Amendment of the Emergency Alert System, 27342-27351 [2016-09059]
Download as PDF
27342
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income
Populations’’ (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
Since tolerances and exemptions that
are established on the basis of a petition
under FFDCA section 408(d), such as
the tolerance in this final rule, do not
require the issuance of a proposed rule,
the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
This action directly regulates growers,
food processors, food handlers, and food
retailers, not States or tribes, nor does
this action alter the relationships or
distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress
in the preemption provisions of FFDCA
section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency
has determined that this action will not
have a substantial direct effect on States
or tribal governments, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States or tribal
governments, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian
tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined
that Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) and Executive Order 13175,
entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply
to this action. In addition, this action
does not impose any enforceable duty or
contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C.
1501 et seq.).
This action does not involve any
technical standards that would require
Agency consideration of voluntary
consensus standards pursuant to section
12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
VII. Congressional Review Act
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
Pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will
submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ‘‘major
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:56 May 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
Dated: April 28, 2016.
Susan Lewis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
Parts
per
million
Commodity
PART 180—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
*
*
*
*
Onion, bulb, subgroup 3–07A ....
*
0.50
*
*
*
*
Rapeseed subgroup 20A, except
flax seed ..................................
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
*
0.50
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. In § 180.458, in the table in
paragraph (a):
■ a. Remove the entry for ‘‘Bean, dry,
seed;’’
■ b. Add alphabetically an entry for
‘‘Berry, low growing, subgroup 13–07G,
except cranberry;’’
■ c. Remove the entry for ‘‘Canola
seed;’’
■ d. Add alphabetically an entry for
‘‘Cottonseed subgroup 20C;’’
■ e. Remove the entry for ‘‘Cotton,
undelinted seed;’’
■ f. Add alphabetically entries for
‘‘Fruit, pome, group 11–10’’ and ‘‘Fruit,
stone, group 12–12;’’
■ g. Remove the entries for ‘‘Mustard,
seed’’ and ‘‘Onion, bulb;’’
■ h. Add alphabetically an entry for
‘‘Onion, bulb, subgroup 3–07A;’’
■ i. Remove the entries for ‘‘Peach’’ and
‘‘Potato;’’
■ j. Add alphabetically an entry for
‘‘Rapeseed subgroup 20A, except flax
seed;’’
■ k. Remove the entries for ‘‘Safflower,
seed,’’ ‘‘Sesame, seed,’’ and
‘‘Strawberry;’’
■ l. Add alphabetically an entry for
‘‘Stevia, dried leaves;’’
■ m. Remove the entries for ‘‘Sunflower,
seed,’’ and ‘‘Vegetable, fruiting group
8;’’ and
■ n. Add alphabetically the entries for
‘‘Sunflower subgroup 20B’’ and
‘‘Vegetable, fruiting, group 8–10.’’
The additions read as follows:
■
*
*
*
*
Stevia, dried leaves ....................
*
*
*
*
*
Sunflower subgroup 20B ............
*
*
*
*
*
Vegetable, fruiting, group 8–10 ..
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
12
5.0
1.0
*
*
[FR Doc. 2016–10738 Filed 5–5–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 11
[ET Docket No. 04–296; FCC 16–32]
Amendment of the Emergency Alert
System
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
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
§ 180.458 Clethodim; tolerance for
Communication of the United Church of
residues.
Christ, Inc., and the Minority Media and
Telecommunications Council (now
(a) * * *
called The Multicultural, Media,
Parts
Telecom and Internet Council) (MMTC)
Commodity
per
(collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’).
million
DATES: Effective June 6, 2016, except for
the amendments to § 11.21(d) through
(f), which contain modifications to
*
*
*
*
*
Berry, low growing, subgroup
information collection requirements that
13–07G, except cranberry ......
3.0 were previously approved by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB).
*
*
*
*
*
Once OMB has approved the
Cottonseed subgroup 20C .........
1.0
modifications to these collections, the
Commission will publish a document in
*
*
*
*
*
Fruit, pome, group 11–10 ...........
0.20 the Federal Register announcing the
Fruit, stone, group 12–12 ...........
0.20 effective date of those paragraphs and
rule amendments.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\06MYR1.SGM
06MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Lisa
Fowlkes, Deputy Bureau Chief, Public
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau,
at (202) 418–7452, or by email at
Lisa.Fowlkes@fcc.gov.
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.
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:56 May 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
27343
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
E:\FR\FM\06MYR1.SGM
06MYR1
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
27344
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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 Textto-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 CAPrelated 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:56 May 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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,
E:\FR\FM\06MYR1.SGM
06MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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.’’
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:56 May 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
27345
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
E:\FR\FM\06MYR1.SGM
06MYR1
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
27346
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:56 May 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 fcc504@
fcc.gov 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
E:\FR\FM\06MYR1.SGM
06MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
burden for businesses with fewer than
25 employees.
by the State Emergency
Communications Committees.
D. Congressional Review Act
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.
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.
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:56 May 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
27347
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
E:\FR\FM\06MYR1.SGM
06MYR1
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
27348
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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 overinclusive.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:56 May 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
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 400,000subscriber size standard. In addition,
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\06MYR1.SGM
06MYR1
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:56 May 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
27349
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
E:\FR\FM\06MYR1.SGM
06MYR1
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
27350
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:56 May 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
E:\FR\FM\06MYR1.SGM
06MYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 88 / Friday, May 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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.
Lhorne on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:56 May 05, 2016
Jkt 238001
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)
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.
2. Section 11.21 is amended by
revising the introductory text and
adding paragraphs (d) through (f) to read
as follows:
■
§ 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 nonEnglish 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
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
27351
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
E:\FR\FM\06MYR1.SGM
06MYR1
Agencies
[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 Lisa.Fowlkes@fcc.gov.
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 fcc504@fcc.gov 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