[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 88 (Friday, May 6, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27342-27351]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09059]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 11

[ET Docket No. 04-296; FCC 16-32]


Amendment of the Emergency Alert System

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC 
or Commission) revises its rules governing the Emergency Alert System 
(EAS) to incorporate new multilingual alerting reporting requirements 
into its State EAS Plan reporting requirements. The Commission takes 
this action in response to a Petition for Immediate Interim Relief 
(Petition) jointly filed by the Independent Spanish Broadcasters 
Association (ISBA), the Office of Communication of the United Church of 
Christ, Inc., and the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council 
(now called The Multicultural, Media, Telecom and Internet Council) 
(MMTC) (collectively, ``Petitioners'').

DATES:  Effective June 6, 2016, except for the amendments to Sec.  
11.21(d) through (f), which contain modifications to information 
collection requirements that were previously approved by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB). Once OMB has approved the modifications to 
these collections, the Commission will publish a document in the 
Federal Register announcing the effective date of those paragraphs and 
rule amendments.

[[Page 27343]]


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].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order 
(Order) in ET Docket No. 04-296, FCC 16-32, adopted on March 23, 2016, 
and released on March 30, 2016. The full text of this document is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: 
www.fcc.gov.

Synopsis of the Order

    1. The Order revises the EAS rules to require State EAS Plans to 
include a description of the manner, if any, in which EAS Participants 
(the broadcasters, cable systems, and other service providers subject 
to the EAS rules) make available EAS alert message content to persons 
who communicate in languages other than English. The Order requires EAS 
Participants to furnish such information to State Emergency 
Communications Committees (SECC) upon SECC request so that the SECCs 
can compile this data and submit it as part of their State EAS Plan.
    2. The Commission adopts these requirements in response to the 
Petition. As a general matter, the Commission supports the Petitioners' 
goals and has, accordingly, provided repeated opportunities for 
comment. As described below, the Petition proposes various changes to 
the Part 11 rules governing the EAS to facilitate the dissemination of 
multilingual EAS alerts and non-EAS emergency information. Although the 
Commission does not find that the facts and record support the 
Petitioners' proposed Part 11 rule revisions, it finds that the 
reporting requirements adopted in the Order will, by other means, 
provide information that may facilitate the dissemination of 
multilingual local, state and national emergency information via the 
EAS. Thus, the Commission declines to grant the Petition's proposed 
Part 11 rule changes, but adopts reporting requirements to acquire 
information that may facilitate the dissemination of multilingual 
local, state and national emergency information via the EAS.

I. Background

A. The EAS

    3. The EAS is a national public warning system through which 
broadcasters, cable systems, and other EAS Participants deliver alerts 
to the public to warn them of impending emergencies and dangers to life 
and property. The primary purpose of the EAS is to provide the 
President with ``the capability to provide immediate communications and 
information to the general public at the National, State and Local Area 
levels during periods of national emergency.'' The EAS also is used to 
distribute alerts issued by state and local governments, as well as by 
the National Weather Service (NWS). Although EAS Participants are 
required to broadcast Presidential alerts, they participate in 
broadcasting state and local EAS alerts on a voluntary basis. As the 
Commission noted previously in this docket, its authority to require 
participation in the EAS emanates from sections 1, 4(i) and (o), 
303(r), and 706 of the Communications Act. The Commission, the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the NWS implement the EAS at 
the federal level.
    4. The EAS is a broadcast-based, hierarchical alert message 
distribution system in which an alert message originator at the local, 
state or national level encodes (or arranges to have encoded) a message 
in the EAS Protocol. The alert is then broadcast from one or more EAS 
Participants, and subsequently relayed from one station to another 
until all affected EAS Participants have received the alert and 
delivered it to the public. This process of EAS alert distribution 
among EAS Participants is often referred as the ``daisy chain'' 
distribution architecture. Because this EAS architecture has been in 
place since the inception of the EAS, it is often referred to as the 
``legacy EAS.'' Since June 30, 2012, however, authorized emergency 
alert authorities also have been able to distribute EAS alerts over the 
Internet to EAS Participants (who in turn deliver the alert to the 
public) by formatting those alerts in the Common Alerting Protocol 
(CAP) and delivering those alerts through the FEMA administered 
Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS). This CAP-based 
process for distributing alerts to EAS Participants represents the 
``IP-based EAS.''
    5. Both the legacy and IP-based EAS architectures are designed so 
that EAS Participants deliver to the public the alert content they 
receive from the EAS sources they monitor. Further, the EAS 
architecture and equipment is designed to operate automatically, both 
to minimize the risk of operator error and to facilitate EAS operation 
at unattended stations. Because the EAS is a top-down, closed, 
automated message distribution system in which alert messages are 
passed along from one entity to another--under tight technical 
tolerances required to ensure that the system functions properly--EAS 
Participants currently have a limited capacity to alter the content of 
the alert messages they receive, including translations of messages to 
alternate languages.
    6. In particular, the EAS header codes, End-of-Message (EOM) code, 
and audio message (if included) that comprise any given EAS alert are 
determined by the entity that originates the alert (typically, the NWS 
or state and local emergency management authorities). The EAS equipment 
of EAS Participants that receive the EAS alert convert the header codes 
into visual crawls and broadcast the audio--if the EAS Participant's 
broadcasts are monitored by downstream stations, it will re-encode 
(regenerate) the alert so as to trigger EAS equipment in such 
monitoring stations, thus perpetuating the daisy chain alert 
distribution cycle. All of these functions are typically done 
automatically. In terms of timing, state and local EAS alerts are 
required to be broadcast within 15 minutes of receipt, and the alert 
messages themselves are typically limited to a duration of two minutes. 
An EAS Participant seeking to broadcast a non-English language 
translation of the audio message contained in the EAS alert message it 
receives within the parameters of the EAS rules, would have to manually 
(1) ensure the entire length of the alert, including the translated 
audio portion, did not exceed two minutes, and (2) complete the 
translation and insertion processes within 15 minutes. Further, any 
such audio generated by that EAS Participant would be captured by 
downstream stations monitoring its broadcasts, thus raising the 
potential for the translated audio being rebroadcast (by the monitoring 
stations) to unintended audiences. The same timing elements would hold 
true for the visual portion of the alert, which under the legacy system 
is a textual rendition of the location, event, time period and other 
relevant header code elements.
    7. Although EAS Participants currently have limited capacity to 
alter the alert message content they receive, the Part 11 rules allow 
EAS Participants that provide non-English language programming to 
broadcast state and local EAS announcements in the primary language of 
the EAS Participant. Accordingly, non-English language EAS Participants 
may, for example, broadcast required visual crawls in their primary 
language and include in such crawls translations of

[[Page 27344]]

other language(s), if their equipment permits. Further, CAP provides 
alert originators with the capability to provide both enhanced text 
concerning an emergency condition (such as where to seek shelter) and 
multiple translations of such text. The Commission also permits, but 
does not require, EAS Participants to utilize Text-to-Speech (TTS) 
software, if configured in their EAS equipment, to generate multiple 
language audio translations of enhanced text contained in a CAP alert 
message. Accordingly, there are mechanisms in place currently to 
distribute multilingual EAS alerts.
    8. In adopting rules to facilitate CAP alerting in the Fifth Report 
and Order (Fifth Report and Order) in EB Docket No. 04-296, 77 FR 
16706, March 22, 2012, the Commission concluded that it was necessary 
to maintain the legacy EAS alert distribution architecture. The 
Commission therefore limited the CAP-related changes it made to the 
Part 11 EAS rules to ensuring that EAS Participants' EAS equipment will 
be capable of receiving and converting CAP-formatted messages into an 
EAS Protocol-compliant message. In taking this approach, the Commission 
observed that the legacy EAS architecture provided certain inherent 
operational benefits, including a robust capability to provide the 
public with alerts even after damage to the electrical power grid, and 
that replacing this legacy system altogether was both premature and 
technically unfeasible. The Commission also observed that its approach 
to CAP and its CAP EAS rules were consistent with FEMA's efforts to 
integrate the EAS with IPAWS. Accordingly, while CAP greatly expands 
the scope of information that alert originators can distribute directly 
to EAS Participants, the legacy EAS remains the backbone for 
distributing information between EAS Participants via the daisy chain 
process.
    9. As indicated, state and local emergency management authorities 
use the EAS to originate state and localized emergency alert messages. 
Section 11.21 of the EAS rules, 47 CFR 11.21, requires that state and 
local EAS operations must be described in State (and Local) EAS Plans, 
which must be submitted to the Commission for approval so that the 
Commission can ensure that these operations are consistent with 
national plans, FCC regulations, and national EAS operations. State EAS 
Plans are compiled and maintained by SECCs, and include information 
related to state and federal activations of the EAS.

B. The Petition

    10. The Petition proposes various modifications to the Commission's 
Part 11 rules to ``provide for the dissemination of multilingual local, 
state and national emergency information via the EAS.'' MMTC has 
submitted various comments and ex parte filings subsequent to the 
Petition's filing that explicate its positions on the Petition and, 
more generally, multilingual emergency alerts and information. For 
example, in 2010, MMTC stated that ``the problem today is receiving 
information in-language during and after an emergency.'' In 2013, MMTC 
stated that the Commission should require ``broadcasters to work 
together, and with state and market counterparts, to develop a plan 
that communicates each party's responsibility based on likely 
contingencies.''

C. Procedural History

    11. The Commission formally sought comment on the Petition in the 
First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (First 
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) in EB 
Docket No. 04-296, 70 FR 71023, 71072, November 25, 2005, asking, among 
other things, how the Petition's proposals could be implemented and 
inviting comment on any other proposals regarding how best to provide 
alerts to non-English speakers. The Commission received five comments 
and reply comments addressing the Petition specifically, all of which 
(except for those filed by MMTC) opposed the Petition's proposals. With 
respect to multilingual alerting generally, the majority of comments 
addressing this issue contended that responsibility for issuing 
multilingual alerts should rest with alert message originators, and 
that it would be impractical and unduly burdensome for EAS Participants 
to translate, transcribe or otherwise effect multilingual alerting at 
their facilities.
    12. The Commission subsequently took up the Petition in the Second 
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second 
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking), in EB 
Docket No. 04-296, 72 FR 62123, 62195, November 2, 2007. Specifically, 
the Commission observed that ``Petitioners' request is broader than the 
formal EAS structure.'' In the Further Notice portion of the Second 
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the 
Commission sought more general comment on the technical, economic, 
practical, and legal issues involved in making emergency information 
accessible to persons whose primary language is not English. The 
majority of responding comments again opposed any obligation on EAS 
Participants to supply non-English alerts, contending that 
responsibility for issuing multilingual alerts should rest with alert 
message originators, and that it would be impractical for EAS 
Participants to effect multilingual alerting at their facilities.
    13. On March 25, 2010, the Public Safety and Homeland Security 
Bureau (Bureau) released a Public Notice (Part 11 Public Notice) in EB 
Docket No. 04-296, DA 10-500, released on March 25, 2010, which sought 
comment regarding what changes to the Part 11 rules might be needed to 
fully implement the obligation to process CAP-formatted alerts. 
Although the Part 11 Public Notice did not seek comment specifically on 
the Petition, the Bureau invited comment generally on ``what rules 
changes, if any, are necessary to our Part 11 rules to ensure access to 
a CAP-based EAS by people . . . who do not speak English.'' Again, the 
vast majority of comments addressing this issue contended that alert 
message originators must be responsible for providing the alert in the 
languages of the area being alerted.
    14. On March 11, 2014, the Bureau released a Public Notice in EB 
Docket No. 04-296, DA 14-336, released on March 11, 2014, which sought 
to refresh the record on the Petition initiated by the First Report and 
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, by, among other 
things, requesting updates on the state of multilingual EAS alerts and 
other possible solutions by which the Commission could facilitate 
multilingual EAS alerts. The Bureau also sought updated comment on the 
specific proposals in the Petition as well as on MMTC's proposal, 
articulated in its December 12, 2013, ex parte letter filed in EB 
Docket No. 04-296, that broadcast stations within any given market be 
required to enter into emergency communications plans to support each 
other in the case of an emergency. While all respondents generally 
supported the goals of the Petition, EAS Participant respondents 
opposed the methods proposed to achieve them. Non-EAS Participant 
parties supported MMTC's goal of serving non-English speakers, but 
either did not address or did not directly support the methods 
requested by the Petition.
    15. MMTC responded to objections that the Petition was inconsistent 
with the EAS architecture by contending that while its proposals 
``include EAS alerts,

[[Page 27345]]

the primary goal of [its emergency communications plan] proposal is to 
ensure broadcasters, in their capacity as public trustees, distribute 
emergency information before, during, and after an emergency in the 
languages understood by the communities they serve.'' MMTC contended 
that translation technology ``is not yet capable of capturing the 
nuances of language through which critical information is transmitted, 
making it essential that a real person convey lifesaving information in 
a variety of languages,'' and that ``[u]nder the designated hitter 
model, multilingual messages should be translated at the point of 
origin or broadcast by a live person.'' MMTC also contended that 
``[v]oluntary plans have not been put into place since Hurricane 
Katrina set this proceeding in motion,'' and that ``[n]one of the State 
EAS plans address multilingual EAS alerts.''

II. Discussion

A. State EAS Plans Must Describe State Multilingual EAS Alerting 
Activities

    16. Consistent with the record in this proceeding, the Commission 
supports the general goal of making emergency alert content distributed 
over the EAS more accessible to persons whose primary language is not 
English. While providing multilingual translations of an EAS alert 
audio message as part of a state or local EAS alert that is processed 
in automated mode can only be effected by the alert originator, some 
capabilities do exist within the EAS structure for distributing non-
English language translations of the alert content, such as through the 
EAS visual crawl. States and localities that have the capabilities to 
originate CAP-formatted alert messages have more flexibility to 
distribute EAS alerts--enhanced textual information and audio--in 
multiple languages. Moreover, states have always had the flexibility to 
implement state and local EAS alerting however they see fit, provided 
such implementations are consistent with the existing EAS technical and 
operational architecture and the Part 11 rules.
    17. The Commission agrees with the majority of commenters that 
alert originators are best positioned to effect multilingual alerting, 
since station operators simply pass down the EAS message as received 
within the allotted two minute timeframe and, by and large, do not have 
the necessary capabilities and/or time to translate or originate that 
alert in another language. The Commission observes that comments 
submitted in response to the 2014 Public Notice suggest that mandated 
``one size fits all'' solutions to addressing the issue of multilingual 
EAS alert content and, more generally, non-EAS emergency information, 
may not account for the variance of key factors, such as the make-up of 
the local population, topography, etc., that applies in each market.
    18. The Commission also observes, however, that State EAS Plans 
currently on file do not describe what actions the state or its 
localities, in conjunction with the EAS Participants therein, or the 
EAS Participants themselves, whether acting individually or 
collectively, are taking with respect to distributing EAS alert content 
to non-English speaking audiences. Accordingly, to ensure that the 
Commission has sufficient and accurate information on any existing 
state and local mechanisms to distribute multilingual state and local 
EAS alert content, and more generally, to ensure that the issue of 
disseminating EAS alert content to non-English speaking audiences has 
been examined by EAS Participants and state and local emergency 
authorities, as coordinated by the SECCs, the Order requires that State 
EAS Plans include a description of what steps, if any, have been or 
will be taken by EAS Participants, whether individually or in 
conjunction with state and local emergency authorities, to disseminate, 
broadcast, or otherwise make available, EAS alert content to non-
English speaking audiences in such audiences' primary language. Such 
descriptions shall include relevant factors that explain the degree to 
which alerts have been disseminated or broadcast in multiple languages. 
As a corollary to this reporting requirement, the Order requires EAS 
Participants to cooperate with state and local emergency authorities, 
and SECCs, to identify such information. The Commission mandates no 
specific compliance method, but rather wishes to provide the broadest 
flexibility to state and local governments and EAS Participants to 
describe any steps that have been taken to provide multilingual EAS 
Alerts for their respective communities. This requirement may be 
fulfilled by indicating that no steps have been taken.
    19. In order that we may assess these efforts, we require EAS 
Participants to provide the following information to their respective 
SECCs, who in turn will include such information in the State EAS Plan 
submitted to the Commission for approval:
     A description of any actions taken by the EAS Participant 
(acting individually, in conjunction with other EAS Participants in the 
geographic area, and/or in consultation with state and local emergency 
authorities), to make EAS alert content available in languages other 
than English to its non-English speaking audience(s);
     A description of any future actions planned by the EAS 
Participant, in consultation with state and local emergency 
authorities, to provide EAS alert content in languages other than 
English to its non-English speaking audience(s), along with an 
explanation for the EAS Participant's decision to plan or not plan such 
actions; and
     Any other relevant information that the EAS Participant 
may wish to provide, including state-specific demographics on languages 
other than English spoken within the state, and identification of 
resources used or necessary to originate current or proposed 
multilingual EAS alert content. In particular we urge EAS Participants 
and SECCs to include any pilot projects or other initiatives that 
involve translation technologies or other innovative approaches to 
providing non-English alerts and emergency information to the public.
    20. This information will enable the Commission to ensure that any 
existing multilingual EAS alerting activities are consistent with the 
Part 11 rules, and may provide insight into what mechanisms may work 
best. Similarly, information identifying why multilingual EAS 
activities are not being planned may provide insight into structural 
impediments that might be ameliorated by future Commission or federal 
action, if appropriate. The collection and availability of this 
information also will aid states, EAS Participants, non-governmental 
organizations and other interested parties in their efforts, if any, to 
establish mechanisms for disseminating multilingual EAS content and 
other emergency information. In terms of mechanics, the Order requires 
that EAS Participants furnish the required information to SECCs no 
later than one year from the effective date of the Order, and that all 
required information be compiled and summarized by the SECCs and 
included in or submitted as amendments to the State EAS Plans no later 
than six months after that. The Commission concludes that one year is 
sufficient time for EAS Participants to gather, prepare and submit the 
required information, as the vast majority of the required information 
is already in their possession as it is required in their regular 
course of business. The Commission further concludes that the 
integration of this data into a State EAS Plan, either as an amendment 
or a new plan, is a largely administrative process for which six months 
should be sufficient. In the event that there is a

[[Page 27346]]

material change to any of the information that EAS Participants are 
required to furnish their respective SECCs, EAS Participants must, 
within 60 days of the occurrence of such material change, submit a 
letter to their respective SECCs, copying the Bureau, that describe 
such change. The Order requires SECCs to incorporate the information in 
such letters as amendments to the State EAS Plans on file with the 
Bureau.
    21. Beyond this reporting requirement, the Order does not require 
any particular outcome with respect to what is done to facilitate 
access to multilingual EAS alert content. EAS Participants may conclude 
that no specific actions to facilitate access to multilingual EAS alert 
content is warranted or feasible in their area for any number of 
reasons. On the other hand, the mere process of examining this issue in 
coordination with state and local emergency authorities may lead to 
implementation of mechanisms that would expand access to EAS alert 
content, if appropriate.
    22. The Commission believes that the compliance costs to EAS 
Participants of the rules adopted in the Order will be minimal, and 
largely limited to internal administrative charges associated with 
drafting a brief statement, and submitting that statement, and any 
other relevant information that the EAS Participant may wish to provide 
to their SECC for inclusion into the State EAS Plan for the state in 
which the EAS Participant operates. Based on the record, it seems 
likely that the vast majority of EAS Participants will need to submit 
nothing more than a very brief statement to their SECC explaining their 
decision to plan or not plan future actions to provide EAS alert 
content in languages other than English to their non-English speaking 
audience(s).
    23. For the presumably small percentage of EAS Participants that 
actually are engaged in multilingual EAS activities, the filing will 
merely require that they supply a summary of actions they already have 
taken in this regard. Because the Commission anticipates that the 
aggregate costs associated with requiring EAS Participants to file 
summary statements or activities reports will be minimal, the potential 
benefits of promoting the delivery of alerts to those who communicate 
in a language other than English or may have a limited understanding of 
the English language will far exceed those costs imposed.
    24. With regard to these benefits, the Commission finds that 
accurately understanding how the EAS is accessible to the entire 
public, including those who do not have a proficiency in English, will 
strengthen this already resilient public alert and warning tool in a 
manner that may help save lives and protect property during times of 
national, state, regional, and local emergencies.
    25. Finally, the Commission's decision is limited to EAS content--
i.e., information that is formatted in the EAS Protocol or CAP and 
processed over existing EAS equipment and facilities. While MMTC has 
asserted that ``the problem today is receiving information in-language 
during and after an emergency,'' the Commission observes that the EAS 
is not designed to function as a conduit for non-EAS emergency 
information, and such information falls outside the scope of the EAS 
and the Part 11 rules.

B. The Petition's Proposals Are Unsupported and Lack Specificity

    26. The Commission has observed that the record in this proceeding 
provides scant support for the methods proposed by the Petition to 
achieve their outcomes. Instead, as indicated, the vast majority of 
commenters have consistently argued that state and local authorities 
responsible for originating alerts are best positioned to distribute 
multilingual alerts, and therefore should be responsible for the 
language content of alerts. The record also supports reliance upon 
voluntary arrangements among and between EAS Participants and other 
parties to achieve multilingual solutions that reflect the resources, 
localized needs and environmental characteristics of the communities 
they serve. These facts and record do not support the Petition's 
proposed revisions to the Part 11 rules.
    27. The Commission also observes, as commenters have pointed out, 
that the Petition's proposed methods for implementing the Designated 
Hitter plan within the EAS architecture lack specificity, and it is 
therefore difficult to determine whether or how such implementation 
could be effected from the federal level. Commenters also have observed 
that the Petition's proposals implicate technical problems that could 
compromise the operation of the EAS. In sum, the concludes that the 
Petition does not provide sufficient detail as to the precise 
functionalities it seeks to achieve through its proposed Part 11 rule 
revisions and how those could be implemented within the technical 
architecture, including the EAS Protocol and distribution mechanisms, 
of the EAS.
    28. Against this backdrop, and given that options for effectuating 
multilingual EAS alerts at the local level necessitates voluntary 
solutions tailored to the relevant multilingual needs of the community 
served, the Commission does not support moving forward with the 
Petition's specific proposals. Accordingly, while the Commission grants 
the Petition to the extent the actions taken in the Order are 
consistent with the Petition's stated purpose of facilitating the 
dissemination of multilingual local, state and national emergency 
information via the EAS--i.e., by amending the Part 11 rules to 
incorporate the reporting requirements described above--the Commission 
otherwise denies the Petition.

III. Procedural Matters

A. Accessible Formats

    29. 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).

B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    30. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5 
U.S.C. 603, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small 
entities of the policies and rules addressed in this document.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    31. This document contains modified information collection 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
Public Law 104-13. These modified requirements will be submitted to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) 
of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be 
invited to comment on the new or modified information collection 
requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that 
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific 
comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees.
    32. In this present document, we have assessed the effects of the 
information collection associated with the reporting requirements set 
forth in this Order, and find that because this information collection 
involves information that is readily available and easily accessible to 
all EAS Participants, none of these requirements should pose a 
substantial

[[Page 27347]]

burden for businesses with fewer than 25 employees.

D. Congressional Review Act

    33. The Commission will send a copy of this Order to Congress and 
the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act (``CRA''), see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

E. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    34. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated into the First Report and Order and Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (First Report and Order and Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking) in EB Docket No. 04-296, 70 FR 71023, 71072, 
November 25, 2005. The Commission sought written comment on the 
proposals in the Further Notice portion of the First Report and Order 
and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including comment on the 
IRFA. Because the Order amends the Commission's rules, this Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Order
    35. This Order adopts changes to the Commission's Part 11 rules 
governing the Emergency Alert System (EAS) to require that State EAS 
Plans include a description of what steps have been taken by 
broadcasters, cable systems, and other entities subject to the Part 11 
rules (generally referred to as ``EAS Participants''), whether 
individually or in conjunction with state and local emergency 
authorities, to disseminate or broadcast, or otherwise make available, 
EAS alert content to non-English speaking audiences in such audiences' 
primary language. This Order also requires that State EAS Plans include 
a description of any future actions planned by EAS Participants, in 
consultation with state and local emergency authorities, to provide EAS 
alert content available in languages other than English to its non-
English speaking audience(s), along with an explanation for the 
Participant's decision to plan or not plan such actions. The objectives 
of this rule change are to ensure that the Commission has sufficient 
and accurate information on any existing state and local mechanisms to 
distribute multilingual state and local EAS alert content, and more 
generally, to ensure that the issue of disseminating EAS alert content 
to non-English speaking audiences has been examined by EAS Participants 
and state and local emergency authorities, as coordinated by the State 
Emergency Communications Committees.
1. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA
    36. The Small Business Administration (SBA) filed no comments in 
this proceeding, and there were no other comments specifically 
addressed to the IRFA.
2. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
Rules Will Apply
    37. 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 rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the 
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently 
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
    38. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time, affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at 
the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards. 
First, 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 2011 indicate that 
there were 89,476 local governmental jurisdictions in the United 
States. We estimate that, of this total, as many as 88,506 entities may 
qualify as ``small governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, we estimate that 
most governmental jurisdictions are small.
    39. Television Broadcasting. The SBA defines a television 
broadcasting station that has no more than $35.5 million in annual 
receipts as a small business. 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.
    40. 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, we conclude that 
the majority of such establishments are small. The Commission has 
estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (``NCE'') 
stations to be 396. We do not have revenue estimates for NCE stations. 
These stations rely primarily on grants and contributions for their 
operations, so we 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, we will presume that all LPTV licensees qualify as small 
entities under the above SBA small business size standard.
    41. We note that in assessing whether a business entity qualifies 
as small under the above definition, business control affiliations must 
be included. Our 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.
    42. 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

[[Page 27348]]

assess these criteria in the context of media entities, and our 
estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive 
to this extent.
    43. 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. The Commission has 
estimated the number of licensed noncommercial radio stations to be 
3,917. We do not have revenue data or revenue estimates for these 
stations. These stations rely primarily on grants and contributions for 
their operations, so we will assume that all of these entities qualify 
as small businesses. We note 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. We note that it is difficult at times to assess these 
criteria in the context of media entities, and our estimate of small 
businesses may therefore be over-inclusive.
    44. 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, we will presume that all of these licensees qualify as small 
under the SBA definition.
    45. 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 wired telecommunications carriers are small.
    46. Cable Television Distribution 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 3,188 firms 
in this category. Of these, 3,144 had fewer than 1,000 employees. 
Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that the majority of 
these businesses can be considered small.
    47. Cable Companies and Systems (Rate Regulation). The Commission 
has developed its own small business size standards for the purpose of 
cable 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 as well, we estimate that most cable systems 
are small entities.
    48. 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, we find that all but nine incumbent 
cable operators are small entities under this size standard. We note 
that the Commission 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, we are 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.
    49. 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'' as an entity that had annual average 
gross revenues of no more than $40 million in

[[Page 27349]]

the previous three 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, we estimate 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, we find that 
there are currently approximately 440 BRS licensees that are defined as 
small businesses under either the SBA or the Commission's rules. In 
2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, which resulted in the 
licensing of 78 authorizations 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) will receive 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) will 
receive 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) will receive 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 four licenses; one bidder that 
claimed very small business status won three licenses; and two bidders 
that claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses.
    50. 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 3,188 firms in this category. Of these, 3,144 had fewer than 
1,000 employees. Therefore, under this size standard, we estimate that 
the majority of these businesses can be considered small. Therefore, 
under this size standard, we estimate 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.
    51. 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.
    52. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small 
businesses specifically applicable to incumbent local exchange 
services. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for 
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 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. 
Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent 
local exchange service are small businesses.
    53. We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA 
analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' under the RFA is one 
that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard 
(e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer 
employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.'' The 
SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small 
incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any 
such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. We have therefore included 
small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that 
this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations 
in other, non-RFA contexts.
    54. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs), 
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, 
and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA 
has developed a small business size standard specifically for these 
service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for 
the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
According to Commission data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were 
engaged in the provision of either competitive local exchange services 
or competitive access provider services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an 
estimated 1,256

[[Page 27350]]

have 1,500 or fewer employees and 186 have more than 1,500 employees. 
In addition, 17 carriers have reported that they are Shared-Tenant 
Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer 
employees. In addition, 72 carriers have reported that they are Other 
Local Service Providers. Of the 72, seventy have 1,500 or fewer 
employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange 
service, competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, 
and Other Local Service Providers are small.
    55. 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.'' The 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 firms that operated for 
the entire year. Of this total, 482 firms had annual receipts of less 
than $25 million. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of 
satellite telecommunications providers are small entities.
    56. All Other Telecommunications. ``All Other Telecommunications'' 
is defined as follows. ``This U.S. industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, 
such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station 
operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged 
in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities 
connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of 
transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications 
from, satellite systems. Establishments providing Internet services or 
voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied 
telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The 
SBA has developed a small business size standard for ``All Other 
Telecommunications,'' which consists of all such firms with gross 
annual receipts of $32.5 million or less. For this category, census 
data for 2007 show that there were 2,383 firms that operated for the 
entire year. Of those firms, a total of 2,346 had gross annual receipts 
of less than $25 million. Thus, we estimate that the majority of All 
Other Telecommunications firms can be considered small.
    57. 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, by exception, is now included in the 
SBA's broad economic census category, Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers, which was developed for small wireline businesses. 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. Therefore, under this size standard, the majority 
of such businesses can be considered small. However, the data we have 
available as a basis for estimating the number of such small entities 
were gathered under a superseded SBA small business size standard 
formerly titled ``Cable and Other Program Distribution.'' The 
definition of Cable and Other Program Distribution provided that a 
small entity is one with $12.5 million or less in annual receipts. 
Currently, only two entities provide DBS service, which requires a 
great investment of capital for operation: DIRECTV and DISH Network. 
Each currently offers subscription services. DIRECTV and DISH Network 
each report annual revenues that are in excess of the threshold for a 
small business. Because DBS service requires significant capital, we 
believe it is unlikely that a small entity as defined by the SBA would 
have the financial wherewithal to become a DBS service provider.
3. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements
    58. There are revisions to current Part 11 reporting, 
recordkeeping, or compliance requirements set forth in the Order. 
Specifically, the Order revises section 11.21(a) to require that State 
EAS Plans include a description of what steps have been taken by 
broadcasters, cable systems, and other entities subject to the Part 11 
rules (generally referred to as ``EAS Participants''), whether 
individually or in conjunction with state and local emergency 
authorities, to disseminate or broadcast, or otherwise make available, 
EAS alert content to non-English speaking audiences in such audiences' 
primary language. This Order also requires that State EAS Plans include 
a description of any future actions planned by EAS Participants, in 
consultation with state and local emergency authorities, to provide EAS 
alert content available in languages other than English to its non-
English speaking audience(s), along with an explanation for the 
Participant's decision to plan or not plan such actions. The objectives 
of these rule changes are to ensure that the Commission has sufficient 
and accurate information on any existing state and local mechanisms to 
distribute multilingual state and local EAS alert content, and more 
generally, to ensure that the issue of disseminating EAS alert content 
to non-English speaking audiences has been examined by EAS Participants 
and state and local emergency authorities, as coordinated by the SECCs.
4. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered
    59. 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.''
    60. Based on the Commission's review of the record, the Commission 
finds that it is practicable for all SECCs and EAS Participants, 
including small and rural EAS Participants, to comply with the minimal 
reporting requirements set forth in the Order without incurring unduly 
burdensome costs. With respect to alternative approaches, the 
Commission already has invited EAS Participants and other stakeholders 
to describe their multilingual alerting activities generally in the 
2014 Public Notice, but the response to that request for voluntary 
submission of information was sparse an inadequate.
    61. Further, this Order finds that the life-saving public safety 
benefits of imposing the reporting requirements, which include improved 
Federal oversight of the EAS, potential expansion of access to EAS 
alert content by those who communicate in a language other than English 
or may have a limited understanding of the English language, aiding 
state decision-making in multilingual EAS activities, and

[[Page 27351]]

helping consumers to understand the level of multilingual alerting that 
exists in their areas, far outweigh the one-time, minimal costs of such 
requirements.
    62. Finally, in the event that small entities face unique 
circumstances with respect to these requirements, such entities may 
request waiver relief from the Commission. Accordingly, the Commission 
finds that it has discharged its duty to consider the burdens imposed 
on small entities.
    63. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the 
Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress and the 
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review 
Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order, 
including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A 
copy of the Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be 
published in the Federal Register.

IV. Ordering Clauses

    64. Accordingly, it is ordered that pursuant to sections 1, 2, 
4(i), 4(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 624(g), 706, and 
715 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 
154(i), 154(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 544(g), 606, 
and 615, this Order is adopted, and the Petition for Immediate Interim 
Relief filed by the Independent Spanish Broadcasters Association, the 
Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ, Inc., and the 
Minority Media and Telecommunications Council is hereby granted as 
described herein, and otherwise denied.
    65. It is further ordered that the rules adopted herein, which 
contain new or modified information collection requirements, will 
become effective on the date specified in a Commission notice published 
in the Federal Register announcing their approval under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act by the Office of Management and Budget, which date will 
be June 6, 2016.
    66. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Order, including the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 11

    Radio, Television.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 11 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. Section 11.21 is amended by revising the introductory text and 
adding paragraphs (d) through (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  11.21  State and local area plans and FCC mapbook.

    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 EAS 
header codes and messages that will be transmitted by key EAS sources 
(NP, LP, SP and SR). State and local plans contain unique methods of 
EAS message distribution such as the use of the Radio Broadcast Data 
System (RBDS). The plans also include information on actions taken by 
EAS Participants, in coordination with state and local governments, to 
ensure timely access to EAS alert content by non-English speaking 
populations. The plans must be reviewed and approved by the Chief, 
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, prior to implementation to 
ensure that they are consistent with national plans, FCC regulations, 
and EAS operation.
* * * * *
    (d) EAS Participants are required to provide the following 
information to their respective State Emergency Communications 
Committees (SECC) within one year from 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:
    (1) A description of any actions taken by the EAS Participant 
(acting individually, in conjunction with other EAS Participants in the 
geographic area, and/or in consultation with state and local emergency 
authorities), to make EAS alert content available in languages other 
than English to its non-English speaking audience(s),
    (2) A description of any future actions planned by the EAS 
Participant, in consultation with state and local emergency 
authorities, to provide EAS alert content available in languages other 
than English to its non-English speaking audience(s), along with an 
explanation for the Participant's decision to plan or not plan such 
actions, and
    (3) Any other relevant information that the EAS Participant may 
wish to provide, including state-specific demographics on languages 
other than English spoken within the state, and identification of 
resources used or necessary to originate current or proposed 
multilingual EAS alert content.
    (e) Within six months of the expiration of the one-year period 
referred to in subsection (d) of this section, SECCs shall, as 
determined by the Commission's Public Safety and Homeland Security 
Bureau, provide a summary of such information as an amendment to or as 
otherwise included as part of the State EAS Plan filed by the SECC 
pursuant to this section 11.21.
    (f) EAS Participants shall, within 60 days of any material change 
to the information they have reported pursuant to paragraphs (d)(1) and 
(2) of this section, submit letters describing such change to both 
their respective SECCs and the Chief, Public Safety and Homeland 
Security Bureau. SECCs shall incorporate the information in such 
letters as amendments to the State EAS Plans on file with the Bureau 
under this section 11.21.

[FR Doc. 2016-09059 Filed 5-5-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P