[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 12 (Thursday, January 18, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2557-2563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00595]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 11

[PS Docket No. 15-94; FCC-17-170]


Blue Alert EAS Event Code

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC 
or Commission) amends its regulations governing the Emergency Alert 
System (EAS) and Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) to add a new event 
code, B-L-U, to allow alert originators to issue an alert whenever a 
law enforcement officer is injured or killed, missing in connection 
with his or her official duties, or there is an imminent and credible 
threat to cause death or serious injury to law enforcement officers.

DATES: This rule is effective January 18, 2018. Delivery of Blue Alerts 
over EAS will be implemented January 18, 2019. Delivery of Blue Alerts 
over WEA will be implemented July 18, 2019. This docket will remain 
open for comments until March 19, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Cooke, Deputy Division Chief, 
Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security 
Bureau, at (202) 418-2351, or by email at [email protected]; or 
Linda Pintro, Attorney Advisor, Policy and Licensing Division, Public 
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 418-7490, or by email at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order 
in PS Docket No. 15-94, FCC 17-170, adopted and released on December 
14, 2017. The full text of this document is available for inspection 
and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center 
(Room CY-1257),

[[Page 2558]]

445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, or online at: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adds-blue-alerts-nations-emergency-alert-systems-0.

Synopsis

    1. The Order adds to Part 11 EAS rules a new dedicated EAS event 
code, to advance the important public policy of protecting our nation's 
law enforcement officials and the communities they serve. This Order 
adopts the three-character B-L-U to enable the delivery of Blue Alerts 
over the EAS and WEA. This will promote the development of compatible 
and integrated Blue Alert plans throughout the United States, 
consistent with the Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu National Blue Alert 
Act of 2015 (Blue Alert Act), and support the need for a dedicated EAS 
event code for Blue Alerts identified by the Office of Community 
Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) of the United States 
Department of Justice (DOJ).

I. Background

    2. The EAS is a national public warning system through which 
broadcasters, cable systems, and other service providers (EAS 
Participants) deliver alerts to the public to warn them of impending 
emergencies and dangers to life and property. Although the primary 
purpose of the EAS is to equip the President with the ability to 
provide immediate information to the public during periods of national 
emergency, the EAS is also used by the National Weather Service (NWS) 
and state and local governments to distribute voluntary alerts such as 
weather-related and child abduction (AMBER) alerts. EAS uses three-
character event codes to identify the various elements, so that each 
can deliver accurate, secure, and geographically-targeted messages to 
the public, in text crawls and in the audio portion of EAS alerts 
(e.g., TOR for Tornado).
    3. In 2015, Congress enacted the Blue Alert Act to ``encourage, 
enhance, and integrate Blue Alert plans throughout the United States,'' 
thus facilitating the dissemination of information in a consistent 
manner nationwide when a law enforcement officer is seriously injured, 
killed or missing in the line of duty. The Blue Alert Act directs the 
Attorney General to establish a national Blue Alert communications 
network within DOJ to issue Blue Alerts, using plans that would be 
adopted in coordination with ``States, units of local government, law 
enforcement agencies, and other appropriate entities.'' In September 
2016, the Attorney General assigned the COPS Office within DOJ to be 
the National Blue Alert Coordinator.
    4. The COPS Office filed two reports with Congress to demonstrate 
how it was implementing the Blue Alert Act's mandate. In its 2016 
Report to Congress, the COPS Office identified ``the need to promote 
formal communication mechanisms between law enforcement agencies for 
Blue Alert information, the need for a dedicated Emergency Alert System 
(EAS) event code, and the need to increase public and law enforcement 
awareness of the Blue Alert Act.'' In its 2017 Report to Congress, the 
COPS Office noted that it had commenced outreach efforts with the FCC 
to pursue a dedicated Blue Alert EAS event code, and asked the FCC to 
consider conducting an expedited rulemaking to the extent feasible.
    5. The COPS Office established voluntary guidelines for the 
issuance of Blue Alerts based on the criteria contained in the Blue 
Alert Act (Blue Alert Guidelines). The Blue Alert Guidelines identify 
who may request the issuance of a Blue Alert, when a Blue Alert may be 
issued, and the requisite content thereof. Specifically, a Blue Alert 
may be issued only when a request is made by a law enforcement agency 
having primary jurisdiction over the incident, and one the following 
three threshold criteria has been met: (1) Death or serious injury of a 
law enforcement officer in the line of duty; (2) threat to cause death 
or serious injury to a law enforcement officer; or (3) a law 
enforcement officer is missing in connection with official duties. If a 
Blue Alert is based upon the first of the criteria, the law enforcement 
agency must confirm that a law enforcement officer has been killed, 
seriously injured, or attacked, and there are indications of death or 
serious injury. If a Blue Alert is based upon the second of the 
criteria, the law enforcement agency must confirm that the threat is 
``imminent and credible,'' and at the time of receipt of the threat, 
any suspect involved is wanted by a law enforcement agency. Finally, if 
a Blue Alert is based upon the third criteria, the agency must have 
concluded that there is indication of serious injury to, or death of 
the missing law enforcement officer. In all cases, the agency must 
confirm that any suspect involved has not been apprehended and there is 
sufficient descriptive information of the suspect, including any 
relevant vehicle and license tag information. The COPS Office also 
recommends that Blue Alerts be focused on the geographic areas most 
likely to facilitate the apprehension of the suspect, and the message 
include the suspect's last known location, direction of travel, and 
possible destination.
    6. On June 22, 2017, the FCC released the Blue Alert NPRM, 
proposing to revise the EAS rules to adopt BLU to allow the 
transmission of Blue Alerts to the public over the EAS, satisfying the 
need articulated by the COPS Office for a dedicated EAS event code to 
facilitate broader dissemination of the requisite information.

II. Discussion

    7. The EAS is an Effective Mechanism to Deliver Blue Alerts. The 
Order finds--as supported by most commenters--that the EAS is an 
effective mechanism for the delivery of Blue Alerts. The City of New 
York (NYC) and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) observe 
that issuing a Blue Alert via the EAS will provide the public with the 
opportunity to protect themselves and their families and to report 
relevant information to law enforcement, thus facilitating the 
apprehension of suspects who are alleged to pose an imminent threat to 
law enforcement officers. NCTA--The internet & Television Association 
(NCTA) and the American Cable Association (ACA) agree that adding Blue 
Alerts to EAS will advance the important public policy of protecting 
our nation's law enforcement officials, as does the National Public 
Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC), which states that both the 
EAS and WEA should be available tools to help provide Blue Alerts to 
the public.
    8. The Order also finds that it is technically feasible to send 
Blue Alerts using the EAS. As NYC and broadcaster engineer Sean Donelan 
(Donelan) observe, the information required by the Blue Alert 
Guidelines can be successfully communicated within the two-minute 
period to which EAS alerts are limited. Similarly, the Commission 
agrees with the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-
International, Inc. (APCO) and NYC that EAS Blue Alerts should be 
focused to an appropriately narrow geographic area, and find that the 
transmission of EAS alerts satisfies the requirement that a Blue Alert 
be ``limited to the geographic areas most likely to facilitate the 
apprehension of the suspect involved or which the suspect could 
reasonably reach'' and ``[is] not . . . limited to state lines.'' The 
Order disagrees with the assertion of McCarthy Radio Enterprises, Inc. 
to the contrary. EAS alerts are issued using county-based Federal 
Information Processing Standards (FIPS) codes, and may be issued to 
include multiple counties within a state or across state borders, 
depending on the geographic scope of

[[Page 2559]]

the emergency prompting the alert. The Commission believes that this 
level of geographic targeting is consistent with effective delivery of 
Blue Alerts, given the type of potentially mobile suspect that would be 
the subject of many Blue Alerts. The Order agrees with Donelan that a 
suspect's movements in the circumstances that would give rise to a Blue 
Alert likely would be similar to that of a suspect in AMBER Alert 
circumstances, where suspects may travel hundreds of miles within a few 
hours.
    9. The Order also agrees with commenters such as NYC that EAS Blue 
Alerts sent via the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) 
can support transmission of the detailed information required by the 
Blue Alert Guidelines. As the Commission acknowledged in the Blue 
Alerts NPRM, EAS alerts delivered over IPAWS use the IP-based Common 
Alerting Protocol (CAP) to deliver alerts with detailed text files, 
non-English alerts, or other content-rich data that would not be 
available to EAS alerts delivered via the broadcast-based daisy chain. 
As NYC and NPSTC note, EAS-based Blue Alerts that provide such detailed 
information will greatly improve the ability of the public to recognize 
and avoid an unsafe situation. The Order accordingly urges alert 
originators to initiate Blue Alerts via IPAWS and recommends that alert 
originators include detailed information as part of each Blue Alert for 
which it is available. The Order notes that EAS Participants are 
required to create video crawls based upon the enhanced text contained 
within the CAP message. The Order agrees with the COPS Office's 
recommendation that the last known location, direction of travel, and 
possible destinations of the suspect be included as part of the alert 
message. The Commission believes that these steps, in combination with 
training, will allow Blue Alert originators to address the concerns 
raised by the Boulder Regional Emergency Telephone Service Authority 
(BRETSA) and other commenters that frequent, repeated, misused, or 
overly long alerts can result in recipients ``tuning out'' alerts and 
even disabling alerts on their devices.
    10. The Commission believes that Blue Alerts delivered via the 
broadcast EAS continues to be an effective mechanism for the delivery 
of Blue Alerts. Concerns about the relative value of IPAWS-based, as 
opposed to daisy chain-based, EAS alerts are not unique to Blue Alerts. 
For example, AMBER Alerts are subject to the same technical 
limitations, potentially providing the public with an alert from the 
daisy chain that lacks the descriptive information about the victim 
that an IPAWS-based alert would provide. The Order agrees with 
commenters that concerns that arise from these technical limitations 
are mitigated because the public is likely to learn adequate 
information about an emergency and, as needed, check other media for 
additional information after receiving an alert. Further, EAS messages 
delivered via the broadcast daisy chain can supply life-saving 
information and may act as a source of redundancy for portions of the 
EAS that draw on the advanced capability of CAP. Accordingly, the Order 
concludes that the mere fact of any discrepancy between the information 
provided by an IPAWS-based EAS Blue Alert and a broadcast-based EAS 
Blue Alert is not sufficient reason to deny potentially life-saving 
information to all members of the public.
    11. Nonetheless, the Order encourages EAS manufacturers and EAS 
Participants to take technical steps to facilitate the delivery of 
IPAWS-based EAS Blue Alerts to the public where an alert is first 
delivered to an EAS Participant via broadcast. The Order notes that 
Monroe Electronics, Inc. (Monroe) and other commenters propose that the 
Commission permit ``triggered CAP polling,'' by which the EAS device 
would automatically poll IPAWS upon receipt of a broadcast EAS message 
to verify whether a corresponding CAP message exists, and if it does, 
use the CAP message instead of the broadcast EAS message. The part 11 
EAS rules do not bar EAS Participants from triggered CAP polling.\1\ 
Because triggered CAP polling is estimated to require a ``few seconds'' 
to complete, the Order finds that its use in these instances is 
consistent with Section 11.51(n) of the EAS rules, which allows EAS 
Participants to employ a delay of up to 15 minutes before interrupting 
their programming and retransmitting EAS voluntary event codes.
    12. A Dedicated Blue Alert EAS Event Code is in the Public 
Interest. The Commission determined that it would serve the public 
interest and promote the purpose of the Blue Alert Act to adopt a 
dedicated EAS event code for Blue Alerts. Accordingly, the Order amends 
Section 11.31(e) of the EAS rules to create and add the dedicated BLU 
event code to the EAS Protocol for Blue Alerts. The Commission agrees 
with the COPS Office that a dedicated EAS event code would ``convey the 
appropriate sense of urgency'' and ``galvanize the public awareness 
necessary to protect law enforcement officers and the public from 
extremely dangerous offenders.'' The Commission also agrees with the 
COPS Office that no existing EAS event code is adequate or acceptable 
to accomplish the objectives of the Blue Alert Act.
    13. The conclusion in the Order is supported by the NPSTC and 
others that agree that a dedicated BLU event code is well suited to 
serve as the central organizing element for Blue Alert plans 
nationally. As APCO notes, a dedicated code would facilitate consistent 
operations and terminology within the National Blue Alert Network, as 
called for by the Blue Alert Act. Similarly, NYC and NAB agree that 
establishing this dedicated EAS event code to deliver Blue Alerts would 
help facilitate the delivery of Blue Alerts to the public in a uniform 
and consistent manner. The Commission also agrees with NYC that a 
dedicated code would lead state and local alert originators to engage 
relevant stakeholders to operationalize the steps necessary to issue a 
Blue Alert.
    14. Further, the Commission is persuaded by the COPS Office that an 
EAS event code solely dedicated to Blue Alerts would ``facilitate and 
streamline the adoption of new Blue Alert plans throughout the nation 
and would help to integrate existing plans into a coordinated national 
framework.'' The recommendation by the COPS Office is supported by its 
extensive outreach to U.S. States and territories. According to the 
COPS Office, twenty-eight states operate Blue Alert systems, and 
twenty-eight states and territories do not. In its 2017 Report to 
Congress, the COPS Office noted the inconsistency of plans from state 
to state and the negative consequences that have arisen as a result. 
Specifically, according to the 2017 Report to Congress, ``the lack of 
such a resource [i.e., a dedicated EAS event code] affected 
jurisdictions' ability to communicate within states and across the 
country. Even in states with established Blue Alert plans, it was often 
difficult to identify important points of contact necessary for alert 
activation or interstate coordination.'' The Commission thus agrees 
with the COPS Office that implementation of a dedicated Blue Alert EAS 
code could ease the burden of designing a consistent model for Blue 
Alert plans, and thus encourage states that do not have Blue Alert 
plans to establish one.
    15. The Order also concludes that the three-character BLU EAS event 
code, rather than a currently existing EAS code, would help ensure that 
both Blue Alerts and related outreach and training are undertaken in a 
consistent manner nationally. The Commission agrees with NYC that using 
the BLU code would allow for pre-scripted, standardized on-

[[Page 2560]]

screen text that is more descriptive than the existing categories, and 
would serve to socialize the Blue Alert concept with the public, much 
like the AMBER Alerts have done for years. The Commission is also 
persuaded that a dedicated event code with consistent national 
standards would allow Federal, state, and local authorities to create 
consistent training programs for alert originators, as well as public 
service announcements, ad campaigns, and informational material that 
would serve to educate the public ahead of time.
    16. The Order disagrees with commenters that Blue Alerts should 
extend beyond law enforcement officers to include all uniformed first 
responders, including firefighters and paramedics. The stated purpose 
of the Blue Alert Act is to ``encourage, enhance, and integrate Blue 
Alert plans throughout the United States to disseminate information 
when a law enforcement officer is seriously injured or killed in the 
line of duty, is missing in connection with the officer's official 
duties, or an imminent and credible threat that an individual intends 
to cause the serious injury or death of a law enforcement officer is 
received.'' The Commission agrees with the COPS Office that Commission 
action should not extend beyond the Congressional mandate by including 
parties other than law enforcement officers. Such action would fall 
outside the scope of the Blue Alert Act, which limits Blue Alerts to a 
``law enforcement officer.''
    17. Similarly, the Order finds that existing EAS codes LEW (Law 
Enforcement Warning), LAE (Local Area Emergency), and CEM (Civil 
Emergency Message) would not be as effective as a BLU event code. The 
Commission agrees with the COPS Office that the absence of a dedicated 
BLU event code requires states and local law enforcement agencies to 
use one of the existing generic event codes in an ad hoc manner and 
that existing event codes such as LEW are inadequate. NAB also notes 
that there is confusion about the true nature or severity of an 
emergency when LEW is used. The record supports the conclusion by the 
COPS Office that there is a lack of urgency associated with the 
existing LEW, LAE and CEM event codes because they are sometimes used 
for matters that do not suggest the need for immediate action. For 
example, the COPS Office observes that LEW alerts address a broad array 
of matters including police activity, weather-related incidents, road 
hazards, missing persons, and other miscellaneous alerts. Similarly, 
LAE and CEM alerts are more varied than LEW, as they additionally 
include alerts addressing utility issues and fire hazards. The Order 
does not address the efficacy of such multiple uses for LEW, LAE, and 
CEM, but do agree with the COPS Office that the broad use of these 
event codes make them inappropriate for use as the Blue Alert event 
code. The Commission agrees with the COPS Office that using LEW, LAE, 
or CEM for Blue Alerts would create confusion, as instructions for 
different situations can be contradictory and the public would not know 
what kind of action to take based on the event code alone. As the 
Commission found in the NWS Report and Order proceeding, the public 
interest is not served by relying on inadequate warnings that might 
provide incorrect or even opposite remedial advice to the public. The 
Order finds that Blue Alerts have a purpose that is sufficiently unique 
and well defined (as compared to the circumstances that have prompted 
the use of other codes) to warrant a unique dedicated BLU event code, 
which could serve as a vital tool'' for ``protect[ing] law enforcement 
officers and the communities they serve.''
    18. WEA Delivery of Blue Alerts. Although the COPS Office limited 
its request to an EAS event code for Blue Alerts, Blue Alerts are also 
capable of delivery over WEA as that system is currently configured. 
Moreover, incidents that qualify for the initiation of a Blue Alert 
under the Blue Alert Guidelines would also satisfy the minimum 
requirements for initiation of an ``Imminent Threat'' Alert via WEA. 
Accordingly, the Order permits Blue Alerts to be deployed via WEA using 
existing alerting methodologies and consistent with our WEA rules.
    19. NYC suggests that Blue Alerts use the Imminent Threat Alert 
classification only as a temporary measure until such time that a 
dedicated WEA message classification for Blue Alerts can be developed 
and deployed. NYC is concerned that the existing pre-scripted text for 
Imminent Threat Alert is ``overly vague,'' lacks capabilities for 
``alert originators entering free form text'' or ``Blue Alert-specific 
pre-scripted text,'' and ``can lead to public confusion and/or panic.'' 
Although NYC's concerns are somewhat mitigated by the evidence in the 
record that alert originators can use message ``templates'' that could 
be used for different Blue Alert scenarios, the Commission believes the 
issue merits further study. The Commission sought comment in the Blue 
Alert NPRM on the extent to which additional guidance or direction 
would be helpful regarding how Blue Alerts should be classified for 
purposes of WEA. Although the Commission declines to adopt a separate 
classification for WEA Blue Alerts at this time, the Order leaves this 
aspect of the issue teed up in the Blue Alert NPRM pending, and keeps 
the above-captioned docket open, to help gather additional information 
on this issue beyond what the record currently contains, including 
further comment from those interested on potential implementation 
steps, time frame, and costs, until sixty days after the date of 
publication of this Order in the Federal Register. In the meantime, the 
Order finds that issuance of Blue Alerts using WEA's existing standards 
and structures at least as a temporary measure will be effective, will 
reduce the necessary time for Blue Alerts to become available on WEA, 
and will reduce the costs to WEA stakeholders.
    20. Implementation Schedule. In the Blue Alert NPRM, the Commission 
sought comment on the proposal that EAS equipment manufacturers should 
integrate the Blue Alert event code into equipment yet to be 
manufactured or sold, and make necessary software upgrades available to 
EAS Participants, no later than six months from the effective date of 
the final rule. This proposal was based on the Commission's experience 
with the NWS Report and Order proceeding, in which the Commission 
required a similar schedule for implementation of severe weather-
related EAS event codes. In the Blue Alert NPRM, the Commission 
likewise noted that adding a BLU EAS event code would trigger technical 
and public safety requirements regarding equipment readiness that were 
similar to those discussed in the NWS Report and Order proceeding.
    21. The Order encourages stakeholders to work together voluntarily 
to implement Blue Alerts as swiftly as possible in light of the 
important public safety objectives involved. The Commission recognizes, 
however, the record reflects that some time is necessary for equipment 
manufacturers and Participating Commercial Mobile Service (CMS) 
Providers to prepare their equipment and networks to be able to process 
any Blue Alerts that are sent over EAS and WEA, as well as for alert 
originators, EAS Participants, and other stakeholders to have the 
necessary training and resources to deliver Blue Alerts to the public 
if they choose to do so. Accordingly, the Order allows a period of 12 
months from the effective date of this rule to enable the delivery of 
Blue Alerts over EAS, and a period of 18 months from the effective date 
of this rule to enable the delivery of Blue

[[Page 2561]]

Alerts over WEA. This implementation schedule will ensure all 
stakeholders have sufficient time to address any technical, resource, 
and training needs they may require to ensure the successful delivery 
of Blue Alerts.
    22. Although NYC states that six months is sufficient time for EAS 
equipment manufacturers to release the necessary software upgrades for 
a dedicated Blue Alert event code, other commenters suggest more time 
is warranted for implementation of Blue Alerts for both EAS and WEA. 
NCTA states that the Commission should work with EAS manufacturers to 
determine the adequacy of the time allocated for software upgrades to 
equipment. EAS equipment manufacturers Monroe and Sage Alerting Systems 
(Sage) state that 12 months is sufficient to allow for the new event 
code to be deployed within a scheduled in-version equipment software 
update, resulting in no incremental cost to EAS Participants, rather 
than as a scheduled major version upgrade that would have to be 
separately purchased. Broadcaster Adrienne Abbott (Abbott) states that 
EAS stakeholders have additional needs that must be met to ensure the 
successful delivery of Blue Alerts (e.g., the updating of EAS Plans to 
accommodate the use of the new code, time for Councils of Governments 
(COGs) to add the Blue Alert Event Code to their list of approved 
codes, and public awareness campaigns to be conducted to raise 
awareness and understanding of Blue Alerts). The record, however, does 
not support Abbott's contention that this entire process will require 
two years to complete. For the reasons described in this Order and the 
earlier NWS Report and Order, the Commission's experience tells us that 
this process can occur in parallel with the development and deployment 
of EAS equipment software updates and can be accommodated within a 12-
month period. Participating CMS Providers have requested 18 months to 
complete the incorporation of pending standards into their networks and 
devices that will enable the delivery of Blue Alerts as Imminent 
Threats over WEA, such as modification of the ``C-interface,'' the 
secure interface that exists between IPAWS and commercial mobile 
service provider gateways. In connection, NYC acknowledges that ``a 
longer implementation timeframe is likely necessary for the wireless 
industry.'' Based on the record, the Commission believes that a 12-
month implementation period for EAS and an 18-month implementation 
period for WEA will provide all stakeholders adequate time to ensure 
that the necessary equipment upgrades, software updates, development, 
and testing are completed to enable the delivery of Blue Alerts over 
EAS and WEA as contemplated by this Order.
    23. The Blue Alert NPRM proposed to allow EAS Participants to 
upgrade their equipment to add a designated Blue Alert event code on a 
voluntary basis until their equipment is replaced, which is the same 
approach the Commission has taken when it has adopted other new EAS 
event codes in the past. The Order adopts a modified version of this 
proposal and permit EAS Participants to update their software to add 
the BLU event code on a voluntary basis. All EAS Participants should be 
able to add the BLU event code using a software upgrade because, as of 
July 30, 2016, all EAS Participants should have equipment in place that 
is capable, at the minimum, of being upgraded by software to 
accommodate EAS modifications, and thus, the need to upgrade existing 
equipment no longer appears to be necessary. The Order also agrees with 
NCTA that permitting software upgrades on a voluntary basis is a 
``sensible and effective'' approach to adopting a new event code, and 
with ACA, which notes that this approach ``appropriately balances the 
public's interest in the safety and well-being of law enforcement 
officials against the costs of implementing new EAS codes.'' The Order 
disagrees with the NYC argument that allowing EAS Participants to 
upgrade their software on a voluntary basis undermines the creation of 
a cohesive national Blue Alert system. As the Commission observed in 
the NWS Report and Order, the use by EAS Participants of these codes is 
and has always been voluntary, and ``it would be contrary to the 
voluntary nature of state and local EAS to mandate upgrades to existing 
EAS equipment to incorporate new optional event codes.'' As the Order 
discusses below, the Commission also finds that this approach will 
significantly reduce the costs to EAS Participants.
    24. Cost and Benefit Analysis. The Order concludes that the 
benefits of implementing BLU outweigh its cost. The Commission 
acknowledges as it did in the Blue Alert NPRM, the COPS Office's 
guidance and expertise regarding the potential benefits of Blue Alerts. 
The Order also draws on the Commission's experience with the 
implementation of new EAS codes. The Order finds that most of the 
potential costs of implementation arise from software updates made 
outside of the normal course of planned upgrades. The Order allows 
sufficient time and flexibility to allow manufacturers and EAS 
Participants make upgrades, and to conduct associated testing in tandem 
with general software upgrades installed during the regular course of 
business, thus minimizing costs. The rule adopted in the Order presents 
many potential benefits by keeping the public informed, out of harm's 
way, and enlisting their aid to more quickly apprehend dangerous 
suspects as well as reducing the cost for 911 call centers and 
emergency responders.
    25. Costs. The Order finds, as suggested in the Blue Alert NPRM, 
that the main cost to EAS Participants that elect to install BLU will 
be the cost involved in downloading the software updates into their 
devices, and conducting associated testing. The Blue Alert NPRM found 
that adopting a Blue Alert EAS event code presents similar technical 
issues to those raised in the NWS Report and Order, and, accordingly, 
tentatively concluded that the costs for adding a dedicated Blue Alert 
EAS event code would not exceed a one-time $3.5 million implementation 
ceiling. In the NWS Report and Order proceeding, Monroe Electronics 
indicated that the new event codes could be implemented through a 
software update downloaded from its website, while Sage Alerting 
Systems indicated that end users could implement event codes in 10 
minutes or less, at no cost other than labor. The NWS Report and Order 
used a worst-case cost figure of $125.00 per device, allowing five 
hours of labor to be spent by each of the 28,058 broadcasters and cable 
companies, resulting in a cost ceiling of $3.5 million. The Order 
adopts the Commission's tentative conclusion in the Blue Alert NPRM, 
and find that a dedicated Blue Alert EAS event code would not exceed a 
one-time $3.5 million implementation cost. The Order notes that EAS 
Participants can avoid most incremental implementation costs by 
downloading the new Blue Alert code in conjunction with a scheduled 
software update. Although the Order recognizes that EAS equipment 
manufacturers will incur some costs in making the new event code 
available to all EAS Participants, the Commission believes that 12 
months will provide sufficient time to dovetail the BLU upgrade with 
other scheduled upgrades, posing minimal expense to equipment 
manufacturers. The Commission believes that the costs for 
implementation of WEA will be similarly low, because Blue Alerts will 
be delivered over the existing Imminent Threat WEA classification, 
using WEA

[[Page 2562]]

in its current configuration. As such, the Commission believes there 
will be no incremental costs associated with the delivery of Blue 
Alerts over WEA, and that the 18 months granted in the Order to 
Participating CMS Providers is sufficient to allow providers to 
minimize the costs of deployment.
    26. Benefits. The Order anticipate that establishing the BLU event 
code will improve emergency alerting during events described in the 
Blue Alert Guidelines, thereby helping to keep people safe from harm. 
The Order agrees with the COPS Office that existing codes, such as LEW, 
cannot effectively identify Blue Alerts to the public. While precise 
numerical estimation is not possible, the Commission expects that the 
BLU event code will improve public safety by saving lives and 
preventing injuries. One way of measuring the value of lives saved is 
the value of a statistical life (VSL), currently estimated at $9.6 
million. Accordingly, if the BLU code is expected to save at least one 
life, its value would be at least $9.6 million, which far exceeds the 
one-time $3.5 million implementation cost ceiling. This expected 
benefit is consistent with statistics from the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation's Uniform Crime Reporting Program, which state that 66 
officers were killed in the line of duty in 2016. The Commission 
believes that at least some portion of these crimes would have 
qualified for a Blue Alert and could have led to lives saved, quicker 
apprehension of the suspect, or both. The Order notes the success of 
AMBER Alerts, where 43 out of the 179 abducted children reported in 
2017 were saved as a direct result of AMBER Alerts. It is reasonable to 
expect that the life of at least one police officer or other member of 
the public will be saved due to the issuance of an EAS Blue Alert that 
uses the BLU event code. Injury prevention is another benefit of the 
BLU event code. The value of injury prevention provides an independent, 
quantitative metric to express the minimum benefit our rules could 
produce. Like fatalities, it is difficult to predict the specific 
number of injuries that the BLU event code will prevent. However, 
according to the Department of Transportation, nonfatal injuries are 
far more common than fatalities, and vary widely in severity, as well 
as probability. Accordingly, the Commission reasons that the public 
benefit of the rule adopted in this Order is heightened by its role in 
preventing injuries.
    27. The establishment of a dedicated Blue Alert code will also 
provide the benefit of generating assistance from the public and cost 
savings for emergency responders. According to NYC, threats and/or 
violent crimes, including those covered by Blue Alerts, have an 
economic impact on jurisdictions that should be counted among the 
benefits of Blue Alerts. Blue Alerts can provide an immediate warning 
to the public in an area where an extremely dangerous suspect is 
thought to be. As the Commission noted in the WEA Report and Order and 
FNPRM, when people can avert situations where they need emergency 
assistance and therefore do not need to call 911, Public Safety 
Answering Points are able to avert the cost of resource deployment. NYC 
also argues that Blue Alerts will help major visitor destinations like 
NYC provide information to and elicit support from non-residents. The 
Commission agrees with the COPS Office, that the public has repeatedly 
played a critical role in assisting law enforcement in maintaining 
safety; but to assist and avoid danger, the public must be informed. 
According to the COPS Office, there are clear and significant 
differences between states' handling of Blue Alerts, which could limit 
or complicate coordination efforts when a suspect flees, or is thought 
to have fled, to another jurisdiction. The Commission agrees with the 
COPS Office that widespread, uniform adoption of the BLU event code, 
would arm law enforcement officers with the information necessary to 
rapidly apprehend those who remain a threat to law enforcement and our 
communities. The Commission concludes that the minor burdens associated 
with adopting the BLU code will be more than offset by its benefits.

III. Procedural Matters

A. Accessible Formats

    28. 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. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    29. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA), see 5 U.S.C. 603, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) was included in the NPRM in PS Docket No. 15-94. The Commission 
sought written comment on the proposals in this docket, including 
comment on the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
conforms to the RFA.

C. Paperwork Reduction Analysis

    30. This document does not contain proposed information 
collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
Public Law 104-13. Therefore, it also does not contain any new or 
modified information collection burden for small business concerns with 
fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork 
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

D. Congressional Review Act

    31. The Commission will send a copy of this Order in a report to be 
sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 
the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

IV. Ordering Clauses

    32. Accordingly, it is ordered that pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 
4(o), 303(r), 624(g), and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(o), 303(r), 544(g), 606, as well as 
by sections 602(a),(b),(c), (f), 603, 604 and 606 of the Warning, Alert 
and Response Network Act, 47 U.S.C. 1202(a),(b),(c), (f), 1203, 1204 
and 1206, that this Order is adopted.
    33. It is further ordered that the Commission's rules are hereby 
amended as set forth in Appendix A of the full Order.
    34. It is further ordered that the rules and requirements adopted 
herein, including at Appendix A of the full Order, to enable the 
delivery of Blue Alerts over EAS will be implemented January 18, 2019.
    35. It is further ordered that the rules and requirements adopted 
herein, including at Appendix A of the full Order, to enable the 
delivery of Blue Alerts over WEA will be implemented July 18, 2019.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 11

    Radio, Television.

Federal Communications Commission.

Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the 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.


[[Page 2563]]



0
2. Amend Sec.  11.31 by:
0
a. In the table in paragraph (e), adding an entry under ``State and 
Local Codes (Optional)'' for ``Blue Alert'', and
0
b. Removing the first paragraph (f).
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  11.31   EAS protocol.

* * * * *
    (e) The following Event (EEE) codes are presently authorized:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Event
                    Nature of activation                         codes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                * * * * *
State and Local Codes (Optional):...........................  ..........
 
                                * * * * *
Blue Alert..................................................        BLU.
 
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------


* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-00595 Filed 1-17-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P