commission to limit the distribution of and otherwise 
safeguard the information that it receives? For example, should such 
information be treated as presumptively confidential as well? Further, 
should there be specific methodologies for the handling of information 
on EAS vulnerabilities, beyond simply the confidential treatment of 
that information? Should the Commission apply physical and IT security 
controls to protect information regarding EAS vulnerabilities, and 
limit access to such information on EAS vulnerabilities to a validated 
subset of Commission staff? The Commission asks commenters to address 
whether and what controls should be used in the Commission's handling 
of such information, and the duration for which such controls should 
remain in force or effect. The Commission seeks comment on these or 
other potential approaches to the treatment of information that reveals 
potential vulnerabilities in the system, and to the designation and 
handling of such information once received by the Commission. The 
Commission also asks commenters to address whether the designation, 
treatment and handling processes proposed ought to concern both the 
physical EAS architecture as well as IT security controls, or just one 
of those areas and, if the latter, which and why?
    192. The Commission also seeks comment on the extent to which EAS 
stakeholders, including EAS Participants and EAS equipment vendors, 
should take measures to ensure that potential architectural or 
configuration vulnerabilities are safeguarded from inappropriate public 
disclosure. For example, the Commission observes that EAS equipment 
manufacturers may provide encoder/decoder information available to 
users on public Web sites, including default equipment passwords. 
Despite the Commission's proposal to require participants change 
default equipment passwords, does such practice create potential 
vulnerabilities? The Commission asks commenters whether information on 
the EAS architecture, including equipment instructions, can be subject 
to safeguards, and if so by what means? For example, should 
instructions be made available only to validated entities and thus, not 
made publicly available on Web sites? How could the effectiveness in 
increasing security of such a restriction be measured compare to the 
costs of administering such a program and of limiting access to 
operators, maintainers, and researchers? What other measures should 
stakeholders take to keep information regarding EAS architecture and 
configuration secure? To the extent the Commission were to take 
measures to ensure that information on EAS architectural and IT 
configuration vulnerabilities is made more secure, what specific legal 
and regulatory authorities would apply?
4. Reach of Proposed EAS Security Rules
    193. As a logical extension of the Commission's discussion above of 
the costs and operational issues associated with implementing new 
security measures for EAS, the Commission seeks comment on whether its 
proposed security rules should apply to all EAS alerts, and to all EAS 
Participants. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on whether the 
Presidential Alert may warrant additional and/or heightened security 
measures, whose implementation costs may exceed the benefits when 
applied to local alerts that are issued more commonly, and that have a 
less immediate impact on national security. In the discussion below, 
the Commission seeks comment on whether to except EAS Participants 
currently designated as PN stations from some or all of the security 
requirements it proposes. The Commission also seeks comment on 
potentially excusing EAS Participants that qualify as ``small 
businesses'' under the Small Business Association (SBA) standard for 
their respective industries from some or all of the security 
requirements the Commission proposes today.
    194. EAN Only. Would applying the above-proposed security measures 
to the EAN only recognize that the Presidential Alert presents 
heightened security concerns and more complex technical implementation 
issues than other EAS alerts? On the other hand, would application of 
enhanced security rules to the EAN risk dividing the Part 11 rules into 
two separate sets of requirements that may be burdensome or 
incompatible to implement using a unified EAS protocol, or when 
implemented in the same EAS equipment. In light of the fact that EAS 
Participants maintain only one piece of EAS equipment for both the 
Presidential Alert and all other alerts, notwithstanding their distinct 
functionalities and purposes, would an EAN-only approach obviate any 
technical or financial benefit that might result from limiting 
application of security measures to the Presidential Alert? Does the 
fact that alert authentication and validation are

[[Page 15823]]

automated processes similarly undermine the potential for cost savings 
that might result from forbearing from applying the proposed heightened 
security measures on all but the Presidential Alert? If EAS equipment 
is capable of providing heightened security for one kind of alert, 
would there be any reason not to provide that functionality for all 
alerts? Additionally, would improving alert authentication and 
validation for the EAN require changes to the EAS header codes that 
would be best applied consistently to all alerts?
    195. Exception for PN Stations. Are security concerns attendant to 
participation in EAS less pronounced for PN stations than key EAS 
sources in light of the fact that they are not monitored by other EAS 
Participants? Would the severity of an EAS security breach be directly 
related to the designation of the attacked EAS Participant in the EAS 
alert distribution hierarchy? If so, does that militate for a graduated 
application of the security provisions proposed above such that key EAS 
sources are subject to stricter security requirements than PN stations? 
Should the application of the Commission's security rules be even more 
granular, for example, with NP stations being subject to more strict 
security requirements than Relay stations?
    196. Small Entities. Would it be preferable to allow the EAN to be 
delivered only by more sophisticated or secure systems, preserving the 
flexibility for smaller EAS Participants alert originators at the state 
and local levels to participate in state and local alerting without the 
need for certain additional security measures? If the Commission were 
to except small entities from application of some or all of its 
security rules, is the SBA size standard the appropriate metric for 
determining whether a business should be considered ``small,'' or would 
another standard be appropriate and, if so, on what basis(es)?
5. Software-Defined EAS Networking
    197. In this section, the Commission initiates a dialogue about 
whether the level of administrative upkeep and oversight required to 
ensure that all security and performance updates required to maintain 
EAS equipment are uniformly implemented across a heterogeneous EAS 
system, and the level of coordination and planning needed to 
satisfactorily address the complex and varied threat vectors that exist 
for attacking EAS militate in favor of a new approach to EAS design. In 
particular, the Commission seeks comment on the efficacy of two 
potential software-defined networking approaches to a new EAS paradigm: 
(1) Centralized configuration and management of EAS updates and 
security; and (2) virtualization of EAS equipment. The Commission also 
seeks comment on whether and how these approaches could be implemented 
in order to improve EAS security, and increase the consistency of EAS 
operations.
a. Centralized Configuration and Management
    198. Centralization of EAS configuration and management entails 
logically connecting EAS equipment to a remote, central controller or 
database. In the Fifth Report and Order, the Commission declined to 
require that EAS equipment contain an Ethernet port, reasoning that the 
decision of how to fulfill CAP monitoring obligations is best made by 
EAS equipment manufacturers. That said, Trilithic commented that ``we 
expect an Ethernet connection to be the input/output of choice for 
future (and present) EAS Encoder/Decoders.'' Using an Internet 
connection, either through Ethernet or wireless, the central controller 
could have visibility to every piece of equipment in the EAS alert 
distribution network. By performing routine checks, the central 
controller could be able to distribute and install software patches to 
close security vulnerabilities in EAS equipment, as required. It could 
also control the distribution path of EAS alerts nationwide in a manner 
that precluded single points of failure. Centralization could 
supplement, rather than replace, traditional alert distribution 
mechanisms. A high-level depiction of a centralized EAS controller 
concept is depicted in Figure 1.

[[Page 15824]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP24MR16.000

    199. The Commission seeks comment on whether a centralized 
configuration and management structure for EAS would result in 
significant security and operational benefits. The security of the EAS 
platform has been compromised on several occasions. While the 
Commission has proposed to adopt measures to further authenticate and 
validate EAS messages above, given the scope of human intervention 
required to completely inoculate the EAS against unauthorized alerts 
and other security threats, is it possible that continued piecemeal 
modification of the Part 11 rules, even with greater diligence on the 
part of EAS Participants in adhering to security best practices, might 
not be sufficient to fully secure the EAS? The Commission seeks comment 
on whether a broader approach to EAS architecture design may be 
necessary. Particularly, as threats evolve, what steps should the 
Commission take now as a proactive response to such threats? 
Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on whether centralization 
has potential to augment EAS capabilities, whether it has the potential 
to improve EAS security and reliability, and on the engineering 
challenges and operational issues, including cost, that implementation 
would entail.
    200. Augmented Capabilities. Would centralization of EAS 
configuration and management have the potential to transform EAS into a 
more capable system? If so, to what extent and in what ways? If the 
distribution pathway of alerts were configured by a central controller 
connected to EAS equipment via an Internet connection, could a 
centralized configuration and management model for EAS be used to 
ensure that no single point of failure exists in the EAS alert 
distribution hierarchy? Could a tiered control model be developed such 
that SECCs could continue to determine the distribution paths and 
monitoring assignments for alerts and EAS Participants, respectively, 
in their states, pursuant to a ``no single point of failure'' principle 
that could be maintained by a central controller? Relatedly, could the 
ability to configure EAS alert distribution pathways improve geo-
targeting, especially if it is implemented for all EAS Participants, 
not just key EAS sources? Indeed, could such a model enable EAS alerts 
to be targeted to not only geographic areas, but to specific EAS 
Participants? In the cable environment, could the centralization 
concept be expanded to include a connection to STBs that would enable 
alerts to be targeted to specific individuals? Further, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether a centralized configuration and management 
model could be made capable of ensuring that all EAS equipment across 
the nation is running the most up-to-date software available by 
performing periodic version checks of EAS software via the Internet. 
The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which this approach could 
bring uniformity and consistency to EAS equipment operation, and ensure 
that all EAS equipment is able to take advantage of the improvements 
that equipment manufacturers make available through software updates, 
obviating the risk of human error. The Commission also seeks comment on 
how the underlying heterogeneity of the EAS environment might 
complicate centralized control and uniform operation.
    201. Improved Security, Reliability and Resiliency. Would central 
configuration and management increase EAS security and reliability by 
relying

[[Page 15825]]

on a secure Internet connection for communication between EAS devices? 
The Commission seeks comment on whether a central controller could 
provide a more efficient and effective solution than is currently 
available to prevent and redress malicious attack on, or mistaken use 
of EAS by pushing a software patch to EAS equipment that could address 
the issue. How could the central controller detect misuse in the 
nationwide EAS network? How quickly could software patches be developed 
and deployed? Further, the Commission seeks comment on whether the 
central controller could provide an additional layer of alert 
authentication and validation for alerts transmitted via traditional 
EAS alert distribution systems? Would EAS equipment be capable of 
performing the alert validation and authentication procedures proposed 
above while concurrently using the Internet to request that the central 
controller confirm the validation and authenticity of each message? The 
Commission seeks comment on the alert authentication and validation 
processes that should be tasked to the central controller. Further, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether intermittent traffic between EAS 
receivers and the controller, such a data traffic to transmit a 
software update, could be encrypted. Would such communications be as 
vulnerable as, if not more vulnerable than actual EAS alerts? What 
encryptions techniques would be best suited for this purpose? Finally, 
the Commission seeks comment on whether centralized configuration and 
management would improve EAS' resiliency. Could a centrally configured 
and managed EAS system continue to function properly after a 
catastrophic event that, for example, limited access to the Internet, 
or resulted in an electromagnetic pulse? In case of such an event, 
could all EAS equipment continue to operate pursuant to the most recent 
software update issued prior to the outage until a subsequent update is 
received? How would this level of resiliency compare with the current 
PEP-reliant model?
    202. Engineering Challenges. Notwithstanding the tremendous 
potential benefits, could implementing centralized configuration and 
management of EAS present complex engineering challenges for EAS 
stakeholders? The Commission seeks comment on the engineering 
challenges implicit in developing a central controller, new EAS 
equipment, and protocols for communication between them. Specifically, 
the Commission seeks comment on the hardware, operating system, and 
software required to maintain a central controller. Would it be 
necessary to maintain multiple back-up copies of the controller on a 
fortified or cloud-based server to be used in the event of failure or 
attack? The Commission also seeks comment on whether and how EAS 
equipment would have to be redesigned. Would every EAS encoder/decoder 
require an Ethernet connection in order to successfully implement 
centralized configuration and management? Could EAS equipment connect 
to the Internet wirelessly? The Commission seeks comment on the optimal 
method of allocating responsibility for administrative tasks among 
nodes in a tiered control model, including if SECCs were to be given 
control over alert distribution pathways in their respective states. 
Could a centralized configuration and management EAS network design be 
implemented during an interim phase during which only some EAS 
equipment would be connected to the central controller? Does an 
Ethernet port provide the optimal method of connecting EAS equipment to 
the Internet? If not, what would be the ideal method?
    203. The Commission seeks comment on whether centralized 
configuration and management would also include the development of at 
least three new, secure protocols. First, the Commission seeks comment 
on whether a secure protocol would be necessary to govern all 
communications between the central controller and EAS equipment. The 
Commission also seeks comment on whether a second secure protocol would 
be required to describe the master-slave relationship between the 
central controller and EAS receivers. Third, the Commission also seeks 
comment on whether a secure protocol would be required to automatically 
hand over control from one controller to another in the event of such 
an equipment failure or attack. Are there are additional protocols, 
equipment upgrades or engineering challenges of which the Commission 
should be aware?
    204. Operational Issues. What operational issues might be raised by 
centralizing control of EAS? The Commission seeks comment on what, if 
any entities are well positioned to take responsibility for managing 
the EAS controller. Would it be preferable to have only one entity 
assume this role in order to ensure accountability? Would this entity 
also have to assume liability for interoperability, system misuse and 
error? Could this entity be required to finance system conversion and 
subsequent upgrades? Further, the Commission seeks comment on whether 
such a model would likely require EAS manufacturers to open their 
devices to receiving ``push'' updates. What, if any impact would 
``push'' updates have on MVPD EAS Participants that currently do their 
own failure testing and regression analysis of all software updates 
prior to installation in order to ensure that the new software will not 
jeopardize the proper functionality of their system? Would EAS 
Participants, including such MVPDs, welcome a system of EAS governance 
where they could externalize the costs of failure and regression 
testing of EAS software to an entity charged with managing the central 
controller? Further, would a centralized model require vendors to 
disclose their customer lists to a third party? Do EAS equipment 
vendors maintain customer lists that could be shared, on a confidential 
basis, with the appropriate entity or entities?
    205. Costs. What costs would EAS stakeholders expect to result from 
centralizing configuration and management of EAS? Would centralized 
configuration and management obsolete all legacy equipment, 
necessitating replacement? Would the augmented capabilities and 
improved security, reliability and resiliency potentially offered by 
centralization outweigh the costs? The Commission seeks comment on any 
steps that it could take to help minimize these costs, particularly for 
small businesses.
b. Network Function Virtualization
    206. The Commission seeks comment on the benefits of virtualization 
of aspects of EAS equipment or alert distribution in the context of a 
wider transition among EAS Participants to IP-based platforms, and 
cloud-based network architectures and strategies in particular. 
Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the benefits of 
virtualizing EAS equipment, operational issues and costs implicated by 
implementation, and on whether virtualization should be considered in 
the alternative, or as a complement to centralization.
    207. Benefits. Would the virtualization of EAS equipment in the 
context of a larger industry-wide transition to cloud-based computing 
bring homogeneity, consistency and reliability to the EAS computing 
environment by allowing software to operate independently of the 
underlying hardware and operating systems produced by various equipment 
manufacturers? Specifically, could virtualizing EAS equipment result in 
a completely homogenous operating environment in which every EAS node 
(formerly EAS equipment) would be

[[Page 15826]]

programmed to authenticate, validate, and process EAS alerts in an 
identical matter, with the caveat that users could continue to specify 
which event codes should be carried by their EAS nodes based on the 
event's relevance to the geographic area in which the node is located, 
and the responsibilities of the alert originator? Would such a 
homogenous environment lead to alerts being processed in a more 
consistent manner? Is it likely that such a system would more reliably 
ensure that alerts are delivered to all intended recipients in a secure 
manner?
    208. Operational Issues and Costs. Would the virtualization of EAS 
equipment implicate costs and operational issues for EAS equipment 
manufacturers, EAS Participants and alert originators not already 
subsumed within the costs of ongoing efforts to transition business 
operations to the cloud? Would a virtualized EAS architecture entirely 
obviate physical EAS equipment used for decades as the cornerstone of 
EAS alert transmission? The Commission seeks comments on the costs that 
might be imposed by such a transition, both in terms of short term 
equipment replacement, and long term savings on software updates, 
testing, and future hardware replacement. Would EAS software updates 
become less complex, and therefore less costly to develop? Similarly, 
would a homogenous operating environment for EAS reduce EAS costs for 
EAS Participants associated with failure testing and implementing 
equipment updates? Could virtualization reduce equipment costs in the 
long run by obviating the need for future hardware replacement? Would 
virtualization reduce the need for complexity in alert origination 
software? Would this increased simplicity lead to EAS alerts being more 
consistently delivered in an accurate manner?
    209. Would virtualization add value to an EAS implementation that 
included a central controller? The Commission seeks comment on whether 
the system checking function of the central controller is sufficient to 
achieve consistency in function without the homogeneity of form that 
could be created by virtualization. Are there any additional benefits 
to a virtualized system not captured by centralized configuration and 
management? Would a virtualized approach to EAS implementation be 
consistent with the Commission's operating principle of technological 
neutrality?
6. Preserving EAS Defense Through Planned Diversity
a. Ensuring a Modern and Effective EAS Structure
    210. The NPRM in its background section discusses the two 
complementary mechanisms by which EAS messages are transmitted: (1) 
Through the traditional, broadcast-based EAS Protocol; and (2) through 
the newer, Internet-based, CAP-formatted, IPAWS system. The Commission 
seeks comment on how stakeholders believe those two systems should 
relate to each other going forward. For example, does it make sense to 
keep the two different systems solely for resiliency considerations? 
Can the Commission, FEMA and other Federal partners and EAS 
Participants sufficiently secure the broadcast-based EAS to achieve 
appropriate levels of resiliency and to ensure that this EAS path does 
not expose EAS more generally to undue security risks? Are the failure 
modes of the two paths sufficiently different to suggest an enduring 
unique value from both elements? Does a sufficient number of EAS 
Participants, particularly in rural and other underserved areas have 
the Internet access or other technologies necessary to participate in 
the CAP-formatted system? Ultimately, does it make sense to migrate to 
one system? If so, over what time period? What should that new system 
look like? Would purely Internet-based systems be overly reliant on the 
need for strong cybersecurity?
    211. Are stakeholders confused or is there any inefficiencies the 
Commission should be aware of because there are two systems? Also, 
given the ways in which communications have changed since the EAS and 
its predecessor system was introduced, e.g., the introduction of social 
media alerts, WEA mobile alerts, and other technical innovations, does 
the Commission have an alerting system that is appropriate and tailored 
to today's communications landscape, both in terms of the technology in 
use and anticipated and in terms of the usage and communication 
patterns of today's public? If not, does the Commission need a 
wholesale re-thinking of the alerting system or is the current system 
sufficiently flexible that the Commission can evolve it over time so 
that it remains appropriate in light of today's technology, usage 
patterns and emerging security threats?
b. Securing the EAS Broadband Architecture
    212. The current adoption of IPAWS-OPEN as a delivery method of 
alerts to all EAS participants in accordance with the Commission's 
requirements in the Fifth Report and Order, as well as its use in WEA, 
have increased the dependence of the EAS and related systems on 
broadband (i.e., IP) networks. This migration will entail a shift from 
the legacy environment for EAS which was marked by physical route 
diversity. The nature of IP systems, however, will not reproduce this 
security element; indeed, several of the proposals above depend on 
movement toward centralized management and virtualization, which 
involve significant dependence on IP that, in turn, will require highly 
reliable, redundant, and secure Internet connectivity to mimic the 
security that physical diversity in the legacy EAS network currently 
provides. The Commission seeks comment on the nature and extent to 
which new alerting technologies will create such dependencies. What 
methods of securing the EAS would best maintain at least an equivalent 
level of redundancy and security as the legacy daisy chain presently 
provides? What additional considerations does this shift require the 
Commission to take into account when testing the EAS system? Do 
existing and planned test strategies adequately cover all redundant 
paths used to disseminate the alert? As the Commission continues the 
focus on the IPAWS-OPEN path, does it risk less frequent use of the 
legacy broadcast paths? If so, what are the implications for seamless 
operation of legacy paths and the resiliency of the entire system, and 
how can the Commission mitigate any deficiencies that may arise from 
any reduced dependability?
    213. Given the importance of physical security in maintaining the 
integrity of the EAS system, what additional measures may be necessary 
to ensure access to EAS devices and the IP network that feeds them are 
protected from malicious damage or compromise? Are the existing 
practices and continuity of operation plans sufficient to ensure 
reliable delivery of EAS alerts to the public? What additional levels 
of redundant paths, equipment, power, and other services should be 
required to ensure operation? For example, in addition to the security 
measures proposed earlier in Section III(D)(2), what other methods 
could the Commission use to prevent IP-based attacks from compromising 
the EAS system? Should the Commission maintain a secondary broadcast 
EAS system based on legacy EAS in addition to and separate from the 
IPAWS-OPEN-based system?

[[Page 15827]]

E. Compliance Timeframes

    214. The Commission seeks comment on the timeframes in which the 
proposals in this NPRM, if adopted, could reasonably be implemented by 
EAS Participants. As discussed in greater detail below, the Commission 
proposes that EAS Participants must comply with its proposed rules that 
include new information collection requirements (i.e., the State EAS 
Plan rules, initial annual security certification, and security 
incident reporting requirements) within six months from the release of 
a Public Notice announcing Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
approval of related information collection requirements, or within 60 
days of a Public Notice announcing the availability of the Commission's 
relevant database to receive such information, whichever is later; with 
subsequent annual certifications due by June 30th of each calendar 
year. The Commission proposes that EAS Participants must comply with 
proposed alert authentication and validation measures within one year 
of the rules' publication in the Federal Register. The Commission notes 
that no action is required to comply with its live code test and PSA 
rules, and encourages EAS Participants to begin engaging in testing and 
outreach efforts pursuant to those rule amendments as soon as those 
rules become effective, thirty days from the date those rules are 
published in the Federal Register. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether this framework appropriately balances the burdens of compliance 
with the need for rapid improvement of EAS organization, testing, 
outreach, and security. For ease of reference and comment, Figure 2, 
below, sets forth proposed timeframes for those instances where the 
Commission proposes specific implementation deadlines.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Proposed rule amendments          Proposed compliance timeframes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAS Designations.............  Rules would be effective within 30 days
                                of publication in the Federal Register.
State EAS Plan Contents......  Within six months of release of a Public
                                Notice announcing OMB approval of
                                related information collection
                                requirements, or within 60 days of
                                release of a Public Notice announcing
                                the availability of SEPFI to receive
                                State EAS Plans, whichever is later.
Live Code Tests..............  No action required; rules would be
                                effective within 30 days of publication
                                in the  Federal Register.
EAS PSAs.....................  No action required; rules would be
                                effective within 30 days of publication
                                in the  Federal Register.
Annual Certification.........  For the first certification: Within six
                                months of the release of a Public Notice
                                announcing OMB approval of related
                                information collection requirements, or
                                within 60 days of release of a Public
                                Notice announcing the availability of
                                ETRS to receive such reports, whichever
                                is later.
                               For subsequent annual certifications: by
                                June 30th of each calendar year.
Reporting False Alerts and     Within six months of the release of a
 Lockouts.                      Public Notice announcing OMB approval of
                                related information collection
                                requirements, or within 60 days of
                                release of a Public Notice announcing
                                the availability of ETRS to receive such
                                reports, whichever is later.
Authentication and Validation  Within 1 year of the rules' publication
 Measures.                      in the  Federal Register.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 2: Proposed Implementation Timeframes
    215. State EAS Plan Rules. The Commission proposes that the new EAS 
Designations would take effect 30 days from the publication of final 
rules in the Federal Register, and to require compliance with the 
Commission's State EAS Plan rules within six months of the release of a 
Public Notice announcing OMB approval of related information collection 
requirements, or within 60 days of release of a Public Notice 
announcing the availability of SEPFI to receive State EAS Plans, 
whichever is later. States should already have State EAS Plans in 
place, and the Commission's proposed rules would not require that 
states adopt any particular alerting strategy or necessitate any 
changes in alerting implementation. The Commission does not anticipate, 
however, that producing State EAS Plans that include the new elements 
the Commission proposes would require additional discussion, strategic 
planning, and outreach. This discussion may entail a rigorous 
assessment of state preparedness along the axes discussed above. For 
example, SECCs may need to perform outreach in order to ascertain the 
extent to which EAS Participants in their state are using alternative 
alerting mechanisms such as the satellite-based monitoring sources, 
highway signs or social media, and the extent to which they are 
prepared to leverage available technologies to implement ``one-to-many, 
many-to-one'' alerting. SECCs may also need to engage with key EAS 
sources in their state in order to aptly apply the Commission's 
proposed EAS Designations. The Commission seeks comment on whether 
requiring compliance with its proposed State EAS Plan rules within this 
proposed timeframe would provide SECCs with sufficient time to complete 
any required strategic planning, discussion and outreach necessitated 
by these proposed rules. Commenters are encouraged to specify an 
alternative timeline if compliance within six months is considered 
infeasible, or if compliance can be achieved earlier.
    216. Alert Authentication and Validation Rules. The Commission 
proposes that EAS Participants should be required to comply with its 
alert authentication and validation rules within one year of the date 
of their publication in the Federal Register. In the Sixth Report and 
Order, the Commission provided EAS Participants one year to develop, 
test, and deploy any necessary software updates to support the national 
location code and National Periodic Test (NPT) code, and to replace any 
EAS equipment that no was no longer supported by the manufacturer. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether the changes that may be 
necessitated by its proposed alert validation and authentication 
requirements may be accomplished through a software update, and reason 
similarly that EAS Participants may be expected to develop, deploy and 
test any required software updates within a year's timeframe. 
Alternatively, could compliance with some or all of the proposed rules 
be satisfied within a shorter timeframe? Given the importance to the 
nation's safety of securing the EAS, the Commission seeks comment on 
the shortest practicable amount of time in which these measures could 
be implemented. To the extent an alternative timeframe would be more 
appropriate, the Commission asks commenters to provide a detailed 
explanation.
    217. Security Incident Reporting and Annual Security Certification. 
The Commission proposes to require initial

[[Page 15828]]

compliance with its security incident reporting and annual security 
certification requirements within six months of the release of a Public 
Notice announcing OMB approval of related information collection 
requirements, or within 60 days of release of a Public Notice 
announcing that ETRS is capable of receiving such reports, whichever is 
later. With respect to subsequent annual certifications, the Commission 
proposes that this timeframe apply to the first certification, with 
subsequent certifications due by June 30 of each calendar year. The 
Commission expects that EAS Participants are already complying with 
most, if not all, of the best practices described above, and to the 
extent additional time is necessary to ensure that best practices are 
fully implemented, the Commission believes that 60 days provides a 
reasonable timeframe to accomplish that goal while also ensuring that 
security measures are taken as swiftly as possible. The Commission 
seeks comment on this proposed timeframe, and on its rationale.
    218. Live Code Tests and EAS PSAs. The Commission proposes that its 
live code testing and PSA rules would become effective thirty days from 
the date of their publication in the Federal Register. The Commission 
observes that no action is required in order for EAS Participants to 
comply with these proposed rules. Further, in the meantime, EAS 
Participants may continue to conduct live code tests as regularly 
scheduled pursuant to the guidance the Bureau provided in the Live Code 
Testing Public Notice. This proposed rule, if adopted, would alleviate 
the burden on EAS Participants to seek waiver of the Commission's rules 
in order to engage in this common practice. With respect to EAS PSAs, 
the Commission proposes to expand the set of entities that are 
permitted to conduct EAS PSAs, and to allow them to include the EAS 
header codes and Attention Signal. This proposed rule, if adopted, 
would allow EAS PSAs to become more flexible tools for community public 
safety outreach. The Commission believes it would serve the public 
interest for the proposed live code testing and PSA rules to become 
effective as soon as possible, and seeks comment on its rationale.

F. Legal Authority

    219. Under the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), the 
Commission was established, among other things, to ``make available 
rapid, efficient . . . wire and radio communication service with 
adequate facilities . . . for the purpose of the national defense'' and 
``for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property.'' The 
Commission's regulation of emergency broadcasting, both of the EBS and 
EAS, has been grounded, in significant part, in Sections 1, 4(i) and 
(o), 303(r), and 706 of the Act. Additionally, the Commission has 
authority to impose EAS obligations on cable systems under Section 
624(g) of the Act, regulate participation by Commercial Mobile Service 
in the emergency alerting process under the WARN Act, and to ensure 
that emergency information is accessible under the Twenty-First Century 
Communications and Video Accessibility Act.
    220. In order to enable the President to reliably execute this 
authority in the public interest, the Commission has long considered it 
necessary to ensure that the Commission's national alerting 
architecture is ready to transmit an alert authorized by the President 
(i.e., a Presidential Alert) in an appropriate situation. Further, the 
President has defined roles and responsibilities for federal agencies 
to create a ``comprehensive system to alert and warn the American 
people'' in several executive documents, specifically directing the 
Commission 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.'' The Commission seeks comment on 
whether this legal authority extends to mobile apps when offered by a 
covered entity.
    221. In addition to the authorities discussed above, the Commission 
believes it has authority to adopt alert authentication and validation 
rules, require security certifications, and collect false alert and 
lockout reports from EAS Participants. First, the Commission has 
express authority under Title III to make changes to alert 
authentication and validation and to require EAS security 
certifications from Title III licensees. Title III directs the 
Commission to ``maintain the control of the United States over all 
channels of radio transmission'' and charges the Commission with 
protecting the viability of local broadcasting. Section 303 of the Act 
states that the Commission shall ``[p]rescribe the nature of the 
service to be rendered by each class of licensed stations'' where 
public convenience, interest, or necessity requires and encourage the 
effective use of radio in the public interest. Further, the Act 
prohibits the transmission or rebroadcast of ``false distress 
signals,'' a prohibition that includes false or fraudulent EAS alerts. 
Finally, the Commission believes that its authority to assure that the 
EAS is delivered in a secure fashion extends to requiring EAS 
Participants to provide reports that would allow the Commission to 
investigate, study, and be aware of any potential issues that may 
preclude the secure and reliable transmission of the EAN. Fraudulent 
EAS alerts create widespread public confusion and even panic. The 
Commission seeks comment on its authority under all the foregoing 
provisions discussed in this section to adopt the proposals in this 
NPRM, all of which are primarily intended to prepare the nation's 
alerting infrastructure for successful transmission of a Presidential 
Alert. The Commission also seeks comment on whether there are other 
sources of legal authority for the Commission to enact these rules. To 
the extent commenters believe that additional sources of authority 
would be necessary or relevant to allowing the Commission to address 
commenters' concerns, the Commission encourages commenters to offer 
additional sources of authority on which it may rely for this purpose.

III. Procedural Matters

A. Ex Parte Rules

    222. The proceeding initiated by this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
shall be treated as ``permit-but-disclose'' proceedings 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

[[Page 15829]]

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

    223. 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 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://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
    [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.
    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 
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 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.
    224. 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. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    225. 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. Paperwork Reduction Analysis

    226. This document contains proposed new or 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 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.

IV. Ordering Clauses

    227. Accordingly, it is ordered that pursuant to 47 U.S.C 151, 152, 
154(i), 154(o), 301, 303(b), (g) and (r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 
544(g), 606, 613, 615 and 1302; The Warning, Alert and Response Network 
(WARN) Act, WARN Act Sec. Sec.  602(a), (b), (c), (d), (f), 603, 604, 
and 606; Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility 
Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-260 and Pub. L. 111-265, this Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted.
    228. 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 Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 11

    Radio, Television, Emergency alerting.

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

PART 11--EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM (EAS)

0
1. 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
2. Revise Sec.  11.2 to read as follows:


Sec.  11.2  Definitions.

    The definitions of terms used in part 11 are:
    (a) Emergency Action Notification (EAN). The Emergency Action 
Notification is the notice to all EAS Participants and to the general 
public that the EAS has been activated for a national emergency. EAN 
messages that are formatted in the EAS Protocol (specified in Sec.  
11.31) are sent from a government origination point to broadcast 
stations and other entities participating in the PEP system, and are 
subsequently disseminated via EAS Participants. Dissemination 
arrangements for EAN messages that are formatted in the EAS Protocol 
(specified in Sec.  11.31) at the State and local levels are specified 
in the State and Local Area plans (defined at Sec.  11.21). A national 
activation of the EAS for a Presidential message with the Event code 
EAN as specified in Sec.  11.31 must take priority over any other 
message and preempt it if it is in progress.
    (b) EAS Participants. Entities required under the Commission's 
rules to comply with EAS rules, e.g., analog radio and television 
stations, and wired and wireless cable television systems, DBS, DTV, 
SDARS, digital cable and DAB, and wireline video systems.
    (c) Wireline Video System. The system of a wireline common carrier 
used to provide video programming service.
    (d) Intermediary Device. An intermediary device is a stand-alone 
device that carries out the functions of monitoring for, receiving and/
or acquiring, and decoding EAS messages

[[Page 15830]]

formatted in the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) in accordance with 
Sec.  11.56, and converting such messages into a format that can be 
inputted into a separate EAS decoder, EAS encoder, or unit combining 
such decoder and encoder functions, so that the EAS message outputted 
by such separate EAS decoder, EAS encoder, or unit combining such 
decoder and encoder functions, and all other functions attendant to 
processing such EAS message, comply with the requirements in this part.
0
3. Revise Sec.  11.18 to read as follows:


Sec.  11.18  EAS Designations.

    (a) The Primary Entry Point System is a nationwide network of 
broadcast stations and other entities connected with government 
activation points. It is used to distribute EAS messages that are 
formatted in the EAS Protocol (specified in Sec.  11.31), including the 
EAN and EAS national test messages. FEMA has designated some of the 
nation's largest radio broadcast stations as PEPs. The PEPs are 
designated to receive the Presidential alert from FEMA and distribute 
it to local stations.
    (b) A National Primary (NP) is the entity tasked with the primary 
responsibility of delivering the Presidential alert to a state's EAS 
Participants. Thus, for a state that has a FEMA-designated PEP, that 
station would be designated as that state's National Primary. For a 
state that does not have a PEP, another station would act as National 
Primary.
    (c) A State Primary (SP) is an entity tasked with initiating the 
delivery of a state EAS alert. A State Primary may be a broadcaster, a 
state emergency management office, or other entity authorized to and 
capable of initiating a state-based EAS alert. A State Primary and a 
National Primary may be the same broadcaster, but would need to be 
separately designated as such in any State EAS Plan.
    (d) A Relay Station (RS) retransmits EAS messages, including the 
Presidential Alert and state and local alerts, to Local Primary (LP) 
sources for distribution to Participation National sources, and the 
public, as necessary.
    (e) A Local Primary (LP) serves as a monitoring assignment for a 
Participating National (PN) entity. An LP source is responsible for 
coordinating the carriage of common emergency messages from sources 
such as the National Weather Service or local emergency management 
offices as specified in its State EAS Plan. If it is unable to carry 
out this function, other LP sources in the Local Area may be assigned 
the responsibility as indicated in State EAS Plans. LP sources are 
assigned numbers (LP-1, 2, 3, etc.) in the sequence they are to be 
monitored by other broadcast stations in the Local Area.
    (f) Participating National (PN) entities transmit EAS National, 
State or Local Area messages. The EAS transmissions of PN sources are 
intended for direct public reception.
0
4. Revise Sec.  11.21 to read as follows:


Sec.  11.21  State and Local Area plans and FCC Mapbook.

    (a) EAS plans contain guidelines which must be followed by EAS 
Participants' personnel, emergency officials, and National Weather 
Service (NWS) personnel to activate the EAS. The plans include the 
following elements:
    (1) A list of the EAS header codes and messages that will be 
transmitted by key EAS sources (National Primary (NP), State Primary 
(SP), Local Primary (LP), and State Relay (SR) stations);
    (2) Procedures for state emergency management officials, the 
National Weather Service, and EAS Participant personnel to transmit 
emergency information to the public during an emergency using regulated 
alerting tools (e.g., EAS and WEA) as well as any non-regulated 
alerting mechanisms (e.g., highway signs, social media), including the 
extent to which the state's dissemination strategy for state and local 
emergency alerts differs from their Presidential Alerting strategy;
    (3) A list of all entities authorized to activate EAS for state and 
local emergency messages (e.g., Police and Public Safety Answering 
Points (PSAPs)), whose transmissions might be interrupted by a 
Presidential Alert;
    (4) Monitoring assignments to receive the Presidential Alert, and 
the primary and back-up paths for the dissemination of the Presidential 
Alert to all key EAS sources organized by operational areas within the 
state;
    (5) State procedures for special EAS tests, Required Monthly Tests 
(RMTs), Required Weekly Tests (RWTs) and national tests designed to 
ensure that the system will function as designed when needed for a 
Presidential Alert, including a description of the extent to which 
State and Local WEA Tests are utilized by alert originators as a 
complement to the Presidential Alert distribution system to verify that 
WEA is capable of informing the public that a Presidential Alert is 
presently being delivered over EAS;
    (6) The extent to which alert originators coordinate ``one-to-
many'' alerts with ``many-to-one'' community feedback mechanisms, such 
as 9-1-1, to make full use of public safety resources;
    (7) Specific and detailed information describing the procedures for 
ensuring EAS Participants can authenticate the current assigned state, 
local and tribal originators, if the state initiates EAS messages 
formatted in the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) signed with a digital 
signature as specified in the Organization for the Advancement of 
Structured Information Standards (OASIS) Common Alerting Protocol 
Version 1.2 (July 1, 2010), its EAS State Plan; and
    (8) The SECC governance structure utilized by the state in order to 
organize state and local resources to ensure the efficient and 
effective delivery of a Presidential Alert, including the duties of 
SECCs, the membership selection process utilized by the SECC, and the 
proposed administration of the SECCs.
    (b) The Local Area plan contains procedures for local officials or 
the NWS to transmit emergency information to the public during a local 
emergency using the EAS. Local plans may be a part of the State plan. A 
Local Area is a geographical area of contiguous communities or counties 
that may include more than one state.
    (c) The FCC Mapbook is based on the consolidation of the data table 
required in each State EAS plan with the identifying data contained in 
the ETRS. The Mapbook organizes all EAS Participants according to their 
State, EAS Local Area, and EAS designation. EAS Participant monitoring 
assignments and EAS operations must be implemented in a manner 
consistent with guidelines established in a State EAS Plan submitted to 
the Commission in order for the Mapbook to accurately reflect actual 
alert distribution.
0
5. Revise paragraph (c) of Sec.  11.31 to read as follows:


Sec.  11.31  EAS protocol.

* * * * *
    (c) The EAS protocol, including any codes, must not be amended, 
extended or abridged without FCC authorization. The EAS protocol and 
message format are specified in the following representation.
    Examples are provided in FCC Public Notices.
    [PREAMBLE]ZCZC-ORG-EEE-PSSCCC+TTTT-YYYYJJJHHMM-LLLLLLLL-(one second 
pause)
    [PREAMBLE]ZCZC-ORG-EEE-PSSCCC+TTTT-YYYYJJJHHMM-LLLLLLLL-(one second 
pause)
    [PREAMBLE]ZCZC-ORG-EEE-PSSCCC+TTTT-YYYYJJJHHMM-LLLLLLLL-(at least a 
one second pause)

[[Page 15831]]

    (transmission of 8 to 25 seconds of Attention Signal)
    (transmission of audio, video or text messages)
    (at least a one second pause)
    [PREAMBLE]NNNN (one second pause)
    [PREAMBLE]NNNN (one second pause)
    [PREAMBLE]NNNN (at least one second pause)
    [PREAMBLE] This is a consecutive string of bits (sixteen bytes of 
AB hexadecimal [8 bit byte 10101011]) sent to clear the system, set AGC 
and set asynchronous decoder clocking cycles. The preamble must be 
transmitted before each header and End of Message code.
    ZCZC--This is the identifier, sent as ASCII characters ZCZC to 
indicate the start of ASCII code.
    ORG--This is the Originator code and indicates who originally 
initiated the activation of the EAS. These codes are specified in 
paragraph (d) of this section.
    EEE--This is the Event code and indicates the nature of the EAS 
activation. The codes are specified in paragraph (e) of this section. 
The Event codes must be compatible with the codes used by the NWS 
Weather Radio Specific Area Message Encoder (WRSAME).
    PSSCCC--This is the Location code and indicates the geographic area 
affected by the EAS alert. There may be 31 Location codes in an EAS 
alert. The Location code uses the codes described in the American 
National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard, ANSI INCITS 31-2009 
(``Information technology--Codes for the Identification of Counties and 
Equivalent Areas of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Insular 
Areas''). Each state is assigned an SS number as specified in paragraph 
(f) of this section. Each county and some cities are assigned a CCC 
number. A CCC number of 000 refers to an entire State or Territory. P 
defines county subdivisions as follows: 0 = all or an unspecified 
portion of a county, 1 = Northwest, 2 = North, 3 = Northeast, 4 = West, 
5 = Central, 6 = East, 7 = Southwest, 8 = South, 9 = Southeast. Other 
numbers may be designated later for special applications. The use of 
county subdivisions will probably be rare and generally for oddly 
shaped or unusually large counties. Any subdivisions must be defined 
and agreed to by the local officials prior to use.
    + TTTT--This indicates the valid time period of a message in 15 
minute segments up to one hour and then in 30 minute segments beyond 
one hour; i.e., + 0015, + 0030, + 0045, + 0100, + 0430 and + 0600.
    YYYYJJJHHMM--This is the year (YYYY), day in Julian Calendar days 
(JJJ) of the year and the time in hours and minutes (HHMM) when the 
message was initially released by the originator using 24 hour 
Universal Coordinated Time (UTC).
    LLLLLLLL--This is the PSID identification of the EAS Participant, 
NWS office, etc., transmitting or retransmitting the message. These 
codes will be automatically affixed to all outgoing messages by the EAS 
encoder.
    NNNN--This is the End of Message (EOM) code sent as a string of 
four ASCII N characters.
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec.  11.32 by revising paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows:


Sec.  11.32  EAS Encoder.

    (a) * * *
    (5) Day-Hour-Minute and Identification Stamps. The encoder shall 
affix the YYYYJJJHHMM and LLLLLLLL codes automatically to all initial 
messages.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec.  11.33 by revising paragraph (a)(10) to read as follows:


Sec.  11.33  EAS Decoder.

    (a) * * *
    (10) Message Validity. An EAS Decoder must provide error detection 
and validation of the header codes of each message to ascertain if the 
message is valid. Header code comparisons may be accomplished through 
the use of a bit-by-bit compare or any other error detection and 
validation protocol. A header code must only be considered valid when 
two of the three headers match exactly, the Station ID header code 
matches one of the assigned monitoring sources as specified in the 
state plan and the expiration time is in the future. Duplicate messages 
must not be relayed automatically.
* * * * *
0
8. Add Sec.  11.44 to subpart C to read as follows:


Sec.  11.44  Security of EAS Participants.

    (a) Definitions. Terms in this section shall have the following 
meanings:
    (1) Certification. An attestation by a Certifying Official, under 
penalty of perjury, that an EAS Participant:
    (i) Has satisfied the obligations of subsection (b) of this 
section.
    (ii) Has adequate internal controls to bring material information 
regarding network architecture, operations, and maintenance to the 
Certifying Official's attention.
    (iii) Has made the Certifying Official aware of all material 
information reasonably necessary to complete the certification.
    (2) Certifying Official. A corporate officer of an EAS Participant 
with supervisory and budgetary authority over network operations in all 
relevant service areas.
    (3) Segmentation. A category of best practice actions for 
certification purposes that logically group and compartmentalize assets 
and restrict trusted access to those compartments.
    (b) Annual EAS Security Certification. The identifying information 
required by the ETRS as specified in Sec.  11.61(a)(3)(iv) shall 
include a Certification to the Commission by a Certifying Official of 
every EAS Participant as follows.
    (1) Patch Management.
    (i) An EAS Participant shall certify whether it has, within the 
past year:
    (A) Followed a program to identify and install updates and patches 
to EAS devices and attached systems in a timely manner;
    (B) Verified EAS devices are running the current version and patch 
level of software and firmware; and
    (C) Verified systems connected to EAS devices are running the 
current version and patch level of software and firmware.
    (ii) If an EAS Participant does not conform with the elements in 
paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section it must certify:
    (A) Whether it has taken alternative measures or remediation to 
meet or exceed the security provided by the current version and patch 
level, in which case it shall provide a brief explanation of such 
alternative measures or such remediation steps, the date by which it 
anticipates such remediation will be completed, and why it believes 
those measures are reasonably sufficient to mitigate such risk; or
    (B) Whether it believes that one or more of the requirements of 
this paragraph are not applicable to its network, in which case it 
shall provide a brief explanation of why it believes any such 
requirement does not apply.
    (2) Account Management.
    (i) An EAS Participant shall certify that:
    (A) All EAS device and connected system passwords have been changed 
from the default;
    (B) Where passwords are used, password complexity is required; and
    (C) Default, unnecessary, and expired accounts have been removed or 
disabled.
    (ii) If an EAS Participant does not conform with all of the 
elements in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, it must certify:

[[Page 15832]]

    (A) Whether it has taken alternative measures to mitigate the risk 
of a unauthorized access or is taking steps to remediate any issues it 
has identified in complying with the above elements, in which case it 
shall provide a brief explanation of such alternative measures or such 
remediation steps, the date by which it anticipates such remediation 
will be completed, and why it believes those measures are reasonably 
sufficient to mitigate such risk; or
    (B) Whether it believes that one or more of the requirements of 
this paragraph are not applicable to its network, in which case it 
shall provide a brief explanation of why it believes any such 
requirement does not apply.
    (3) Segmentation.
    (i) An EAS Participant shall certify that:
    (A) All of its EAS devices are not directly accessible from the 
Internet; and
    (B) If remote access to EAS devices is required, such access is 
properly logged and secured in accordance with industry best practices.
    (ii) If an EAS Participant does not conform with all of the 
elements in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section, it must certify 
whether it believes that one or more of the requirements of this 
paragraph are not applicable to its network, in which case it shall 
provide an explanation of why it believes any such requirement does not 
apply.
    (4) CAP Digital Signature Validation. An EAS Participant shall 
certify that EAS devices are configured to validate digital signatures 
on CAP messages if the source of the CAP message includes this feature.
    (c) Other Matters.
    (1) Confidential Treatment.
    (i) The fact of filing or not filing an Annual EAS Security 
Certification and the responses on the face of such certification forms 
shall not be treated as confidential.
    (ii) Information submitted with or in addition to such 
Certifications shall be presumed confidential to the extent that it 
consists of descriptions and documentation of alternative measures to 
mitigate the risks of nonconformance with certification elements, 
information detailing specific corrective actions taken with respect to 
certification elements, or supplemental information requested by the 
Commission or Bureau with respect to a certification.
    (2) [Reserved]
0
9. Revise Sec.  11.45 to read as follows:


Sec.  11.45  Prohibition of false or deceptive EAS transmissions.

    (a) 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. Sec.  
11.46 and 11.61.
    (b) All EAS Participants shall submit electronically a Notification 
to the Commission via ETRS:
    (1) An initial report within 30 minutes of discovering the 
transmission of a false EAS alert by their station. The report shall 
include the time discovered, transmitted EAS alert fields, message 
source, and area covered by the transmission.
    (2) An initial report within 15 minutes of discovering that EAS 
Participant equipment causes, contributes to, or participates in a 
lockout that adversely affects the public. The report shall include the 
time discovered, message source, and affected devices.
    (3) Not later than 72 hours after discovering the event, the EAS 
Participant shall submit a final report to the Commission describing 
the root cause of the event, number of affected customers, and 
mitigation steps taken.
    (c) Confidential Treatment.
    (1) The fact of filing or not filing a false EAS alert report shall 
not be treated as confidential.
    (2) Information submitted with or in addition to such reports shall 
be presumed confidential to the extent that it consists of descriptions 
and documentation of proprietary company information, root causes, or 
supplemental information requested by the Commission or Bureau with 
respect to an incident.
0
10. Revise Sec.  11.46 to read as follows:


Sec.  11.46  EAS code and Attention Signal Monitoring requirements.

    Public Service Announcements and commercially-sponsored 
announcements, infomercials, or programs may be used to explain the EAS 
to the public, provided that the entity using the codes and Attention 
Signal presents them in a non-misleading and technically harmless 
manner.
0
11. Amend Sec.  11.52 by revising paragraph (d)(1) and removing 
paragraph (d)(3), and redesignating paragraphs (d)(4) and (d)(5) as 
(d)(3) and (d)(4), respectively. The revision to read as follows:


Sec.  11.52  EAS code and Attention Signal Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) EAS Participants must comply with the following monitoring 
requirements:
    (1) With respect to monitoring for EAS messages that are formatted 
in accordance with the EAS Protocol, EAS Participants must monitor two 
EAS sources.
* * * * *
0
12. Amend Sec.  11.54 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text and 
paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  11.54  EAS operation during a National Level emergency.

    (a) Immediately upon receipt of a valid EAN message, or the NPT 
Event code in the case of a nationwide test of the EAS, EAS 
Participants must comply with the following requirements, as 
applicable:
    (1) Analog and digital broadcast stations may transmit their call 
letters and analog cable systems, digital cable systems and wireless 
cable systems may transmit the names of the communities they serve 
during an EAS activation.
* * * * *


Sec.  11.55  [Amended].

0
13. Amend Sec.  11.55 by removing paragraph (b) and redesignating 
paragraphs (c) and (d) as paragraphs (b) and (c).
0
14. Amend Sec.  11.56 by redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (d) 
and adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  11.56  Obligation to process CAP-formatted EAS messages.

* * * * *
    (c) EAS Participants shall configure their systems to treat as 
invalid all CAP-formatted EAS messages that include a digital signature 
that does not match an authorized source from FEMA or from a designated 
source as specified in the state EAS plan.
0
15. Amend Sec.  11.61 by revising paragraphs (a)(3)(iv)(A) and adding 
(a)(5) to read as follows:


Sec.  11.61  Tests of EAS procedures.

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (A) EAS Participants shall provide the identifying information 
required by the ETRS initially no later than sixty days after the 
publication in the Federal Register of a notice announcing the approval 
by the Office of Management and Budget of the modified information 
collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 
an effective date of the rule amendment, or within sixty days of the 
launch of the ETRS, whichever is later, and shall renew this 
identifying information on a yearly basis.
* * * * *

[[Page 15833]]

    (5) Live Code Tests. Live Code Tests may be conducted to exercise 
the EAS and raise public awareness, provided that the entity conducting 
the test:
    (i) Provides notification in accessible formats during the test 
(e.g., audio voiceovers, video crawls as described in Sec.  11.51) to 
make sure the public understands that the test is not, in fact, warning 
about an actual emergency;
    (ii) Engages in outreach pre-test to coordinates among EAS 
Participants and with state and local emergency authorities, as well as 
first responder organizations (e.g., Public Safety Answering Points 
(PSAPs)), police and fire agencies, and the public in order to notify 
them that live event codes will be used, but that no emergency is in 
fact occurring.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-05275 Filed 3-23-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P