Wireless Emergency Alerts; Amendments to Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System, 75710-75727 [2016-26120]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 1, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75710-75727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26120]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 10 and 11

[PS Docket No. 15-91; PS Docket No. 15-94; FCC 16-127]


Wireless Emergency Alerts; Amendments to Rules Regarding the 
Emergency Alert System

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) adopts revisions to Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) rules 
to take advantage of the significant technological changes and 
improvements experienced by the mobile wireless industry since the 
passage of the Warning, Alert and Response Network (WARN) Act, and 
deployment of Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) to improve utility of WEA 
as a life-saving tool. By this action, the Commission adopts rules that 
will improve Alert Message content in order to help communities 
communicate clearly and effectively about imminent threats and local 
crises. It also adopts rules to meet alert originators' needs for the 
delivery of the Alert Messages they transmit and creates a framework 
that will allow emergency managers to test, exercise, and raise public 
awareness about WEA. Through this action, the Commission hopes to 
empower state and local alert originators to participate more fully in 
WEA, and to enhance the utility of WEA as an alerting tool.

DATES: Amendments and revisions to Sec. Sec.  10.280, 10.400, 10.410, 
10.430,

[[Page 75711]]

10.510, and the addition of Sec.  10.350(c) are effective May 1, 2019. 
The addition of Sec.  10.480 is effective November 1, 2018. The 
addition of Sec.  10.441 is effective November 1, 2017. Amendments to 
Sec.  10.450 are effective January 3, 2017. Removal of Sec.  10.440, 
and amendments to Sec.  10.350 (section heading and introductory text), 
Sec.  10.350(b), Sec.  10.520(d), and Sec.  11.45 are effective 
December 1, 2016. Section 10.320(g) contains information collection 
requirements that have not been approved by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB). The Commission will publish a document in the Federal 
Register announcing an effective date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Wiley, Attorney Advisor, Public 
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 418-1678, or by email at 
James.Wiley@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order in PS Docket No. 15-91, No. 15-94, FCC 16-127, released on 
September 29, 2016. The document is available for download at https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0929/FCC-16-127A1.pdf. The complete text of this document is also available for 
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-
A257, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats 
for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, 
audio format), send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 
(TTY).

Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This Report and Order adopts new or revised information collection 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The requirements will be 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under 
Section 3507 of the PRA. The Commission will publish a separate notice 
in the Federal Register inviting comment on the new or revised 
information collection requirements adopted in this document. 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.''

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA) the Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules 
proposed in the WEA NPRM (80 FR 77289, Dec. 14, 2015). No comments were 
filed addressing the IRFA regarding the issues raised in the WEA NPRM. 
Because the Commission amends the rules in this WEA Report and Order, 
the Commission has included this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(FRFA). This present FRFA conforms to the RFA

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules

    2. Today's WEA Report and Order adopts rules to empower alert 
originators to participate more fully in WEA and to enhance the utility 
of WEA as an alerting tool. In this WEA Report and Order, we adopt 
rules that fall into three categories, message content, message 
delivery, and testing and outreach.
    3. Specifically, with respect to message content, we increase the 
maximum Alert Message length from 90 to 360 characters for 4G-LTE and 
future networks only. We classify Public Safety Messages as an Alert 
Message eligible to be issued in connection with any other class of 
Alert Message. We require Participating Commercial Mobile Service (CMS) 
Providers to support embedded references, and allow Participating CMS 
providers to include embedded references in all Alert Message types for 
the purpose of an industry-led pilot of this functionality. We also 
require Participating CMS Providers to support transmission of Spanish-
language Alert Messages.
    4. With respect to message delivery, we require Participating CMS 
Providers to narrow their geo-targeting of Alert Messages to an area 
that best approximates the alert area specified by the alert 
originator. We require that mobile devices process and display Alert 
Messages concurrent with other device activity. We also require 
Participating CMS Providers to log Alert Messages, to maintain those 
logs for at least 12 months, and to make those logs available upon 
request.
    5. With respect to testing and outreach, we require support for 
State/Local WEA Tests and encourage emergency managers to engage in 
proficiency training exercises using alert origination software. We 
require periodic testing of the broadcast-based backup to the C-
interface. Finally, we allow federal, state, local, tribal and 
territorial entities, as well as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) 
in coordination with such entities to issue Public Service 
Announcements (PSAs) aimed at raising public awareness about WEA.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA

    6. No commenter raised issues in response to the IRFA included in 
the WEA NPRM. We conclude that these mandates provide Participating CMS 
Providers with a sufficient measure of flexibility to account for 
technical and cost-related concerns. In the event that small entities 
face unique circumstances that restrict their ability to comply with 
the Commission's rules, we can address them through the waiver process. 
We have determined that implementing these improvements to WEA is 
technically feasible and the cost of implementation is small.

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

    7. 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. 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.
    8. 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 27.5 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,

[[Page 75712]]

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.
    9. 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 2012 show 
that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this 
total, 955 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.
    10. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband 
personal communications services (PCS) spectrum is divided into six 
frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held 
auctions for each block. The Commission initially defined a ``small 
business'' for C- and F-Block licenses as an entity that has average 
gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar 
years. For F-Block licenses, an additional small business size standard 
for ``very small business'' was added and is defined as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more 
than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. These small 
business size standards, in the context of broadband PCS auctions, have 
been approved by the SBA. No small businesses within the SBA-approved 
small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A 
and B. There were 90 winning bidders that claimed small business status 
in the first two C-Block auctions. A total of 93 bidders that claimed 
small business status won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 
licenses in the first auction for the D, E, and F Blocks. On April 15, 
1999, the Commission completed the reauction of 347 C-, D-, E-, and F-
Block licenses in Auction No. 22. Of the 57 winning bidders in that 
auction, 48 claimed small business status and won 277 licenses.
    11. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 
422 C and F Block Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 
winning bidders in that auction, 29 claimed small business status. 
Subsequent events concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency 
determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being 
available for grant. On February 15, 2005, the Commission completed an 
auction of 242 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 58. Of 
the 24 winning bidders in that auction, 16 claimed small business 
status and won 156 licenses. On May 21, 2007, the Commission completed 
an auction of 33 licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks in Auction No. 71. 
Of the 12 winning bidders in that auction, five claimed small business 
status and won 18 licenses. On August 20, 2008, the Commission 
completed the auction of 20 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block Broadband PCS 
licenses in Auction No. 78. Of the eight winning bidders for Broadband 
PCS licenses in that auction, six claimed small business status and won 
14 licenses.
    12. Narrowband Personal Communications Service. To date, two 
auctions of narrowband personal communications services (PCS) licenses 
have been conducted. For purposes of the two auctions that have already 
been held, ``small businesses'' were entities with average gross 
revenues for the prior three calendar years of $40 million or less. 
Through these auctions, the Commission has awarded a total of 41 
licenses, out of which 11 were obtained by small businesses. To ensure 
meaningful participation of small business entities in future auctions, 
the Commission has adopted a two-tiered small business size standard in 
the Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order. A ``small business'' is an 
entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has 
average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than 
$40 million. A ``very small business'' is an entity that, together with 
affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for 
the three preceding years of not more than $15 million. The SBA has 
approved these small business size standards.
    13. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for 
fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite 
uses. The Commission defined ``small business'' for the wireless 
communications services (WCS) auction as an entity with average gross 
revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a 
``very small business'' as an entity with average gross revenues of $15 
million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved 
these definitions.
    14. 700 MHz Guard Band Licensees. In 2000, in the 700 MHz Guard 
Band Order, the Commission adopted size standards for ``small 
businesses'' and ``very small businesses'' for purposes of determining 
their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and 
installment payments. A small business in this service is an entity 
that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has 
average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding 
three years. Additionally, a very small business is an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding 
three years. SBA approval of these definitions is not required. An 
auction of 52 Major Economic Area licenses commenced on September 6, 
2000, and closed on September 21, 2000. Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 
96 licenses were sold to nine bidders. Five of these bidders were small 
businesses that won a total of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz 
Guard Band licenses commenced on February 13, 2001, and closed on 
February 21, 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to 
three bidders. One of these bidders was a small business that won a 
total of two licenses.
    15. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The Commission previously adopted 
criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of 
determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding 
credits. The Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years. 
A ``very small business'' is defined as an entity that, together with 
its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues 
that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years. 
Additionally, the lower 700 MHz Service had a third category of small 
business status for Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA) 
licenses--``entrepreneur''--which is defined as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals,

[[Page 75713]]

has average gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the 
preceding three years. The SBA approved these small size standards. An 
auction of 740 licenses (one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and 
one license in each of the six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)) 
commenced on August 27, 2002, and closed on September 18, 2002. Of the 
740 licenses available for auction, 484 licenses were won by 102 
winning bidders. Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed small 
business, very small business or entrepreneur status and won a total of 
329 licenses. A second auction commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on 
June 13, 2003, and included 256 licenses: 5 EAG licenses and 476 
Cellular Market Area licenses. Seventeen winning bidders claimed small 
or very small business status and won 60 licenses, and nine winning 
bidders claimed entrepreneur status and won 154 licenses. On July 26, 
2005, the Commission completed an auction of 5 licenses in the Lower 
700 MHz band (Auction No. 60). There were three winning bidders for 
five licenses. All three winning bidders claimed small business status.
    16. In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700 
MHz band in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order. An auction of 700 MHz 
licenses commenced January 24, 2008 and closed on March 18, 2008, which 
included, 176 Economic Area licenses in the A Block, 734 Cellular 
Market Area licenses in the B Block, and 176 EA licenses in the E 
Block. Twenty winning bidders, claiming small business status (those 
with attributable average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million 
and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years) won 49 
licenses. Thirty three winning bidders claiming very small business 
status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do 
not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) won 325 licenses.
    17. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. In the 700 MHz Second Report and 
Order, the Commission revised its rules regarding Upper 700 MHz 
licenses. On January 24, 2008, the Commission commenced Auction 73 in 
which several licenses in the Upper 700 MHz band were available for 
licensing: 12 Regional Economic Area Grouping licenses in the C Block, 
and one nationwide license in the D Block. The auction concluded on 
March 18, 2008, with 3 winning bidders claiming very small business 
status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do 
not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) and winning five 
licenses.
    18. Advanced Wireless Services. AWS Services (1710-1755 MHz and 
2110-2155 MHz bands (AWS-1); 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 
MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands (AWS-2); 2155-2175 MHz band (AWS-3)). For 
the AWS-1 bands, the Commission has defined a ``small business'' as an 
entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years 
not exceeding $40 million, and a ``very small business'' as an entity 
with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not 
exceeding $15 million. For AWS-2 and AWS-3, although we do not know for 
certain which entities are likely to apply for these frequencies, we 
note that the AWS-1 bands are comparable to those used for cellular 
service and personal communications service. The Commission has not yet 
adopted size standards for the AWS-2 or AWS-3 bands but proposes to 
treat both AWS-2 and AWS-3 similarly to broadband PCS service and AWS-1 
service due to the comparable capital requirements and other factors, 
such as issues involved in relocating incumbents and developing 
markets, technologies, and services.
    19. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. 
Broadband Radio Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint 
Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution 
Service (MMDS) systems, and ``wireless cable,'' transmit video 
programming to subscribers and provide two-way high speed data 
operations using the microwave frequencies of the Broadband Radio 
Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) (previously 
referred to as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)). In 
connection with the 1996 BRS auction, the Commission established a 
small business size standard as an entity that had annual average gross 
revenues of no more than $40 million in the previous three calendar 
years. The BRS auctions resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining 
licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 67 
auction winners, 61 met the definition of a small business. BRS also 
includes licensees of stations authorized prior to the auction. At this 
time, 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.
    20. In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78 
licenses in the BRS areas. The Commission offered three levels of 
bidding credits: (i) A bidder with attributed average annual gross 
revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the 
preceding three years (small business) received a 15 percent discount 
on its winning bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross 
revenues that exceed $3 million and do not exceed $15 million for the 
preceding three years (very small business) received a 25 percent 
discount on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder with attributed average 
annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding 
three years (entrepreneur) received a 35 percent discount on its 
winning bid. Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses. 
Of the ten winning bidders, two bidders that claimed small business 
status won 4 licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business 
status won three licenses; and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur 
status won six licenses.
    21. In addition, the SBA's Cable Television Distribution Services 
small business size standard is applicable to EBS. There are presently 
2,436 EBS licensees. All but 100 of these licenses are held by 
educational institutions. Educational institutions are included in this 
analysis as small entities. Thus, we estimate that at least 2,336 
licensees are small businesses. Since 2007, Cable Television 
Distribution Services have been defined within the broad economic 
census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is 
defined as follows: ``This industry comprises establishments primarily 
engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities 
and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of 
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications 
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology 
or a combination of technologies.'' The SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for this category, which is: All such firms 
having 1,500 or fewer employees. To gauge small business prevalence for 
these cable services we must, however, use the most current census data 
that are based on the previous category of Cable and Other Program 
Distribution and its associated size standard; that

[[Page 75714]]

size standard was: All such firms having $13.5 million or less in 
annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a 
total of 996 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. 
Of this total, 948 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 
48 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million. 
Thus, the majority of these firms can be considered small. In the 
Paging Third Report and Order, we developed a small business size 
standard for ``small businesses'' and ``very small businesses'' for 
purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such 
as bidding credits and installment payments. A ``small business'' is an 
entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, 
has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding 
three years. Additionally, a ``very small business'' is an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding 
three years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. 
An auction of Metropolitan Economic Area licenses commenced on February 
24, 2000, and closed on March 2, 2000. Of the 985 licenses auctioned, 
440 were sold. Fifty-seven companies claiming small business status 
won. Also, according to Commission data, 365 carriers reported that 
they were engaged in the provision of paging and messaging services. Of 
those, we estimate that 360 are small, under the SBA-approved small 
business size standard.
    22. Wireless Communications Service. This service can be used for 
fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite 
uses. The Commission established small business size standards for the 
wireless communications services (WCS) auction. A ``small business'' is 
an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million for each of the 
three preceding years, and a ``very small business'' is an entity with 
average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the three preceding 
years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. The 
Commission auctioned geographic area licenses in the WCS service. In 
the auction, there were seven winning bidders that qualified as ``very 
small business'' entities, and one that qualified as a ``small 
business'' entity.
    23. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications 
Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and 
wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable 
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile 
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment. The Small Business Administration has 
established a size standard for this industry of 750 employees or less. 
Census data for 2012 show that 841 establishments operated in this 
industry in that year. Of that number, 819 establishments operated with 
less than 500 employees. Based on this data, we conclude that a 
majority of manufacturers in this industry is small.
    24. Software Publishers. Since 2007 these services have been 
defined within the broad economic census category of Custom Computer 
Programming Services; that category is defined as establishments 
primarily engaged in writing, modifying, testing, and supporting 
software to meet the needs of a particular customer. The SBA has 
developed a small business size standard for this category, which is 
annual gross receipts of $25 million or less. According to data from 
the 2007 U.S. Census, there were 41,571 establishments engaged in this 
business in 2007. Of these, 40,149 had annual gross receipts of less 
than $10,000,000. Another 1,422 establishments had gross receipts of 
$10,000,000 or more. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that 
the majority of the businesses engaged in this industry are small.
    25. NCE and Public Broadcast Stations. The Census Bureau defines 
this category as follows: ``This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound. These 
establishments operate television broadcasting studios and facilities 
for the programming and transmission of programs to the public.'' The 
SBA has created a small business size standard for Television 
Broadcasting entities, which is: Such firms having $13 million or less 
in annual receipts. According to Commission staff review of the BIA 
Publications, Inc., Master Access Television Analyzer Database as of 
May 16, 2003, about 814 of the 1,220 commercial television stations in 
the United States had revenues of $12 (twelve) million or less. We 
note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies 
as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations 
must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number 
of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the 
revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate 
revenues from affiliated companies.
    26. In addition, an element of the definition of ``small business'' 
is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are 
unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would 
establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its 
field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to 
which rules may apply do not exclude any television station from the 
definition of a small business on this basis and are therefore over-
inclusive to that extent. Also as noted, an additional element of the 
definition of ``small business'' is that the entity must be 
independently owned and operated. We note that it is difficult at times 
to 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. There are also 2,117 low power television stations 
(LPTV). Given the nature of this service, we will presume that all LPTV 
licensees qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business 
size standard.
    27. The Commission has, under SBA regulations, estimated the number 
of licensed NCE television stations to be 380. We note, however, that, 
in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the 
above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included. Our 
estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities 
that might be affected by our action, because the revenue figure on 
which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from 
affiliated companies. The Commission does not compile and otherwise 
does not have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that 
would permit it to determine how many such stations would qualify as 
small entities.

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

    28. In the WEA Report and Order, we amend our Part 10 rules for 
Participating CMS Providers, as defined in the WEA rules, to require 
them to create and maintain logs of Alert Messages received at their 
Alert Gateway from FEMA IPAWS, and to make available to emergency 
management agencies information about the measures they take to geo-
target Alert Messages transmitted by that agency.
    29. We consider compliance costs associated with the alert logging 
and geo-targeting disclosure rules that we adopt today to be reporting 
and recordkeeping costs. These costs

[[Page 75715]]

include a one-time expense to establish the Alert Gateway logging 
capability for the few Participating CMS Providers that may not already 
have this capability, and the small, annual expense of automatically 
generating and maintaining alert logs, and the potentially larger 
expense of the employment of a clerical worker to respond to emergency 
management agencies' requests for alert log data or requests for 
information about geo-targeting. These alert logging and reporting 
requirements represent a somewhat more lenient version of the alert 
logging requirements we proposed in the WEA NPRM. To the extent these 
costs may still present a burden to non-nationwide Participating CMS 
Providers, we offer such entities an extended timeframe for compliance 
with our alert logging requirement in order to allow them to 
standardize appropriate gateway behavior and integrate any updates into 
their regular technology refresh cycle.

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

    30. 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.''
    31. The compliance requirements in this WEA Report and Order have 
been adjusted to accommodate the special circumstances of non-
nationwide Participating CMS Providers with respect to our WEA geo-
targeting requirements and our alert logging requirements. According to 
the Annual Competition Report, ``there are four nationwide providers in 
the U.S. with networks that cover a majority of the population and land 
area of the country--Verizon Wireless, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile.'' 
Consistent with the Annual Competition Report, we refer to other 
providers with ``networks that are limited to regional and local 
areas'' as non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers. We allow non-
nationwide Participating CMS Providers one year within which to comply 
with our WEA geo-targeting rules and two years to comply with our alert 
logging rules, instead of sixty days from the rules' publication in the 
Federal Register, in light of a non-nationwide Participating CMS 
Provider's inability to meet that standard immediately, and our concern 
that other non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers may be similarly 
situated. We believe that applying the same rules equally to all 
entities in this context is not necessary to alleviate potential 
confusion from adopting different rules for Participating CMS Providers 
because most consumers do not have insight into the relative accuracy 
of various Participating CMS Providers geo-targeting capabilities, and 
because alert logging is not a consumer facing service. We believe, and 
the record in this proceeding confirms, that the costs and/or 
administrative burdens associated with the rules will not unduly burden 
small entities, particularly in light of the special consideration we 
provide to them. These requirements will implicate no additional legal 
concerns, and will require no additional professional assistance for 
non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers.
    32. Based on our review of the record, we find that it is 
practicable for all Participating CMS Providers, including non-
nationwide Participating CMS Providers, to implement WEA improvements 
without incurring unduly burdensome costs, especially considering the 
special treatment that we afford non-nationwide Participating CMS 
Providers. The WEA Report and Order recognizes that technical and 
operational issues must be addressed before compliance can be required, 
and allows sufficient time for nationwide and non-nationwide 
Participating CMS Providers to achieve compliance with today's rules.
    33. In considering the record received in response to the WEA NPRM, 
we examined additional alternatives to ease the burden on non-
nationwide EAS Participants. These alternatives included adopting 
longer compliance timeframes than those initially proposed; requiring 
Participating CMS Providers to support WEA Alert Messages that contain 
only 360 characters, as opposed to 1,380, as considered by the Updated 
START Report; requiring support for only additional languages that are 
currently supported by standards, as opposed to others as initially 
proposed; and allowing Participating CMS Providers geo-target an Alert 
Message to an area that ``best approximates'' the target area, as 
opposed to one that is ``no larger than'' the target area using device-
based geo-fencing techniques, as proposed. Additionally, the rules 
adopted in this WEA Report and Order are technologically neutral in 
order to enable small entities flexibility to comply with our rules 
using technologies offered by a variety of vendors. Finally, we sought 
further comment on some issues where the record demonstrated that it 
would be premature to adopt rules at this time, particularly for non-
nationwide CMS Providers.
    34. Finally, in the event that small entities face unique 
circumstances with respect to these rules, such entities may request 
waiver relief from the Commission. Accordingly, we find that we have 
discharged our duty to consider the burdens imposed on small entities.

F. Legal Basis

    35. The legal basis for the actions taken pursuant to this WEA 
Report and Order is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i) and (o), 
301, 301(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 544(g), 606 and 615 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, as well as by sections 602(a), 
(b), (c), (f), 603, 604 and 606 of the WARN Act.

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

    36. None

H. Congressional Review Act

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

Synopsis

I. Report and Order

    A. Alert Message Content
1. Increasing Maximum Alert Message Length From 90 to 360 Characters
    38. We amend Section 10.430 to expand the character limit for Alert 
Messages from 90 to 360 characters for 4G-LTE and future networks. A 
360-character maximum Alert Message length balances emergency managers' 
needs to communicate more clearly with their communities with the 
technical limitations of CMS networks. While Hyper-Reach states that 
support for ``1,000+'' characters would be preferable because it would 
be consistent with the START Report's findings that messages longer 
than 1,380 characters produce ``better outcomes for interpretation, 
personalization and milling, than did the standard 90-character WEA 
message,'' this approach is not supported by the weight of the record. 
Beaufort County cautions, for

[[Page 75716]]

example, that ``people will stop reading'' Alert Messages once they get 
past the second screen of text, diminishing the value of any additional 
characters that extend beyond that, and moreover, longer Alert Messages 
may contribute to distracted driving. On balance, we find that a 360-
character maximum for Alert Message text ``is appropriate for 
disseminating official, targeted, immediate, and actionable 
information.'' We note that establishing 360 characters as the maximum 
character length leaves emergency managers free to issue Alert Messages 
that are shorter than 360 characters in appropriate situations. We 
defer to emergency managers' experience and best practices to determine 
the appropriate message length for their particular needs.
    39. We also find that expanding the maximum character length to 360 
for 4G-LTE networks is technically feasible. As we observed in the WEA 
NPRM, CSRIC IV recommended that the Commission expand the character 
limit for WEA Alert Messages on 4G LTE networks to a maximum of 280 
characters, pending confirmation by the Alliance for Telecommunications 
Industry Solutions (ATIS) that such an increase would be feasible. Not 
only did ATIS' feasibility study conclude that it was feasible for 4G-
LTE networks to transmit 280-character WEA Alert Messages, but it found 
that Participating CMS Providers could transmit 360-character Alert 
Messages just as easily. ATIS found that transmission of WEA Alert 
Messages longer than 360 characters, on the other hand, would cause 
additional delays in the delivery of the Alert Message and could drain 
battery life. Commenting Participating CMS Providers and device 
manufacturers agree. In addition to the feasible steps that compliance 
with this rule will require Participating CMS Providers to take, FEMA 
states that the increased message length will require ``software 
modifications to CAP message authoring tools, IPAWS OPEN, [and] the `C' 
Interface.'' We find that we can achieve our goal of expanding the 
maximum character limit for WEA Alert Messages on 4G-LTE networks 
without presenting WEA stakeholders with undue technical burdens.
    40. We also find, however, that we should continue to allow 
Participating CMS Providers to transmit 90-character Alert Messages on 
legacy networks until those networks are retired. While many public 
safety commenters, including APCO and Harris County OSHEM, state that 
it would be feasible and desirable to support 360-character Alert 
Messages on legacy networks by linking together (concatenating) 
multiple 90-character messages, we are convinced by AT&T that message 
concatenation would be problematic because ``[m]essages are not 
guaranteed to be received by the device in the correct order,'' which 
would likely cause confusion that would be exacerbated during the 
pendency of multiple alerts. Further, according to AT&T, concatenating 
90-character Alert Messages on legacy networks would have an adverse 
effect on mobile device battery life. T-Mobile, Sprint and Microsoft 
agree that, unlike 4G-LTE networks, it would be infeasible to expand 
the character limit for legacy networks due to the technical 
limitations of those networks, and because of financial disincentives 
to continue to update networks that will soon be retired. The risks 
that public confusion and other complications would result from Alert 
Message concatenation are too great for public safety messaging where 
the potential for panic is heightened, and the consequences of 
misinterpretation could be deadly.
    41. Emergency managers will be free to transmit an Alert Message 
containing as many as 360 characters as of the rules' implementation 
date. FEMA IPAWS will make this possible, while also ensuring that all 
community members in the target area, including those on legacy 
networks, can receive an Alert Message, by automatically generating a 
90-character Alert Message from the CAP fields of a 360-character 
message for distribution on legacy networks whenever an emergency 
manager transmits only a 360-character Alert Message. Once a CMS 
network is able to support 360-character messages, it will cease to 
receive the 90-character version, and begin to receive the full 360-
character version instead. CSRIC IV and FEMA attest that this co-
existence of 90- and 360-character Alert Messages is technically 
feasible. Indeed, FEMA IPAWS already treats Alert Messages that do not 
contain free-form text in this manner, and their approach is consistent 
with the methodology that the Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateway 
will use to process Alert Messages in multiple languages. For example, 
if FEMA IPAWS receives an Alert Message today without free-form text, 
it will use the CAP parameters 
[hazard][location][time][guidance][source] to generate Alert Message 
text along the lines of ``Tornado Warning in this area until 6:30 p.m. 
Take Shelter. Check Local Media.--NWS.'' The CMS Provider Alert Gateway 
will send the longer free-form message to devices on 4G-LTE networks, 
and the automatically generated 90-character Alert Message to mobile 
devices on legacy networks. Pursuant to the approach we adopt today, no 
matter how an alert originator transmits a WEA Alert Message, members 
of their community in the target area will receive a version of it.
    42. Increasing the maximum character length for WEA Alert Messages 
will produce valuable public safety benefits. Emergency managers state 
that the current 90-character limit is insufficient to communicate 
clearly with the public because 90-character Alert Messages rely on 
difficult-to-understand jargon and abbreviations. Expanding the 
character limit will reduce reliance on these potentially confusing 
terms and will allow emergency managers to provide their communities 
with information that is clear and effective at encouraging swift 
protective action. The value of this benefit will be increased when 
taken together with several of the improvements that we adopt in this 
Report and Order. For example, according to Jefferson Parish Emergency 
Management, the additional characters are necessary to adequately 
communicate critical information, such as shelter locations, that could 
prevent unnecessary loss of life and property damage. The additional 
characters will also support the inclusion of embedded references in 
Alert Messages, help facilitate message comprehension for individuals 
with disabilities, and will facilitate the translation of English-
language Alert Messages into the Spanish language. Further, our 
approach to the co-existence of 90- and 360-character Alert Messages 
has the additional benefit of ensuring that emergency managers will be 
able to simply initiate one 360-character Alert Message in instances 
where every second counts. In sum, this action will improve the 
likelihood that the public will understand and properly respond to WEA 
Alert Messages, increasing the likelihood that WEA will save lives.
2. Establishment of a New Alert Message Classification (Public Safety 
Messages)
    43. We amend Section 10.400 to create a fourth classification of 
Alert Message, ``Public Safety Message.'' The current rules only 
provides for three classes of WEA: (1) Presidential Alert; (2) Imminent 
Threat Alert; and (3) AMBER Alert. For an alert originator to issue an 
Alert Message using WEA, it must fall within one of these three 
classifications. Whereas we proposed to name this new Alert Message 
classification ``Emergency Government Information'' in the WEA NPRM, we 
agree with FEMA that it should be

[[Page 75717]]

named ``Public Safety Message'' because the title ``Emergency 
Government Information'' is ``vague and could be confusing,'' and 
because FEMA's recommended title more accurately describes the intended 
message content. We define a Public Safety Message as ``an essential 
public safety advisory that prescribes one or more actions likely to 
save lives and/or safeguard property,'' as we proposed. By defining 
Public Safety Messages in this way and by tailoring their use as we 
describe below, we strike an appropriate balance between some 
commenters' requests for discretion in the use of this new Alert 
Message classification, and others' warnings that Public Safety 
Messages may be overused and contribute to alert fatigue if they are 
defined in an over-inclusive manner.
    44. Public Safety Messages will only be eligible for issuance in 
connection with an Imminent Threat Alert, an AMBER Alert, or a 
Presidential Alert, as recommended by AT&T, CTIA and several emergency 
management agencies. We do not expand the definition of an 
``emergency'' situation in which it is appropriate to issue an Alert 
Message so as to avoid alert fatigue. Instead, we add a tool for 
emergency managers to better communicate with the public during and 
after emergencies, in a manner that naturally complements existing 
Alert Message classifications. We note that several commenters state 
that our new Alert Message classification should be eligible for 
issuance even in the absence of another Alert Message type. If we were 
to allow Public Safety Messages to stand alone, however, it would 
expand the definition of an ``emergency'' during which the issuance of 
a WEA Alert Message is appropriate, contrary to our reasoning in the 
WEA First Report and Order that the existing Alert Message 
classifications are sufficient to communicate information about ``bona 
fide emergencies.'' Further, we believe that a broader definition of an 
``emergency'' would risk increasing alert fatigue and consumer opt out.
    45. Any entity authorized to use WEA may initiate Public Safety 
Messages. Some commenters state that we should limit eligibility to 
issue Public Safety Messages to government entities. This may be 
because it would not make sense for non-governmental entities to issue 
Alert Messages under our proposed title, ``Emergency Government 
Information.'' Moreover, we agree with the majority of emergency 
managers treating the issue that all entities that have completed FEMA 
IPAWS alert originator authorization process may send Public Safety 
Messages. We thus defer to FEMA, as we have done since WEA's 
deployment, to determine the suitability of agencies as WEA alert 
originators.
    46. Within this framework, we agree with commenters that the 
development of best practices around the use of Public Safety Messages 
will help ensure that this new Alert Message classification is used 
appropriately. NYCEM offers a number of best practices that would help 
inform emergency managers' determination of whether it is appropriate 
to send a Public Safety Message. These best practices include answering 
the following questions prior to initiating a Public Safety Message: `` 
`Is your emergency operations center activated?' `Has a competent, 
authorized party declared a state of emergency and/or are emergency 
orders being issued?' `Is there a need for broad public action or 
awareness of a condition that is occurring or likely to occur?' `Will 
the message prevent public fear or serve to preserve critical public 
safety functions that are (or could be) overwhelmed (e.g., 
inappropriate use of 911)?' '' We encourage emergency management 
agencies to build upon these best practices and incorporate them into 
any alert origination training modules that they may develop for their 
staff. We expect that emergency managers will be best positioned to 
determine the specific situations in which it is appropriate to issue 
Public Safety Messages. We will monitor the use of this new Alert 
Message classification, and will take further action in the event it 
becomes evident that our adopted definition is either too narrow or too 
broad.
    47. We do not agree with commenters that, rather than create a new 
Alert Message classification, we should clarify that the types of Alert 
Messages that would be issued as Public Safety Messages can be issued 
as Imminent Threat Alerts. The term ``Imminent Threat Alert'' is 
defined in our rules as ``an alert that meets a minimum value for each 
of three CAP elements: Urgency, Severity, and Certainty.'' Public 
Safety Messages would not fit within this definition because the 
``severity'' and ``urgency'' elements of an Imminent Threat Alert 
describe the underlying imminently threatening emergency condition, 
whereas Public Safety Messages are intended to provide supplemental 
instructions about how to protect life or property during an AMBER 
Alert, Presidential Alert, or Imminent Threat Alert. We anticipate that 
this separate and broader applicability for Public Safety Messages will 
make them more versatile emergency management tools than if we were to 
limit such Alert Messages to the preexisting definition of an Imminent 
Threat Alert.
    48. In addition to tailoring the scope of emergency managers' use 
of Public Safety Messages, we also take steps to ensure that the public 
receives Public Safety Messages in an appropriate manner. Specifically, 
we amend Section 10.280 to specify that Participating CMS Providers 
shall provide for their subscribers to receive Public Safety Messages 
by default, and may provide their subscribers with the option to opt 
out of receiving Public Safety Messages if they decide that they no 
longer wish to receive them. We agree with the majority of commenters 
that the public should be opted in to receiving Public Safety Messages 
by default because the information that they provide is essential by 
definition. We agree with Hyper-Reach that treating Public Safety 
Messages in this manner ensures that a greater percentage of the public 
will receive the information that Public Safety Messages are intended 
to provide than would be possible if the public were opted out of 
receiving Public Safety Messages by default.
    49. Further, we allow, but do not require Participating CMS 
Providers to associate a unique attention signal or vibration cadence 
with Public Safety Messages. We agree with ATIS that requiring a new, 
unique attention signal and vibration cadence could create 
``significant technical impacts'' for currently deployed WEA-capable 
mobile devices. We also agree with FEMA, however, that ``the option to 
silence alerts that do not present an immediate threat'' may have value 
in reducing consumer opt out. By allowing Participating CMS Providers 
to offer this functionality, we allow the market to determine whether 
or not any costs that may be implicated by these personalization 
options are outweighed by the benefits. Similarly, we will allow, but 
do not require Participating CMS Providers to provide their customers 
with the ability to turn off Public Safety Messages during certain 
hours. For example, if customers want to receive Public Safety 
Messages, but only during the daytime, they may be given the option to 
suppress the presentation of Public Safety Messages during nighttime 
hours.
    50. APCO and many emergency management agencies support our 
creation of a new Alert Message classification because it ``will enable 
public safety alert originators to take advantage of WEA when helpful, 
as compared to less secure and less immediate methods they may be 
employing presently.'' We agree with commenters that adding a new Alert

[[Page 75718]]

Message classification will allow emergency managers to expand their 
``capabilities of informing the public . . . to keep the residents and 
community safe and aware of potential situations'' during and after 
emergencies in a manner that complements existing Alert Message 
classifications. We also agree with Peoria County EMA that a new 
classification of Alert Messages would allow emergency managers to 
include specific secondary information, like shelter locations and 
other helpful disaster recovery instructions in WEA for the first time. 
Finally, we agree with commenters and CSRIC IV that it is technically 
feasible to support the transmission of this new Alert Message 
classification provided the sufficient time that we allow industry to 
update relevant standards.
3. Supporting Embedded References and Multimedia
    51. We require Participating CMS Providers to support embedded 
references, as proposed. Accordingly, Participating CMS Providers must 
support the transmission of embedded URLs and phone numbers in WEA 
Alert Messages. This rule will become effective one year from the 
rules' publication in the Federal Register. Further, thirty days from 
the date the rules are published in the Federal Register, we allow 
voluntary, early adoption of embedded references through an industry-
established and industry-led pilot program. With respect to multimedia, 
we find that the inclusion of multimedia capability in WEA Alert 
Messages can result in tremendous public safety benefits. At the same 
time, however, we recognize that additional standards development 
remains necessary. Accordingly, we seek comment in the Further Notice 
regarding the establishment of an appropriate regulatory framework and 
timeframe for incorporating multimedia capability into WEA Alert 
Messages. In order to facilitate the development of standards for 
multimedia in the swiftest timeframe possible, we allow voluntary, 
early prototyping of certain multimedia capabilities in Public Safety 
Messages 30 months from the effective date of the rules, as described 
in greater detail below.
    52. Participating CMS Providers express concern that allowing 
embedded references in Alert Messages would risk network congestion, 
but the weight of the record supports our conclusion that this action 
will be more likely to reduce network loading than to increase it. The 
public already accesses public safety and other resources using the 
data network upon receipt of WEA messages that do not include embedded 
references. This behavior, known as ``milling,'' is a predictable 
public response to receiving an Alert Message, as members of the public 
will seek to confirm that the indicated emergency condition is indeed 
occurring, and to gather additional information not provided by the 
Alert Message to inform their response. Milling is considered 
undesirable from a public safety perspective because it increases the 
delay between receiving an Alert Message and taking an appropriate 
protective action, and from a network management perspective because it 
increases use of the data network. We agree with FEMA, the National 
Weather Service (NWS), NYCEM, Dennis Mileti, Professor Emeritus of 
Sociology at The University of Colorado, and the many emergency 
managers treating this issue that providing access to additional text 
and resources through URLs embedded in WEA Alert Messages could 
actually reduce network congestion by channeling the public's milling 
behavior through a single authoritative and comprehensive resource. 
This finding is also supported by the 2014 and 2015 START Reports, 
which state that providing the public with access to enhanced 
information in WEA Alert Messages can help to convince people to take 
protective action more quickly. Upon review of these studies and expert 
analyses, we are persuaded that embedded references are likely to 
reduce network load when included in Alert Messages.
    53. Finally, Participating CMS Providers who claim that embedded 
references will result in harmful network congestion have offered no 
network models, or any other form of rigorous network analysis, to 
support their proposition that allowing embedded references in WEA 
would cause or contribute to network congestion. While all network 
activity contributes to network congestion to some degree, the 
unsupported assertion of a risk of network congestion cannot be the 
sole basis for declining to adopt any measure that utilizes the data 
network, particularly a measure that has been demonstrated to have a 
statistically significant impact on WEA's ability to save lives. In the 
absence of data to the contrary, and in light of the significant record 
outlined above, we conclude that even if support for embedded 
references were to result in an incremental increase in data network 
usage in some cases, this increase would be insufficient to affect 
network performance during emergencies. Further, we observe that many 
WEA-capable mobile devices are set to offload network usage to Wi-Fi 
where available by default, and nearly all smartphones make this option 
available through the settings menu. Thus, many individuals who choose 
to click on an embedded reference will not use the mobile data network 
to access them at all.
    54. At the same time, however, we seek to ensure that Participating 
CMS Providers are able to assess the performance of their networks in 
real-world conditions and have an opportunity to make any necessary 
adjustments to accommodate embedded references. AT&T and CCA support 
``moving ahead with a time-limited trial on their wireless network for 
purposes of determining whether embedded URLs result in unmanageable 
congestion when included in Amber Alerts.'' We therefore allow 
voluntary, early adoption of embedded references through an industry-
established and industry-led pilot. In this regard, we allow 
Participating CMS Providers, if they choose, to ``pressure test'' the 
use of embedded references in Alert Messages in a sample of their 
network area or subscriber base, prior to full implementation. To this 
end, Participating CMS Providers may voluntarily coordinate with NCMEC, 
NWS, FEMA, and other stakeholders to accomplish a targeted, pilot 
deployment of embedded references in WEA in a particular geographic 
location, Alert Message classification, or to a particular subset of 
subscribers thirty days from the rule's publication in the Federal 
Register, and prior to the effective date of our rule requiring support 
for embedded references. We encourage all WEA alert initiators to work 
with Participating CMS Providers as this functionality is piloted and 
deployed in order to establish best practices for the inclusion of 
embedded references in Alert Messages, including the development of any 
network congestion mitigation strategies as appropriate. For example, 
stakeholders could voluntarily agree to constrain the amount of data 
that is made available through an embedded reference. We note that 
NCMEC already states that it intends to use a low-bandwidth (15kB or 
less), mobile-friendly version of their Web site (missingkids.com) in 
connection with their issuance of WEA AMBER Alerts. C Spire, FEMA and 
NWS have suggested that limiting the bandwidth requirements of embedded 
references will likely mitigate the risk of network congestion by 
limiting the amount of data that will need to be transferred. We defer 
to Participating CMS Providers to identify the specific terms and

[[Page 75719]]

timeframe of any such pilot deployment on their own initiative, as well 
as to undertake any necessary coordination, whether they do so 
individually or through a third-party coordinator of their choosing.
    55. CSRIC IV and FEMA agree that support for embedded references in 
alert origination software, IPAWS, the C-interface, and on mobile 
devices can be enabled through a straightforward process of updating 
standards and software. The successful use of embedded references will 
also require the development of appropriate best practices. 
Specifically, CSRIC IV observes that some individuals, particularly 
those with feature phones, may not have access to the data connection 
necessary to access content made available by URLs. We share this 
concern, and urge emergency managers to continue to convey the most 
important actionable information through the Alert Message text to 
ensure that all members of the public are able to receive that 
information, even if they are unable to access the URL. Commenters also 
express concern that inadequately prepared web servers or call centers 
may become overloaded as a result of mass access. NCMEC assures us that 
the AMBER Alerts Web site is capable of handling the expected increase 
in traffic, and we urge all alert originators to take appropriate steps 
to ensure the preparedness of their web hosting service before 
initiating an Alert Message that contains a URL. Further, we urge 
emergency managers to consider the capacity of their call centers or 
hotlines before embedding a phone number in an Alert Message.
    56. Finally, commenters express concern that allowing embedded 
references in Alert Messages may provide an opportunity for a malicious 
actor to compromise WEA. To the extent that Participating CMS Providers 
take part in this opportunity to pilot the use of embedded references 
in WEA Alert Messages, they should take appropriate steps, in concert 
with their pilot program partners, to ensure the integrity of the 
embedded references they transmit. We also encourage emergency 
management agencies to continue to work with FEMA and Participating CMS 
Providers to ensure the authenticity and integrity of every Alert 
Message they initiate. For example, NCMEC confirms that it already 
authenticates the content on every AMBER Alert on its Web site and that 
it will take measures to ensure the security of any URL that it might 
embed in a WEA AMBER Alert. We note that all WEA Alert Messages are 
protected with a CAP digital signature that effectively prevents 
malicious intrusion into Alert Message content in transit. We also note 
that industry has already begun to take steps to address any particular 
cybersecurity issues that may be implicated by allowing URLs to be 
included in WEA. Pursuant to the recommendation of CSRIC V, ATIS is 
completing a best practice standard to address potential threat vectors 
for WEA, including embedded references. We also encourage Participating 
CMS Providers and alert originators to work with FEMA to develop 
protocols that may help to mitigate potential risks.
    57. Commenters identify the inclusion of embedded references in 
Alert Messages as the most critical among all of our proposed 
improvements to WEA. NCMEC, in particular, has found this capability to 
be paramount to the success of AMBER Alerts. We agree that allowing 
emergency managers to embed URLs in Alert Messages empowers them to 
offer the public multimedia-capable, comprehensive emergency response 
resources. Including an authoritative URL will also likely lead to 
swifter community response by reducing the likelihood that consumers 
will seek to verify information through additional sources before 
taking action. We also agree with commenters that allowing URLs to be 
included in Alert Messages will improve WEA accessibility, could 
streamline the public's use of 911 services, and would provide alert 
originators with a method to ensure the public has access to up-to-date 
information.
    58. In addition to embedded URLs, allowing embedded phone numbers 
to be included in Alert Messages will offer the public significant 
public safety benefits. We agree with emergency managers, disability 
rights advocates and individuals that support including phone numbers 
in Alert Messages because integrating clickable phone numbers into WEA 
will provide an accessible method to quickly contact public safety 
officials. This capability may be particularly relevant to WEA AMBER 
Alerts where emergency management organizations will often establish 
special hotlines or call centers to receive reports about missing 
children that may be reached at a phone number other than 911 that may 
not be as commonly known. According to FEMA, providing the public with 
a direct emergency telephone number could hasten emergency response, 
and help to ensure that calls to 911 will not have to be rerouted. In 
sum, allowing embedded references to be included in WEA Alert Messages 
will dramatically improve WEA's effectiveness at moving the public to 
take protective action.
    59. With respect to multimedia, our decision to require support for 
embedded references in WEA Alert Messages is an important first step 
towards ensuring that WEA can be used to provide the public with 
actionable multimedia content during emergencies. The record shows that 
WEA's effectiveness depends on its ability to help the all members of 
the public to close the thought-action gap, and that including 
multimedia content in Alert Messages themselves would hasten protective 
action taking, reduce milling, and improve Alert Message accessibility. 
We therefore believe that support for multimedia content has the 
potential to provide tremendous public safety benefits and should be 
implemented as soon as technically feasible. Recognizing that further 
standards development remains necessary to integrate multimedia 
technology into WEA, we seek comment in the Further Notice on how best 
to implement the support of multimedia content in WEA Alert Messages in 
a reasonable timeframe. In particular, as described in greater detail 
in the Further Notice, we seek comment on the inclusion of thumbnail-
sized images, including hazard symbols, in Public Safety Messages on 4G 
LTE and future networks. In the interim, in order to facilitate the 
swift development of standards for supporting multimedia content in 
WEA, we allow the industry to participate in voluntary prototyping of 
this functionality in Public Safety Messages, in coordination with 
FEMA, emergency management agencies, and other relevant WEA 
stakeholders, as of the effective date of our rule requiring support 
for Public Safety Messages.
4. Supporting Spanish-Language Alert Messages
    60. We adopt a new Section 10.480 requiring Participating CMS 
Providers to support the transmission of Spanish-language Alert 
Messages. This, along with Section 10.500(e) of the Commission's WEA 
rules, which requires ``extraction of alert content in English or the 
subscriber's preferred language,'' will provide a framework to ensure 
that Spanish-language Alert Messages will be processed and displayed 
properly. Pursuant to this framework, we would expect that Spanish-
language WEA Alert Messages would be displayed on and only on WEA-
capable mobile devices where the subscriber has specified Spanish as 
their preferred language.
    61. The record demonstrates that it is technically feasible for 
Participating CMS Providers to support Spanish-language Alert Messages. 
ATIS has

[[Page 75720]]

developed standards that support the Alert Gateway, the CMS Provider 
network and mobile devices in receiving, transmitting and displaying 
Alert Messages in Spanish as well as English. We applaud ATIS for 
completing these standards, and encourage their continued efforts to 
standardize network functionality for Alert Messages in additional 
languages. According to Microsoft, multilingual alerting is already 
taking place in other countries.
    62. We agree with Participating CMS Providers that they should not 
be responsible for Alert Message translation. Rather, emergency 
managers are the entities best equipped to determine message content, 
including content in other languages. We recognize that some emergency 
management agencies report that they do not currently have the 
capability to initiate Alert Messages in languages other than English. 
Other emergency management agencies, such as Harris County OHSEM, state 
that they do have this capability, and ``NYCEM is in the final stages 
of preparing to offer . . . [its] 80 most common messages in the 13 
most commonly spoken languages in New York City, including American 
Sign Language,'' but those messages would have to be transmitted using 
alternative alerting platforms until WEA's multilingual alerting 
capabilities improve.
    63. We anticipate that requiring Participating CMS Providers to 
support Spanish-language Alert Messages where available will encourage 
other emergency management agencies to continue to develop their 
multilingual alerting capabilities. Indeed, many emergency managers 
state that they can use State/Local WEA Tests as a tool to exercise and 
improve their multilingual alerting capability over time with the help 
of voluntary community feedback. We do not agree with NYCEM and Clark 
County OEM, however, that we should facilitate Alert Message 
translation by requiring Participating CMS Providers to ``place a 
`translate' button/link'' in WEA Alert Messages. Rather, we agree with 
FEMA and the majority of emergency management agencies that automatic 
translation technologies that may reside on some mobile devices are 
currently too inaccurate to support emergency messaging.
    64. The overwhelming majority of emergency management agencies 
support expanding WEA's language capabilities because it will help them 
to reach members of their communities that are currently inaccessible 
to them. Emergency managers in areas with large Spanish-speaking 
populations, as well as those in areas popular among tourists, state 
that requiring support for Spanish-language WEA Alert Messages will be 
particularly beneficial. We also anticipate that this action will allow 
emergency managers to better facilitate the inclusion of Spanish-
speaking individuals, and particularly those with limited English 
proficiency, into their emergency response plans.

B. Alert Message Delivery

1. Logging Alert Messages at the Participating CMS Provider Alert 
Gateway
    65. We require Participating CMS Providers to log their receipt of 
Alert Messages at their Alert Gateway and to appropriately maintain 
those records for review. Specifically, we adopt a new Section 
10.320(g) that will require Participating CMS Providers' Alert Gateways 
to log Alert Messages as described below. Based on the record, we have 
modified the rules we proposed in the WEA NPRM in order to accommodate 
the varied approaches Participating CMS Providers take to alert 
logging.
     Logging Requirements. Participating CMS Providers are 
required to provide a mechanism to log the CMAC attributes of all Alert 
Messages received at the CMS Provider Alert Gateway, along with time 
stamps that verify when the message is received, and when it is 
retransmitted or rejected by the Participating CMS Provider Alert 
Gateway. If an alert is rejected, a Participating CMS Provider is 
required to log the specific error code generated by the rejection.
     Maintenance of Logs. Participating CMS providers are 
required to maintain a log of all active and cancelled Alert Messages 
for at least 12 months after receipt of such alert or cancellation.
     Availability of Logs. Participating CMS Providers are 
required to make their alert logs available to the Commission and FEMA 
upon request. Participating CMS Providers are also required to make 
alert logs available to emergency management agencies that offer 
confidentiality protection at least equal to that provided by the 
federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) upon request, but only 
insofar as those logs pertain to alerts initiated by that emergency 
management agency. We encourage, but do not require, Participating CMS 
Providers to work with alert origination software vendors to automate 
transmission of alert log data to emergency managers' alert origination 
software.
    66. We find that compliance with these minimal alert logging 
requirements will be technically feasible. Indeed, the approach we 
adopt today is a more flexible and less burdensome alternative to that 
which we proposed in the WEA NPRM, and allows Participating CMS 
Providers to take a variety of approaches to achieve compliance. T-
Mobile, Verizon, AT&T, Bluegrass Cellular and C Spire already log Alert 
Messages, and we anticipate that many other Participating CMS Providers 
may already be doing so as well, as part of their own system 
maintenance best practices. While Participating CMS Providers have 
taken different approaches to logging Alert Messages relative to the 
Trust Model recommended by CMSAAC, we anticipate that those 
Participating CMS Providers that already do log Alert Messages would 
log at least the CMAC attributes of all Alert Messages received, and be 
capable of sending error reports to the FEMA Alert Gateway consistent 
with those stipulated in the CMSAAC Report. We recognize Verizon's 
concern that requiring logging of information more granular than CMAC 
attributes and time stamps, or requiring alert logging at junctures in 
the WEA system other than the Alert Gateway would ``impose burdensome 
paperwork and IT-related requirements,'' but the requirements that we 
adopt today require only basic logging functionality at the Alert 
Gateway. We also recognize T-Mobile's concern that a uniform system of 
alert logging would be required in order to aptly compare Participating 
CMS Provider alert logs. We do not require Participating CMS Providers 
to take a uniform approach to alert logging today, only that they log 
the relevant information, maintain that information and make it 
available to appropriate parties. Further, the CMSAAC Report already 
stipulates a standard set of error code messages for communication 
between Participating CMS Provider and FEMA Alert Gateways. Finally, we 
recognize CTIA's concern about requiring alert logs to be maintained 
longer than necessary. By requiring alert logs to be maintained for 12 
months, rather than 36, as proposed, we reduce the burden that alert 
log maintenance may pose for Participating CMS Providers. CTIA observes 
that a shorter alert log maintenance timeframe would incentivize 
emergency management agencies to request alert log data after every 
test or alert out of concern that alert log data may be deleted if they 
delay. At the same time, however, necessitating emergency management 
agencies to request logging information after every test is burdensome 
for both CMS Providers

[[Page 75721]]

(who must produce this data) and the emergency managers (who must 
request the data). We believe that requiring that alert logs be 
retained for one year strikes an appropriate balance that will allow 
emergency management agencies to request reports less frequently, 
posing lesser burdens on Participating CMS Providers and emergency 
management agencies, without requiring providers to retain logs for an 
extended period of time. Further, circumstances may arise that warrant 
a retrospective examination of prior log data that represents a 
sufficient period of time to accurately identify and represent trends 
or anomalies.
    67. Alert logging has been a fundamental aspect of the WEA Trust 
Model. As we adopt changes to our rules that reflect our four years of 
experience with WEA and the underlying advancements of technology, it 
is time to ensure this fundamental component of system integrity is 
implemented. Authorized WEA alert originators agree that alert logs 
maintained at the Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateway have 
potential to increase their confidence that WEA will work as intended 
when needed. According to emergency managers, this increased confidence 
in system availability will encourage emergency managers that do not 
currently use WEA to become authorized. Alert logs are also necessary 
to establish a baseline for system integrity against which future 
iterations of WEA can be evaluated. Without records that can be used to 
describe the quality of system integrity, and the most common causes of 
message transmission failure, it will be difficult to evaluate how any 
changes to WEA that we may adopt subsequent to this Report and Order 
affect system integrity. We disagree with AT&T, Sprint and ATIS that 
the responsibility for alert logging properly belongs with FEMA IPAWS 
because FEMA has access to sufficient information to generate these 
reports. We find that alert logging is particularly important at 
Participating CMS Providers' Alert Gateway because even though FEMA 
IPAWS maintains an alert log at their Alert Gateway as well, that alert 
log alone could not capture and describe alert delivery across the C-
interface, which is arguably the most critical interface in the WEA 
architecture because it describes the connection between the public 
aspect of WEA (FEMA IPAWS) and the private aspect (CMS Providers). 
Additionally, the time stamps that we require Participating CMS 
Providers to log for Alert Message receipt and retransmission may 
represent a useful model for collecting latency data throughout the WEA 
system, as proposed in the Further Notice. As discussed in further 
detail below, developing a stronger understanding of the extent of 
alert delivery latency is also crucial to building emergency managers' 
confidence that the system will work as intended when needed. We 
anticipate that the alert log maintenance requirements that we adopt 
today will serve to ensure that alert logs are available when needed, 
both to the Commission and to emergency management agencies. Indeed, 
any alert logging requirement would be seriously undermined if those 
logs could be overwritten as soon as they were recorded, or if they 
could not be reviewed in appropriate circumstances. Further, we observe 
that the alert log maintenance requirements that we adopt today are 
consistent with CMSAAC's initial recommendations for the WEA system. 
Finally, we observe that implementing these CMSAAC-recommended 
procedures would be beneficial in harmonizing our WEA logging 
requirements with those already in place for EAS Participants.
2. Narrowing Geo-Targeting Requirements
    68. We narrow our WEA geo-targeting requirement from the current 
county-level standard to a polygon-level standard. Specifically, we 
amend Section 10.450 to state that a Participating CMS Provider must 
transmit any Alert Message that is specified by a geocode, circle, or 
polygon to an area that best approximates the specified geocode, 
circle, or polygon. While we initially proposed that Participating CMS 
Providers should transmit the Alert Message to an area ``no larger 
than'' the specified area, the record shows that implementation of such 
a standard, in the absence of geo-fencing, would routinely and 
predictably lead to under alerting. We acknowledge, as do many 
emergency managers, that cell broadcast technology has a limited 
capacity for accurate geo-targeting. The ``best approximates'' standard 
we adopt today, recommended by CSRIC IV and supported by Participating 
CMS Providers, requires Participating CMS Providers to leverage that 
technology to its fullest extent, given its limitations. At the same 
time, as we discuss below, we acknowledge that emergency managers need 
even more granular geo-targeting than the ``best approximates'' 
standard requires. We commend Participating CMS Providers for 
voluntarily geo-targeting Alert Messages more accurately than our rules 
require, where possible, in the years since WEA's deployment. We expect 
that Participating CMS Providers will continue to innovate in order to 
provide their subscribers with the best emergency alerting service it 
is feasible for them to offer. In this regard, we clarify that the geo-
targeting requirement we adopt today does not preclude Participating 
CMS Providers from leveraging the location-sensing capability of WEA-
capable mobile devices on their networks to geo-target Alert Message 
more accurately. As discussed below, the Commission will be adopting 
even more granular, handset-based, geo-targeting requirements. Our 
ultimate objective is for all Participating CMS Providers to match the 
target area provided by an alert originator.
    69. Some alert originators remain concerned that a ``best 
approximates'' standard will continue to result in over-alerting and 
subsequent consumer opt-out. NYCEM, for example, warns that the ``best 
approximates'' approach is vague and risks weakening our current geo-
targeting requirement. While we do not adopt specific parameters for 
what constitutes ``best approximates,'' we expect Participating CMS 
Providers to take reasonable efforts to leverage existing technology to 
its fullest extent, as noted above. We observe that in a recently 
adopted report, CSRIC V articulates expectations for cell broadcast-
based geo-targeting in rural, suburban and urban areas pursuant to a 
``best approximates'' approach. Specifically, in rural areas, CSRIC V 
expects that Participating CMS Providers would be able to approximate 
the target area with 30,000 meters of ``overshoot.'' In suburban areas, 
where cell broadcast facilities are likely to be more densely deployed, 
CSRIC V expects that geo-targeting would become more accurate, 
achieving an average overshoot of five miles. In urban areas, CSRIC V 
expects that geo-targeting would be more accurate still, averaging two 
miles of overshoot. We find that these values would satisfy reasonable 
efforts to ``best approximate'' the alert area, consistent with our 
requirement. In this regard, we believe we strike an appropriate 
balance between the limitations of Participating CMS Providers' current 
geo-targeting capabilities using cell broadcast, and WEA stakeholders' 
goal of sending WEA Alert Messages only to those members of the public 
who are at risk.
    70. We find that compliance with this geo-targeting requirement is 
technically feasible, and, in fact, every commenting CMS Provider 
except one states that they already use network-based cell

[[Page 75722]]

broadcast techniques, such as algorithm-based facility selection and 
cell sectorization, to geo-target Alert Messages to polygonal areas 
more granular than required by our current ``county-level'' 
requirement. In this sense, the rule we adopt today will require most 
Participating CMS Providers only to continue to employ the techniques 
that they have been deploying as a matter of best practice. Emergency 
managers such as the NWS have also already transitioned from county- to 
polygon-level geo-targeting, and express a need for WEA to keep pace 
with their ability to forecast with granularity the areas that will be 
impacted by weather events. We observe that in the event Participating 
CMS Providers are unable to practice polygon-level geo-targeting, we 
continue to allow Participating CMS Providers to transmit Alert 
Messages to an area not exceeding the propagation area of a single 
transmission site, as described in Section 10.450. We make conforming 
amendments to Section 10.450, however, to reflect the new geo-targeting 
standard that we adopt today and specify that ``[i]f, however, the 
Participating CMS Provider cannot broadcast the Alert Message to an 
area that best approximates the target area, a Participating CMS 
Provider may transmit the Alert Message to an area not larger than the 
propagation area of a single transmission site.''
    71. Participating CMS Providers' support for polygon-level geo-
targeting will produce significant public safety benefits. Relative to 
county-level geo-targeting, we expect that polygon-level geo-targeting 
will reduce over-alerting. When the public regularly receives alerts 
that do not apply to them, it creates alert fatigue, a driving factor 
behind consumers' decisions to opt out of receiving WEA Alert Messages. 
Further, the Houston Office of Public Safety and Homeland Security 
comments that ``[c]ounty-level WEA warning is not only inconvenient, 
but can be dangerous, as protective actions may vary depending on the 
proximity to the hazard.'' Under-alerting also poses severe public 
safety risks. According to Austin Homeland Security and Emergency 
Management, under a county-level geo-targeting standard, ``if there are 
no cell towers physically located in the warning area, the alert may 
not be transmitted at all by some carriers.'' This would be 
impermissible under the ``best approximates'' standard we adopt today. 
We also agree with Dennis Mileti, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at 
The University of Colorado, that with improved geo-targeting, ``it is 
quite likely that milling after a received WEA message would decrease 
since people would not need to determine if they are in the intended 
audience for the WEA.'' A reduction in milling is desirable because it 
reduces the delay between the time an Alert Message is received, and 
the time that the public will begin to take protective action. This 
reduction in milling behavior is also likely to benefit Participating 
CMS Providers by reducing network usage at times when their network is 
otherwise vulnerable to congestion due to the pending emergency event. 
Finally, we agree with BRETSA and Douglas County Emergency Management 
that more granular alerting will encourage emergency managers to become 
authorized as WEA alert originators. Simply put, Participating CMS 
Providers' support for polygon-level geo-targeting is an important step 
towards ensuring that everyone affected by an emergency has access to 
the emergency information provided by WEA, and contributes to the 
public perception that ``if you receive a WEA, take action, because it 
applies to you.''
    72. Our decision to require support for Participating CMS 
Providers' best approximation of the target area is an important step 
towards ensuring that WEA Alert Messages can be sent to only those 
individuals for whom they are relevant. The record shows that over-
alerting leads to alert fatigue, residents that ignore the Alert 
Messages, and public safety officials who refrain from using WEA in 
emergencies. The record also demonstrates consensus among emergency 
managers and Participating CMS Providers that we should clear a path 
forward for even more accurate geo-targeting, and that we should make 
progress towards the achievement of this goal by adopting an 
appropriate regulatory framework, and by continuing to collaborate with 
WEA stakeholders to establish standards and best practices, and to 
better understand technical issues. Recognizing that standards 
development and network modifications may be necessary to further 
improve geo-targeting, in the Further Notice we seek comment on any 
issues that remain to be addressed and on an appropriate timeframe for 
compliance.
    73. Finally, we take action to ensure that emergency alert 
originators better understand the manner in which their messages will 
be geo-targeted. In the WEA NPRM we sought comment on whether to 
require Participating CMS Providers to report data to alert originators 
about their provision of WEA along key performance metrics, including 
the accuracy of geo-targeting. In response, emergency managers observe 
that information about geo-targeting, in particular, would be helpful 
to inform their emergency response planning efforts by improving 
transparency and understanding of IPAWS/WEA among emergency managers 
authorized to use WEA. Commenters also indicate that this transparency, 
in turn, could increase WEA adoption by non-participating emergency 
managers. In light of the demonstrated benefits of improving emergency 
managers' understanding of the geographic area to which their WEA Alert 
Messages will be targeted, we require that, upon request from an 
emergency management agency, a Participating CMS Provider will disclose 
information regarding their capabilities for geo-targeting Alert 
Messages (e.g., whether they are using network-based technology to 
``best approximate'' the target area, or whether they are using device-
based geo-fencing). A Participating CMS Provider is only required to 
disclose this information to an emergency management agency insofar as 
it would pertain to Alert Messages initiated by that emergency 
management agency, and only so long as the emergency management agency 
offers confidentiality protection at least equal to that provided by 
the federal FOIA.
3. Presenting Alert Messages Concurrent With Other Device Activity
    74. We amend Section 10.510 to require WEA-capable mobile devices 
to present WEA Alert Messages as soon as they are received. We expect 
that devices engaged in active voice or data sessions on 4G-LTE 
networks will receive and prominently present WEA Alert Messages as 
soon as they are available, whereas WEA-capable mobile devices engaged 
in active voice or data sessions on legacy networks will not be able to 
receive available Alert Messages until the active voice or data session 
concludes. This approach is consistent with the ATIS/TIA Mobile Device 
Behavior Specification's treatment of Alert Message prioritization.
    75. We also allow Participating CMS Providers to provide their 
subscribers with the option to specify how the vibration cadence and 
attention signal should be presented when a WEA Alert Message is 
received during an active voice or data session in a manner that does 
not ``preempt'' it. Pursuant to the ATIS/TIA Mobile Device Behavior 
Specification, a ``momentary interruption of a voice call or active 
data session, such as a brief visual, audible and/or vibration 
indication that a CMAS message has been received, is not

[[Page 75723]]

considered preemption so long as the voice call/data session is not 
terminated and facilities to support that voice call or data session 
are not seized or released.'' We note that, according to ATIS, WEA-
capable mobile devices currently take a variety of approaches to the 
use of the vibration cadence and audio attention signal to make the 
user aware of the receipt of an Alert Message while he/she is engaged 
in other device activity, but, according to AT&T, it ``is possible to 
display the WEA alert in LTE VoLTE with the alert tone suppressed'' 
during active voice sessions. We encourage Participating CMS Providers 
to leverage this capability by providing their customers with the 
option to change the manner in which the common attention signal and 
vibration cadence are used during active voice and data sessions.
    76. This approach reflects the critical importance of a WEA Alert 
Message to its recipient, while also respecting that the Alert Message 
recipient may be using their mobile device to engage in a protective 
action that should not be interrupted, such as placing a call to 911, 
at the time the Alert Message is received. This approach is consistent 
with mobile device manufacturers' perspective that giving full priority 
to WEA Alert Messages during active voice calls ``would be distracting 
to the user,'' and that the WEA Alert Message should not disrupt the 
voice telephony capability of the device. It is also consistent with 
emergency managers' perspective that the readily recognizable common 
attention signal and vibration cadence should be presented to the 
public as quickly as technically possible, particularly during 
emergency situations where every second is critical. Conversely, we 
agree with commenters that a ``priority access'' requirement that would 
require ongoing voice and data sessions to be terminated by the receipt 
of a WEA Alert Message would not be in the public interest because it 
could result in the termination of other critical emergency 
communications.

C. Testing and Outreach

1. Supporting State/Local WEA Testing and Proficiency Training 
Exercises
    77. We require Participating CMS Providers to support State/Local 
WEA Tests, as proposed in the WEA NPRM. Specifically, we adopt a new 
Section 10.350(c) to require Participating CMS Providers to support the 
receipt of State/Local WEA Tests from the Federal Alert Gateway 
Administrator, and to distribute such tests to the desired test area in 
a manner consistent with the Commission's Alert Message requirements. 
We reason that requiring State/Local WEA Tests to be received and 
delivered in accordance with our Alert Message requirements will ensure 
that emergency managers have the opportunity to test in an environment 
that mirrors actual alert conditions and evaluate, for example, the 
accuracy with which various Participating CMS Providers geo-target 
Alert Messages in their community. Unlike other Alert Messages, 
however, consumers will not receive State/Local WEA Tests by default. 
Participating CMS Providers should provide their subscribers with the 
option to receive State/Local WEA Tests, and subscribers would have to 
affirmatively select this option in order to receive these test 
messages. According to CTIA, ``[t]his way, unwanted test messages will 
not disturb wireless consumers who could become confused or annoyed by 
test messages and opt out of WEA entirely.'' We also agree with Sprint 
that making State/Local WEA Tests available on an opt-in basis 
minimizes any risk of call center congestion. Another respect in which 
a State/Local WEA Test will differ from an actual Alert Message is that 
we require State/Local WEA Tests to include conspicuous language 
sufficient to make clear to the public that the message is, in fact, 
only a test. This will minimize any chance that such test messages 
might be misconstrued as actual Alert Messages.
    78. The 24-hour delivery window that currently applies to RMTs 
under Section 10.350(a)(2) will not apply to State/Local WEA Tests. 
Rather, we require that Participating CMS Providers transmit State/
Local WEA Tests immediately upon receipt. We agree with commenters that 
allowing Participating CMS Providers to delay delivery of State/Local 
WEA Tests would make it impossible for emergency managers to evaluate 
message delivery latency, and might result in individuals who do opt in 
to receive State/Local WEA Tests receiving them in the middle of the 
night, which is unlikely to promote participation. A Participating CMS 
Provider may not forgo or delay delivery of a State/Local WEA Test, 
except when the test is preempted by actual Alert Message traffic, or 
if an unforeseen condition in the Participating CMS Provider 
infrastructure precludes distribution of the State/Local WEA Test. If a 
Participating CMS Provider Gateway forgoes or delays a State/Local WEA 
Test for one of these reasons, it shall send a response code to the 
Federal Alert Gateway indicating the reason consistent with how we 
currently require Participating CMS Providers to handle forgone RMTs. 
We anticipate that allowing Participating CMS Providers to forgo 
transmittal of a State/Local WEA Test if it is preempted by actual 
alert traffic or if unforeseen conditions arise will ensure that State/
Local WEA Tests do not ``overwhelm wireless provides' limited 
resources, '' as stated by CTIA. We defer to emergency managers to 
determine how frequently testing is appropriate, given this constraint.
    79. We encourage emergency management agencies to engage in 
proficiency training exercises using this State/Local WEA Testing 
framework where appropriate. We agree with commenters that proficiency 
training exercises are a helpful and meaningful way for emergency 
managers to engage with alert and warning issues. Moreover, we agree 
with San Joaquin County OES that ``proficiency training is an essential 
element of verifying competency'' in the alert origination skill set 
necessary to issue effective WEA Alert Messages. We observe that our 
rules allow such proficiency training exercises now. We agree with APCO 
that alert origination software can be used to support internal 
proficiency training exercises where emergency managers wish to iterate 
alert origination best practices in a closed environment, and that the 
State/Local WEA Testing framework described above is sufficient to 
support cases where emergency management agencies find it appropriate 
to involve the public in their WEA exercises. We hope that proficiency 
training exercises will provide emergency management agencies with a 
method of generating their own WEA alert origination best practices, 
particularly with respect to the kinds of enhanced Alert Messages 
enabled by this proceeding (i.e., Alert Messages up to 360 characters 
in length that may include embedded references, may be issued in 
Spanish, and may be intended to supplement an already-issued Alert 
Message).
    80. We find that requiring Participating CMS Providers to support 
this State/Local WEA Testing framework is technically feasible, 
requiring only updates to software and standards in order to allow 
users the option to opt in to receive such tests, and that it will 
result in significant public safety benefits. Specifically, we agree 
with Clarion County OES and the Lexington Division of Emergency 
Management that while occasional system failures are probable, a solid 
testing and training platform such as this can ensure that failures can 
be

[[Page 75724]]

corrected during a period where no real emergency exists. We also agree 
with Calcasieu Parish Police Jury Office of Homeland Security and 
Emergency Preparedness that regular readiness testing and proficiency 
training are critical to maintaining WEA alert origination competency 
because ``[i]f you don't use it you lose it.'' According to FEMA, 
requiring Participating CMS Providers to support State/Local WEA 
Testing will improve WEA by providing confidence to the public that 
their handsets are capable of receiving an Alert Message from local 
emergency management agencies, and by rendering WEA suitable for use in 
coordinated public warning exercises, such as those required by the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission for local emergency preparedness 
programs. Further, we agree with Harris County Office of Homeland 
Security and Emergency Management that State/Local WEA Tests, in 
conjunction with targeted outreach efforts, may be useful to emergency 
managers as a tool to improve their competency at initiating Alert 
Messages in languages other than English. Importantly, emergency 
managers may also use State/Local WEA Tests to voluntarily collect and 
share information about geo-targeting, alert delivery latency, and 
other vital performance metrics. We encourage emergency managers and 
related entities to engage in extensive outreach to their respective 
communities in order to socialize the benefits of public participation 
in State/Local WEA Tests, and otherwise to raise public awareness about 
the benefits of receiving WEA messages, including through the use of 
PSAs.
2. Testing the NCE Public Television C-Interface Back-up
    81. We agree with the public broadcasting and NCE commenters that 
in order to be fully effective and reflective of WEA system needs, a 
test of the public television broadcast-based backup to the C-interface 
should be implemented as an end-to-end test from the IPAWS to the CMS 
Provider Gateways. Accordingly, we amend our rules to make it clear 
that periodic C interface testing must include the testing of its 
public television broadcast-based backup. Pursuant to this framework, 
FEMA would initiate a test of the broadcast-based C-interface backup by 
sending a test message through that infrastructure to the CMS Provider 
Alert Gateway, which would respond by returning an acknowledgement of 
receipt of the test message to the FEMA Gateway. This approach ensures 
reliable continuity between FEMA and Participating CMS Providers, even 
during a disaster in which internet connectivity may be lost. We defer 
to FEMA as the IPAWS and Federal Alert Gateway administrator to 
determine the periodicity of these tests in conversation with 
Participating CMS Providers.
    82. By requiring CMS Providers to participate in periodic testing 
of the broadcast-based backup to the C-interface, ``we develop and 
implement the appropriate safeguards to ensure delivery of critical 
infrastructure services,'' as recommended by the CSRIC v. WEA Security 
Report. PBS, APTS, and CPB agree that this approach to testing the C-
interface backup presents NCE public broadcasting entities with no 
additional cost burdens. We agree with PBS, APTS, and CPB that this 
rule will require no ``material intervention'' by such stations because 
their receipt and retransmission of test messages will be entirely 
automated, and will use equipment already installed at their 
facilities. Accordingly, we anticipate that stations in compliance with 
our rules today will have to take no additional steps in order to 
comply with this new testing requirement.
3. Facilitating WEA PSAs
    83. We amend Sections 11.45 and 10.520 to allow federal, state and 
local, tribal and territorial entities, as well as non-governmental 
organizations (NGOs) in coordination with such entities, to use the 
attention signal common to EAS and WEA to raise public awareness about 
WEA. WEA PSAs that use the WEA attention signal must make clear that it 
is being used in the context of the PSA, ``and for the purpose of 
educating the viewing or listening public about the functions of their 
WEA-capable mobile devices and the WEA program,'' including by 
explicitly stating that the WEA attention signal is being used in the 
context of a PSA for the purpose of educating the public about WEA.
    84. We agree with commenters that facilitating federal, state, 
local, tribal and territorial governments' issuance of WEA PSAs, as 
proposed, is in the public interest, and that the utility of WEA PSAs 
will only be augmented by allowing NGOs to produce them in coordination 
with governmental entities by promoting effective community 
partnership. Specifically, WEA PSAs can be effective tools to raise 
public awareness about, and promote positive perceptions of WEA, which 
may reduce consumer opt-out and reduce milling. We note the PSA 
campaign of Minnesota Emergency, Community Health and Outreach (ECHO), 
a program and service of Twin Cities Public Television, as an example 
of how governmental entities can partner with NGOs to raise community 
awareness about the significance of the common alerting attention 
signal for EAS and WEA. We also note that WEA PSAs have become a 
critical part of FEMA's Ready campaign that has ``shown that it can 
enhance the public's understanding of how the WEA functions and 
increase the public's benefits from the WEA and thereby benefit public 
safety generally.'' We agree with commenters that the issuance of WEA 
PSAs is particularly appropriate in the context of the rules we adopt 
today. For example, with respect to increasing the maximum WEA 
character limit, FEMA notes that it will ``need to . . . conduct 
additional public information efforts to inform people of the new 
format of Alert Messages they may receive on their cellular phones.'' 
Additionally, we anticipate that PSAs will be an effective method to 
acclimate the public to the fact that they may receive supplemental 
instructions about how to respond to an emergency through the newly 
adopted WEA Public Safety Message classification. Indeed, we commit to 
work with WEA stakeholders to develop community outreach plans and 
raise public awareness about each of the WEA enhancements made possible 
by this Report and Order. Moreover, we agree with Professor Denis 
Mileti, Professor Emeritus, University of Colorado, that WEA PSAs can 
reduce milling by ``build[ing] the reputation of the WEA system with 
the American public,'' making it a more credible and authoritative 
single resource for emergency information.

D. Compliance Timeframes

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Rule amendment           Compliance timeframe   Rule(s) affected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increasing Maximum WEA          Within 30 months of     47 CFR 10.430.
 Character Length.               the rule's
                                 publication in the
                                 Federal Register.
Classifying Public Safety       Within 30 months of     47 CFR
 Messages.                       the rules'              10.280(a), 47
                                 publication in the      CFR 10.400(d),
                                 Federal Register.       47 CFR 10.410.

[[Page 75725]]

 
Supporting Embedded References  The removal of our      47 CFR 10.440,
 and Multimedia.                 prohibition on the      47 CFR 10.441.
                                 use of embedded
                                 references is
                                 effective 30 days
                                 from the rules'
                                 publication in the
                                 Federal Register Our
                                 requirement to
                                 support embedded
                                 references is
                                 effective one year
                                 from the rules'
                                 publication in the
                                 Federal Register.
Spanish-language Alerting.....  Within 2 years of the   47 CFR 10.480.
                                 rule's publication in
                                 the Federal Register.
Alert Logging.................  Within 60 days of       47 CFR
                                 publication in the      10.320(g).
                                 Federal Register of a
                                 notice announcing the
                                 approval by the
                                 Office of Management
                                 and Budget of the
                                 modified information
                                 collection
                                 requirements.
WEA Geo-targeting.............  Within 60 days of the   47 CFR 10.450.
                                 rule's publication in
                                 the Federal Register.
WEA Presentation..............  Within 30 months of     47 CFR 10.510.
                                 the rule's
                                 publication in the
                                 Federal Register.
State/Local WEA Testing.......  Within 30 months of     47 CFR
                                 the rule's              10.350(c).
                                 publication in the
                                 Federal Register.
C-interface Backup Testing....  Within 30 days of the   47 CFR
                                 rule's publication in   10.350(b).
                                 the Federal Register.
WEA PSAs......................  Within 30 days of the   47 CFR
                                 rule's publication in   10.520(d).
                                 the Federal Register.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    85. Therefore, nationwide Participating CMS Providers' subscribers 
should have greater confidence that WEA Alert Messages they receive are 
intended for them as of February, 2017. Participating CMS Providers' 
subscribers should expect to be able to receive Alert Messages in 
Spanish by 2019. Then, by June 2019, they should expect to see 360-
character maximum alerts on 4G LTE and future networks, Public Safety 
Messages, Alert Messages that contain embedded references, and State/
Local WEA Tests presented as soon as they are received. While we expect 
that updates to our WEA PSA, C-interface backup testing, and alert 
logging rules will produce significant public safety benefits, as 
described below, we do not anticipate that consumers will immediately 
notice a change in service due to these updates.

II. Ordering Clauses

    86. Accordingly, it is ordered, 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, 301(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 544(g), 606, and 615, 
as well as by sections 602(a), (b), (c), (f), 603, 604 and 606 of the 
WARN Act, 47 U.S.C. 1202(a), (b), (c), (f), 1203, 1204 and 1206, that 
the WEA Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 
PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94 is hereby adopted.
    87. It is further ordered that the Commission's rules are hereby 
amended as set forth in Appendix A.
    88. It is further ordered that the rules adopted herein will become 
effective as described herein,\1\ including those rules and 
requirements which contain new or modified information collection 
requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act that will become 
effective after publication in the Federal Register of a notice 
announcing such approval and the relevant effective date.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See supra Section III.D (Compliance Timeframes.)
    \2\ Public Law 104-13, 109 Stat. 163 (May 22, 1995), codified at 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    89. Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, 
shall send a copy of the WEA Report and Order and Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, including the Final and Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.
    The rules in this part are issued pursuant to the authority 
contained in the Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act, Title VI of 
the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006, Public Law 
109-347, Titles I through III of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, and Executive Order 13407 of June 26, 2006, Public Alert and 
Warning System, 71 FR 36975 (June 28, 2006).

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 10

    Communications common carriers, Emergency alerting.

47 CFR Part 11

    Radio, Television, Emergency alerting.

Federal Communications Commission.
Gloria J. Miles,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.

Final Rules

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

PART 10--WIRELESS EMERGENCY ALERTS

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

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (o), 201, 303(r), 403, and 
606; sections 602(a), (b), (c), (f), 603, 604 and 606 of Pub. L. 
109-347, 120 Stat. 1884.


0
2. Effective May 1, 2019, Sec.  10.280 is amended by revising paragraph 
(a) to read as follows:


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

    (a) CMS providers may provide their subscribers with the option to 
opt out of the ``Child Abduction Emergency/AMBER Alert,'' ``Imminent 
Threat Alert'' and ``Public Safety Message'' classes of Alert Messages.
* * * * *

0
3. Effective on the date to be announced by the Commission in a 
document published in the Federal Register, Sec.  10.320 is amended by 
adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  10.320   Provider alert gateway requirements.

* * * * *
    (g) Alert logging. The CMS provider gateway must perform the 
following functions:
    (1) Logging requirements. Log the CMAC attributes of all Alert 
Messages received at the CMS Provider Alert Gateway, including time 
stamps that verify when the message is received, and when it is 
retransmitted or rejected by the Participating CMS Provider Alert 
Gateway. If an Alert Message is rejected, a Participating CMS Provider 
is required to log the specific error code generated by the rejection.
    (2) Maintenance of logs. Participating CMS Providers are required 
to maintain a log of all active and cancelled Alert Messages for at 
least 12 months after receipt of such alert or cancellation.
    (3) Availability of logs. Participating CMS Providers are required 
to make their alert logs available to the Commission and FEMA upon 
request. Participating CMS Providers are also required to make alert 
logs available to emergency management agencies that offer 
confidentiality protection at least

[[Page 75726]]

equal to that provided by the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 
upon request, but only insofar as those logs pertain to Alert Messages 
initiated by that emergency management agency.

0
4. Effective December 1, 2016, Sec.  10.350 is amended by revising the 
section heading, introductory text, and paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  10.350   WEA testing and proficiency training requirements.

    This section specifies the testing that is required of 
Participating CMS Providers.
* * * * *
    (b) Periodic C interface testing. In addition to the required 
monthly tests, a Participating CMS Provider must participate in 
periodic testing of the interfaces between the Federal Alert Gateway 
and its CMS Provider Gateway, including the public television 
broadcast-based backup to the C-interface. This periodic interface 
testing is not intended to test the CMS Provider's infrastructure nor 
the mobile devices but rather is required to ensure the availability/
viability of both gateway functions. Each CMS Provider Gateway shall 
send an acknowledgement to the Federal Alert Gateway upon receipt of 
such interface test messages. Real event codes or Alert Messages shall 
not be used for this periodic interface testing.
* * * * *

0
5. Effective May 1, 2019, Sec.  10.350 is amended by adding paragraph 
(c) to read as follows:


Sec.  10.350   WEA testing and proficiency training requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) State/Local WEA Testing. A Participating CMS Provider must 
support State/Local WEA Tests in a manner that complies with the Alert 
Message Requirements specified in Subpart D.
    (1) A Participating CMS Provider's Gateway shall support the 
ability to receive a State/Local WEA Test message initiated by the 
Federal Alert Gateway Administrator.
    (2) A Participating CMS Provider shall immediately transmit a 
State/Local WEA Test to the geographic area specified by the alert 
originator.
    (3) A Participating CMS Provider may forego a State/Local WEA Test 
if the State/Local WEA Test is pre-empted by actual alert traffic or if 
an unforeseen condition in the CMS Provider infrastructure precludes 
distribution of the State/Local WEA Test. If a Participating CMS 
Provider Gateway forgoes a State/Local WEA Test, it shall send a 
response code to the Federal Alert Gateway indicating the reason.
    (4) Participating CMS Providers shall provide their subscribers 
with the option to opt in to receive State/Local WEA Tests.

0
6. Effective May 1, 2019, Sec.  10.400 is amended by revising the 
introductory text and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  10.400   Classification.

    A Participating CMS Provider is required to receive and transmit 
four classes of Alert Messages: Presidential Alert; Imminent Threat 
Alert; Child Abduction Emergency/AMBER Alert; and Public Safety 
Message.
* * * * *
    (d) Public Safety Message. A Public Safety Message is an essential 
public safety advisory that prescribes one or more actions likely to 
save lives and/or safeguard property during an emergency. A Public 
Safety Message may only be issued in connection with an Alert Message 
classified in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of this section.

0
7. Effective May 1, 2019, Sec.  10.410 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  10.410   Prioritization.

    A Participating CMS Provider is required to transmit Presidential 
Alerts upon receipt. Presidential Alerts preempt all other Alert 
Messages. A Participating CMS Provider is required to transmit Imminent 
Threat Alerts, AMBER Alerts and Public Safety Messages on a first in-
first out (FIFO) basis.

0
8. Effective May 1, 2019, Sec.  10.430 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  10.430   Character limit.

    A Participating CMS Provider must support transmission of an Alert 
Message that contains a maximum of 360 characters of alphanumeric text. 
If, however, some or all of a Participating CMS Provider's network 
infrastructure is technically incapable of supporting the transmission 
of a 360-character maximum Alert Message, then that Participating CMS 
Provider must support transmission of an Alert Message that contains a 
maximum of 90 characters of alphanumeric text on and only on those 
elements of its network incapable of supporting a 360 character Alert 
Message.


Sec.  10.440  [Removed].

0
9. Effective December 1, 2016, remove Sec.  10.440.

0
10. Effective November 1, 2017, Sec.  10.441 is added to read as 
follows:


Sec.  10.441   Embedded references.

    Participating CMS Providers are required to support Alert Messages 
that include an embedded Uniform Resource Locator (URL), which is a 
reference (an address) to a resource on the Internet, or an embedded 
telephone number.

0
11. Effective January 3, 2017, Sec.  10.450 is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  10.450   Geographic targeting.

    This section establishes minimum requirements for the geographic 
targeting of Alert Messages.
    (a) A Participating CMS Provider will determine which of its 
network facilities, elements, and locations will be used to 
geographically target Alert Messages. A Participating CMS Provider must 
transmit any Alert Message that is specified by a geocode, circle, or 
polygon to an area that best approximates the specified geocode, 
circle, or polygon. If, however, the Participating CMS Provider cannot 
broadcast the Alert Message to an area that best approximates the 
specified geocode, circle, or polygon, a Participating CMS Provider may 
transmit an Alert Message to an area not larger than the propagation 
area of a single transmission site.
    (b) Upon request from an emergency management agency, a 
Participating CMS Provider will disclose information regarding their 
capabilities for geo-targeting Alert Messages. A Participating CMS 
Provider is only required to disclose this information to an emergency 
management agency insofar as it would pertain to Alert Messages 
initiated by that emergency management agency, and only so long as the 
emergency management agency offers confidentiality protection at least 
equal to that provided by the federal FOIA.

0
12. Effective November 1, 2018, Sec.  10.480 is added to subpart D to 
read as follows:


Sec.  10.480   Language support.

    Participating CMS Providers are required to transmit WEA Alert 
Messages that are issued in the Spanish language or that contain 
Spanish-language characters.

0
13. Effective May 1, 2019, Sec.  10.510 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  10.510   Call preemption prohibition.

    Devices marketed for public use under part 10 must present an Alert 
Message as soon as they receive it, but may not enable an Alert Message 
to preempt an active voice or data session. If a mobile device receives 
a WEA Alert Message during an active voice or data session, the user 
may be given the option to control how the Alert Message is presented 
on the mobile device with respect to the use of the common

[[Page 75727]]

vibration cadence and audio attention signal.

0
14. Effective December 1, 2016, Sec.  10.520 is amended by revising 
paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  10.520   Common audio attention signal.

* * * * *
    (d) No person may transmit or cause to transmit the WEA common 
audio attention signal, or a recording or simulation thereof, in any 
circumstance other than in an actual National, State or Local Area 
emergency or authorized test, except as designed and used for Public 
Service Announcements (PSAs) by federal, state, local, tribal and 
territorial entities, and non-governmental organizations in 
coordination with those entities, to raise public awareness about 
emergency alerting, provided that the entity presents the PSA in a non-
misleading manner, including by explicitly stating that the emergency 
alerting attention signal is being used in the context of a PSA for the 
purpose of educating the viewing or listening public about emergency 
alerting.
* * * * *

PART 11--EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM

0
15. 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
16. Effective December 1, 2016, Sec.  11.45 is revised to read as 
follows:


Sec.  11.45   Prohibition of false or deceptive EAS transmissions.

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

[FR Doc. 2016-26120 Filed 10-31-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P