Wireless Emergency Alerts; Amendments to the Commission's Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System, 78539-78560 [2016-26901]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 8, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78539-78560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26901]


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

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 the Commission's Rules 
Regarding the Emergency Alert System

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document proposes revisions to Wireless Emergency Alert 
(WEA) rules to improve WEA, leveraging advancements in technology to 
improve WEA's multimedia, multilingual and geo-targeting capabilities, 
as well as lessons learned from alert originators' experience since WEA 
was initially deployed. This document also proposes steps to improve 
the availability of information about WEA, both to empower consumers to 
make informed choices about the emergency information that they will 
receive, as well as to promote transparency for emergency management 
agencies and other WEA stakeholders. By this action, the Commission 
affords interested parties an opportunity to participate more fully in 
WEA, and to enhance the utility of WEA as an alerting tool.

DATES: Comments are due on or before December 8, 2016 and reply 
comments are due on or before January 9, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 15-91, 
P.S. Docket No. 15-94, FCC 16-127, by any of the following methods:

[[Page 78540]]

     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web site: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

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 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 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).

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment on 
potential new or revised proposed information collection requirements. 
If the Commission adopts any new or revised final information 
collection requirements when the final rules are adopted, the 
Commission will publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting 
further comments from the public on the final information collection 
requirements, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 
Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In addition, pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it 
might ``further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), we have prepared this present Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules 
proposed in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM). Written 
public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified 
as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for 
comments on the FNPRM. We will send a copy of the FNPRM, including this 
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration (SBA). In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries 
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

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

    2. With this FNPRM, we take another step towards strengthening 
Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) by proposing revisions to our rules to 
empower alert originators to participate more fully in WEA, to empower 
consumers to make more informed decisions about the kind of WEA service 
that their CMS Provider offers, and to enhance the utility of WEA as an 
alerting tool. Our proposals fall into four categories, ensuring the 
provision of effective WEA Alert Messages, incorporating future 
technical advancements to improve WEA, developing consumer education 
tools, and improving WEA transparency.
    3. Specifically, with respect to ensuring the provision of 
effective WEA Alert Messages, we propose to establish clear definitions 
and requirements for CMS Providers participating in WEA in whole and in 
part. We ensure the provision of effective WEA Alert Messages by 
removing language from our rules that may contribute to emergency 
management agencies' uncertainty about WEA's quality of service. We 
require Participating CMS Providers to offer subscribers a method of 
accessing pending Alert Messages. We propose to require that 
earthquake-related alerts be delivered to the public in fewer than 
three seconds. We also seek comment on how to leverage the improvements 
to WEA that we adopt today to continue to improve WEA's value during 
disaster relief efforts. With respect to incorporating future technical 
advancements into WEA, we seek comment on and propose of a number of 
technological innovations that could expand WEA's multimedia, 
multilingual and geo-targeting capabilities, including innovations on 
5G networks. With respect to developing consumer education tools, we 
propose to promote more informed consumer choice through improvements 
to the point-of-sale notifications for Participating CMS Providers' 
mobile devices, and to the WEA interface. Finally, we propose to 
improve WEA transparency through requiring Participating CMS Providers 
to disclose their performance along three key metrics, latency, geo-
targeting, and reliability, and we seek comment on whether additional 
alert logging could be instrumental in allowing them to collect 
relevant data.
    4. This FNPRM represents another step towards achieving one of our 
highest priorities--``to ensure that all Americans have the capability 
to receive timely and accurate alerts, warnings and critical 
information regarding disasters and other emergencies.'' This FNPRM 
also is consistent with our obligation under Executive Order 13407 to 
``adopt rules to ensure that communications systems have the capacity 
to transmit alerts and warnings to the public as part of the public 
alert and warning system,'' and our mandate under the Communications 
Act to promote the safety of life and property through the use of wire 
and radio communication. We take these steps as part of an overarching 
strategy to advance the Nation's alerting capability, which includes 
both WEA and the Emergency Alert System (EAS), to keep pace with 
evolving technologies and to empower communities to initiate life-
saving alerts.

B. Legal Basis

    5. The proposed action in this WEA Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking is authorized on the basis of 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.

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

    6. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. 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

[[Page 78541]]

``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.
    7. 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, 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.
    8. 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 1,000 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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

[[Page 78542]]

licenses auctioned were sold to three bidders. One of these bidders was 
a small business that won a total of two licenses.
    14. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The Commission previously adopted 
criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of 
determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding 
credits. The Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years. 
A ``very small business'' is defined as an entity that, together with 
its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues 
that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years. 
Additionally, the lower 700 MHz Service had a third category of small 
business status for Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA) 
licenses--``entrepreneur''--which is defined as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding 
three years. The SBA approved these small size standards. An auction of 
740 licenses (one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one license 
in each of the six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)) commenced on August 
27, 2002, and closed on September 18, 2002. Of the 740 licenses 
available for auction, 484 licenses were won by 102 winning bidders. 
Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed small business, very small 
business or entrepreneur status and won a total of 329 licenses. A 
second auction commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on June 13, 2003, and 
included 256 licenses: 5 EAG licenses and 476 Cellular Market Area 
licenses. Seventeen winning bidders claimed small or very small 
business status and won 60 licenses, and nine winning bidders claimed 
entrepreneur status and won 154 licenses. On July 26, 2005, the 
Commission completed an auction of 5 licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band 
(Auction No. 60). There were three winning bidders for five licenses. 
All three winning bidders claimed small business status.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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

[[Page 78543]]

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 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.
    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    23. 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.
    24. 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.
    25. 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.
    26. 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

[[Page 78544]]

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

    27. This FNPRM proposes new or modified reporting or recordkeeping 
requirements. We seek comment on whether the reporting, recordkeeping, 
and other compliance requirements we adopt today should affect all 
entities in the same manner, or whether we should make special 
accommodations for non-nationwide entities.
    28. We propose to require Participating CMS Providers, to gather, 
analyze and report on system performance metrics such as the geo-
targeting, latency, and availability and reliability. We propose to 
require Participating CMS Providers to offer potential subscribers 
notice at the point of sale that more accurately reflects the extent to 
which they will offer WEA. We seek comment on whether Participating CMS 
Providers should be required to update their election to participate in 
WEA. We seek comment on the costs of compliance.

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

    29. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in developing its approach, 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 and reporting requirements under the rule for such 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 
such small entities.''
    30. As noted in paragraph 1 above, this FNPRM initiates a 
rulemaking to update the rules governing the WEA system by which 
Participating CMS Providers may elect to transmit emergency alerts to 
the public, a goal mandated by the WARN Act and consistent with the 
Commission's obligation to protect the lives and property of the 
public. Primarily, this FNPRM seeks comment on four general categories 
of proposed rule changes: Ensuring the provision of effective WEA Alert 
Messages, incorporating future technical advancements to improve WEA, 
developing consumer education tools, and improving WEA transparency.
    31. With respect to ensuring the provision of effective WEA Alert 
Messages, we seek comment on whether there are any particular 
considerations that we should take into account when defining the 
nature of a Participating CMS Provider's participation in WEA due to 
the electing entity's size. We also seek comment on whether non-
nationwide Participating CMS Providers require the regulatory 
flexibility implicated by certain provisions of Sections 10.330 and 
10.500, and if so, whether we should retain the flexibility that the 
current language of those rules may provide only as applicable to them. 
With respect to incorporating technical advancements to improve WEA, we 
seek comment on whether support for additional languages would be 
unduly burdensome for non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers, and 
if so, whether there are steps that we can take to accommodate these 
entities to make compliance more feasible. We also seek comment on 
whether alternative geo-targeting standards would be appropriate for 
non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers. With respect to developing 
consumer education tools, we seek comment on whether we should give 
special consideration to non-nationwide entities if we were to require 
Participating CMS Providers to offer a consistent menu of opt-out 
choices, and on whether non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers 
should be required to make more lenient disclosures at the point of 
sale. Finally, with respect to improving WEA transparency, we propose 
the use of performance, rather than design standards to collect 
information relevant to our analysis of WEA's system integrity. We also 
seek comment on whether it would be appropriate to adopt an 
alternative, less frequent reporting requirement for non-nationwide 
Participating CMS Providers, and on whether such Participating CMS 
Providers should also be allowed to collect less granular data on 
system performance in order to reduce any cost burdens entailed by 
these proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

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

    32. None.

II. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Ensuring the Provision of Effective WEA Alert Messages

1. Defining the Modes of Participation in WEA
a. Discussion
    33. We propose to adopt definitions for participation in WEA ``in 
whole'' and ``in part'' based on the attestations that CMS Providers 
are required to offer in their election letters, and on the 
notifications that CMS Providers offer potential subscribers at the 
point of sale. Specifically, we propose to define CMS Providers 
participating in WEA ``in whole'' as CMS Providers that have agreed to 
transmit WEA Alert Messages in a manner consistent with the technical 
standards, protocols, procedures, and other technical requirements 
implemented by the Commission in the entirety of their geographic 
service area and to all mobile devices on their network. Similarly, we 
propose to define CMS Providers participating in WEA ``in part'' as CMS 
Providers that have agreed to transmit WEA Alert Messages in a manner 
consistent with the technical standards, protocols, procedures, and 
other technical requirements implemented by the Commission in some, if 
not all of their geographic service area, and to some, if not all of 
the mobile devices on their network. We seek comment on these proposed 
definitions for CMS Provider participation in WEA. What are the 
technical prerequisites to offering WEA in a geographic area where a 
commercial mobile service is available? What factors lead Participating 
CMS Providers to offer WEA in a geographic area smaller than the area 
in which they offer commercial mobile service, or to fewer than all 
mobile devices on their network?
    34. We also seek comment on our proposal to incorporate the extent 
to which CMS Providers offer WEA on mobile devices on their networks 
into our definitions of participation in whole and in part. Bluegrass 
Cellular states that ``participation in whole has no bearing on the 
number or percentage of devices on the network that are WEA capable.'' 
If this were the case, however, could a CMS Provider that offers WEA on 
only one mobile device qualify as participating in whole? Would this be 
consistent with a common-sense interpretation of ``in whole'' 
participation, or with our requirement that only CMS Providers 
participating in part must disclose at the point of sale

[[Page 78545]]

that WEA may not be available on all devices on this provider's 
network?
    35. If participation in WEA in whole entails offering WEA on all 
mobile devices on the network, we seek comment on how ``mobile 
devices'' should be defined. For purposes of WEA, Section 10.10(j) 
defines ``mobile devices'' as ``[t]he subscriber equipment generally 
offered by CMS providers that supports the distribution of WEA Alert 
Messages.'' This definition would encompass any mobile device connected 
to a Participating CMS Providers' network that is capable of receiving 
WEA Alert Messages, including but not limited to LTE-enabled and future 
generation tablet computers, and phablets. The record shows, however, 
that there is significant variation among Participating CMS Providers 
with respect to mobile devices on their networks that support WEA 
capability. For example, the Department of Homeland Security's WEA 
Mobile Penetration Strategy Report shows that WEA is already available 
on some tablets, including iPads running iOS 6 or greater, and 
emergency managers agree that WEA should be made available to the 
public ``by all available means,'' including on tablets. On the other 
hand, CTIA suggests that while 4G-LTE tablets can be WEA capable, Wi-
Fi-only tablets cannot, and states that ``even if there are LTE-enabled 
tablets with the capability to receive cell broadcast messages through 
the network infrastructure, additional mobile device behavior standards 
and device development are required to support the handling and 
presentation of WEA messages.'' AT&T simply concludes that they ``do 
not believe customers could view WEA messages on their existing 
tablets.'' We seek comment on the technical characteristics needed in a 
device to allow it to receive WEA Alert Messages. Would it be advisable 
for us to revise our definition of the term ``mobile device'' in our 
Part 10 rules to reflect the technical prerequisites to supporting WEA 
service? Finally, we seek comment on whether there are any barriers 
that may prevent the delivery of WEA to the full range of consumer 
devices for which Participating CMS Providers may wish to provide 
emergency alerts, and which could fall within the scope of the WARN 
Act.
    36. In addition to defining participation in WEA in whole and in 
part with reference to the extent to which Participating CMS Providers 
offer WEA in the entirety of their geographic service area and to all 
mobile devices operating on their networks, we seek comment on whether 
these definitions should include the extent to which Participating CMS 
Providers make WEA available using all available network technologies. 
To what extent should Participating CMS Providers' attestation that 
they will ``support the development and deployment of technology for 
the `C' interface, the CMS Provider Gateway, the CMS Provider 
infrastructure, and mobile devices with WEA functionality'' be read as 
a commitment to support WEA using all available network technologies? 
To what extent do Participating CMS Providers currently use available 
technologies, such as Wi-Fi and small cells, in support of their WEA 
deployments? To the extent that Participating CMS Providers do not 
leverage all available technologies to further their participation in 
WEA, we seek comment on any factors that have contributed to this 
decision. We seek comment on any additional technologies already 
commercially deployed in CMS networks that could be leveraged in 
support of WEA, and on any additional functionalities that they may 
enable.
    37. We seek comment on whether, in the event we adopt new 
definitions for participation in WEA, it would be appropriate to 
require CMS Providers to refresh and renew their election to 
participate in WEA. Further, notwithstanding whether we ultimately 
adopt new definitions for WEA participation, have the nature of CMS 
networks (having evolved from 2 and 3G to 4G technologies) and the 
requirements of Part 10 changed sufficiently since WEA's deployment to 
merit a renewed election? How frequently, if at all, should 
Participating CMS Providers be required to update their election in 
order to provide the Commission and the public with an up-to-date 
account of their WEA service offerings? Alternatively, should the 
occurrence of a certain event or events trigger a Participating CMS 
Provider's obligation to renew their election? If so, what specific 
event or events should give rise to a requirement for a Participating 
CMS Provider to renew their election? We seek comment on steps that we 
can take to mitigate any burden that disclosure of this information may 
present for Participating CMS Providers, and especially non-nationwide 
Participating CMS (e.g., small, regional, and rural providers). To what 
extent would any information that Participating CMS Providers may be 
required to disclose be considered sensitive? As WEA has evolved into a 
vital and relied-upon component of the Nation's public safety 
infrastructure, has this information become necessary to understanding 
the Nation's readiness in times of disaster?
    38. We anticipate that adopting these definitions for the modes of 
Participation in WEA would improve long-term participation in WEA while 
incenting achievement of evolving WEA objectives, consistent with 
Participating CMS Providers technology refresh cycle. We seek comment 
on this analysis. What steps can we take to encourage Participating CMS 
Providers to increase their engagement with WEA voluntarily? Further, 
we seek comment on whether clearly delineated modes of participation in 
WEA, taken together with a renewed election requirement, would 
facilitate emergency management agencies' response planning efforts by 
evincing the extent to which WEA is available in local communities. To 
what extent could information about each Participating CMS Provider's 
WEA service offerings by geographic area, device, and technology 
facilitate community reliance on WEA as an emergency management tool? 
What steps can we take to make this information as useful as possible 
to emergency management agencies while limiting burdens on 
Participating CMS Providers? Are there alternative approaches that we 
could consider in order to accomplish our objective of incenting 
increased engagement with WEA by Participating CMS Providers and 
emergency management agencies?
2. Infrastructure Functionality
    39. We propose to amend Sections 10.330 and 10.500 to delete 
parallel statements that ``WEA mobile device functionality is dependent 
on the capabilities of a Participating CMS Provider's delivery 
technologies'' and that ``[i]nfrastructure functions are dependent upon 
the capabilities of the delivery technologies implemented by a 
Participating CMS Provider.'' Since the time these provisions were 
adopted, Participating CMS Providers have overwhelmingly elected to 
utilize cell broadcast technology in fulfillment of their WEA election. 
Participating CMS Providers' infrastructure has proven to be 
universally capable of the basic functionalities described by Section 
10.330 and 10.500. Accordingly, we believe these provisions are no 
longer necessary. Moreover, removing these provisions from our Part 10 
rules would likely clarify for emergency management agencies 
considering whether to become authorized as WEA alert initiators that 
the alerting service WEA offers is capable of providing these critical 
functions, especially when taken together with the performance 
reporting and alert logging requirements

[[Page 78546]]

discussed below. We seek comment on this analysis.
    40. We seek comment on whether Providers CMS Providers, and 
particularly non-nationwide CMS Providers (small, rural or regional 
Participating CMS Providers), continue to require the flexibility that 
this language may provide. There is no record about why these caveats 
remain necessary given changes in technology over the four years since 
WEA's deployment. Does the flexibility that this language may provide 
enable CMS Providers to participate in WEA that otherwise would be 
unable to do so? We invite comment from any Participating CMS Provider 
that would no longer be able to participate in WEA in whole or in part 
were we to remove this language from Sections 10.330 and 10.500. Such 
commenters should specify the manner in which their WEA service would 
be unable to comply with the requirements of Sections 10.330 and 10.500 
were we to remove the prefatory language from those Sections, while 
still being capable of providing the WEA service described elsewhere in 
Part 10. Similarly, would removing this language make any WEA-capable 
mobile devices incapable of continuing to support WEA? If so, why? We 
seek comment on whether, if we retain this language at all, it should 
be modified to apply only to non-nationwide Participating CMS 
Providers.
3. Alert Message Preservation
    41. We propose to amend Section 10.500 to state that WEA-capable 
mobile devices must preserve Alert Messages in an easily accessible 
format and location until the Alert Message expires. We seek comment on 
this proposal. We seek comment on the various approaches that 
Participating CMS Providers currently take to Alert Message 
preservation, and on any best practices that have emerged in this area. 
We seek comment on whether we should standardize the manner in which 
Participating CMS Providers preserve Alert Messages, informed by 
relevant best practices.
    42. We seek comment on the extent to which Participating CMS 
Providers currently offer users the ability to access Alert Messages 
after they have been viewed and dismissed. Is Blackberry, Android and 
Windows' practice of providing access to dismissed Alert Messages in an 
``inbox'' or in ``message history'' consistent among all devices and 
providers? Section 10.420 specifies ``Expiration Time'' as a required 
CAP element in WEA Alert Messages. Is it feasible to use this CAP 
element as a basis for identifying the time at which an Alert Message 
should be discarded? If WEA Alert Messages are retained past this 
expiration time, Denver OEMHS expresses concern that users will view 
expired Alert Messages and assume that they are current, causing 
confusion and panic. Where Alert Messages are preserved for user 
review, for how long are they preserved? If Alert Messages continue to 
be preserved after the underlying emergency condition has expired, are 
expired Alert Messages clearly marked as such to prevent user 
confusion? To what extent do Participating CMS Providers' existing 
practices achieve our goal of providing subscribers with a 
straightforward method of accessing Alert Messages until they expire?
    43. Based on the comments, we believe that having continued access 
to WEA Alert Messages, including information regarding protective 
measures the public can take to protect life and property, could 
promote superior public safety outcomes. NYCEM and APCO have already 
suggested several use cases in which public response outcomes could be 
improved through easy access to active Alert Messages, such as to 
review details about shelter locations and commodity distribution 
points, and to recall complex information presented in longer WEA Alert 
Messages. Further, FEMA states that requiring appropriate alert 
preservation ``would reduce user confusion, make training easier, and 
would require only one educational campaign if preservation was 
consistent across platforms.'' FEMA further states that requiring 
appropriate alert preservation ``could alleviate some milling behavior, 
as some will search for alerts on the internet once dismissed to find 
the content.'' We seek comment on these analyses, as well as on 
additional use cases in which access to pending Alert Messages could 
have public safety benefits.
4. Earthquake Alert Prioritization
a. Background
    44. As we discussed in the Report and Order, Sections 10.320 and 
10.410 of the Commission's WEA rules require Participating CMS 
Providers to program their Alert Gateways to process Alert Messages on 
a FIFO basis, except for Presidential Alerts, which must be processed 
``upon receipt,'' before any non-Presidential Alert Messages that may 
also be queued for transmission. In the WEA NPRM, we sought comment on 
whether we should amend Section 10.410 of the Commission's rules to 
address prioritization at the CMS Provider's Gateway, in transit, and 
at the mobile device. Subsequently, the FY2016 Omnibus Appropriations 
Explanatory Statement directed the FCC to report to the Appropriations 
Committee on all regulatory and statutory changes that would be 
necessary to ensure that earthquake-related emergency alerts can be 
received by the public in fewer than three seconds using IPAWS and its 
associated alerting systems, including WEA. Earthquake warnings are 
currently issued as Imminent Threat Alerts, but it is unclear whether 
Participating CMS Providers' WEA infrastructure is able to process and 
transmit these Alert Messages fast enough for them to provide timely 
warning to the public, particularly to those that are closest to the 
epicenter. To be effective, it is crucial that these messages are 
delivered as rapidly as possible because, in order to be effective, 
they must be delivered to the public in advance of fast-travelling 
seismic waves. ATIS states that it would be technically feasible to 
transmit earthquake-related Alert Messages from the Alert Gateway upon 
receipt in order to expedite their transmission to the public. AT&T 
states, however that ``[w]ithout a re-design of the entire system, it 
is not possible to prioritize WEA messages on anything other than a 
FIFO basis.''
    45. We propose to require Participating CMS Providers to deliver 
earthquake-related Alert Messages to the public in fewer than three 
seconds, measured from the time an earthquake-related Alert Message is 
created to when it is delivered and displayed at the mobile device. We 
seek comment on the parameters for WEA to deliver earthquake alerts in 
less than three seconds, including any operational or regulatory 
changes that may be necessary in order to achieve this objective. We 
seek comment on the appropriate points by which to measure the 
applicable delivery timeframe. Should the applicable timeframe be 
measured from the time the alert originator issues the earthquake alert 
to the time it arrives at the end user device? In order to meet our 
end-to-end latency objective while respecting the limitations of 
Participating CMS Provider infrastructure, should the delivery delay 
from the IPAWS Alert Gateway to the end user be limited to two seconds? 
If Alert Messages are not received by all WEA-capable mobile devices in 
the target area simultaneously, how should we determine whether 
earthquake alerts are being delivered on time to meet our proposed 
requirement? We seek comment on these proposals, as well as any 
potential alternatives. We also seek

[[Page 78547]]

comment on their costs and benefits. In addition, we seek comment on 
the implementation timeframe in which delivery of earthquake alerts in 
fewer than three seconds could be achieved. Would this be achievable 
within the next thirty months? If not, how much time would be needed?
    46. In order to help eliminate any delays that could unnecessarily 
affect the delivery of an earthquake alert, we seek comment on whether 
we should require prioritization of earthquake-related Alert Messages 
at the CMS Provider Alert Gateway by processing them ``upon receipt,'' 
before any non-Presidential Alert that may also be queued for 
transmission. We expect that prioritization at the CMS Provider Alert 
Gateway would remove the possibility of any queuing delay that may 
occur due to simultaneous arrival of multiple alerts. We seek comment 
on the extent to which prioritizing earthquake alerts at the Alert 
Gateway would reduce their end-to-end latency in instances where the 
Alert Gateway is processing more than one Alert Message at a time, as 
well as in other instances. We also seek comment on whether it would be 
appropriate to prioritize earthquake alerts in transit over other Alert 
Messages or control channel activity if giving them elevated priority 
at the Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateway would not sufficiently 
reduce delivery latency for them to arrive on time to save lives. We 
note that WEA Alert Message segments are transmitted by the Radio 
Access Network (RAN) every 80ms to 5.12 seconds. Could standardizing 
the transmission periodicity of WEA message segments reduce end-to-end 
alert delivery latency for all WEA Alert Messages? What are the 
advantages and disadvantages of shorter WEA transmission periods? Can 
they be changed dynamically? We seek comment on the extent to which 
giving earthquake alerts priority at the Alert Gateway, in transit, and 
through other means could enable earthquake-related Alert Messages to 
be delivered to the public in fewer than three seconds. Even if 
prioritization of earthquake alerts at the Alert Gateway, by itself, 
would not be sufficient, should we require such prioritization as an 
intermediate step towards this goal? We also seek comment on whether 
any other types of events merit higher priority treatment because of 
their extreme time sensitivity (e.g., hurricane, tornadoes, 
bioterrorism, epidemic crises).
    47. We seek comment on any technical issues that prioritizing 
earthquake alerts in transit might present for Participating CMS 
Providers, and on when this standard could feasibly be achieved. In the 
alternative, we seek comment on whether a different Alert Message 
latency requirement would strike a more appropriate balance between the 
costs of prioritization and the benefits of earthquake early warning. 
With respect to AT&T's perspective that changing the way that Alert 
Messages are prioritized would require a ``re-design of the entire 
system,'' we seek comment on what, if any aspects of the WEA system 
would need to be redesigned in order to allow earthquake alerts to be 
delivered to the public in fewer than three seconds. Why, if at all, 
would changing the way that the Participating CMS Provider Alert 
Gateway prioritizes WEA Alert Messages affect any aspect of the WEA 
system other than the Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateway itself? 
From a technical standpoint, how is it currently possible to prioritize 
Presidential Alerts but not other types of Alert Messages? We 
anticipate that changing the manner in which this Gateway handles 
earthquake alerts would necessitate revisions to Gateway software, and 
relevant standards. We seek comment on this analysis. Can the 
Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateway's standards and software be 
updated to allow it to distinguish earthquake alerts from other 
Imminent Threat Alerts, for example, by reference to the its CAP 
``event code'' parameter? If not, what steps should we take to allow 
for earthquake-related alerts to be treated differently from other 
Imminent Threat Alerts? We anticipate that reducing the end-to-end 
latency for earthquake alerts will facilitate the use of WEA during 
such incidents, providing a unique mechanism in the United States for 
warning the public about earthquakes before the damaging tremors occur. 
We observe that Japan's Earthquake and Tsunami Warning System (ETWS) is 
currently the only earthquake early warning service in the world that 
integrates mass earthquake-related communications with cellular 
networks. We anticipate that making WEA an effective platform for early 
earthquake warnings could, in combination with other earthquake 
mitigation efforts, help to mitigate the $4.4 billion dollars in 
earthquake-related losses FEMA estimates that the United States suffers 
annually, by saving lives and preventing and mitigating injuries, 
thereby reducing income loss and by helping to mitigate damage to 
infrastructure by alerting members of the public who are in a position 
to take preparatory actions to prevent damage in the event of an 
earthquake. We seek comment on this analysis, including to on the 
extent to which such prioritization would mitigate earthquake-related 
losses and on the costs of any related upgrades to WEA to permit such 
prioritization.
5. Disaster Relief Messaging
    48. Commenters address several potential uses for WEA as a 
secondary messaging service, i.e., a tool for communicating to the 
public emergency instructions intended to supplement information 
provided in the initial (primary) message. For example, NYCEM, 
Ashtabula County EMA and the California Governor's OES observe that our 
new Alert Message classification, Public Safety Messages, creates a 
framework for secondary messaging that can assist with disaster 
recovery efforts. In the Alerting Paradigm NPRM as well as in the WEA 
NPRM, we sought comment on the extent to which emergency managers 
leverage targeted community feedback during and after emergency 
situations to disseminate and gather information. We observed that the 
Peta Jakarta initiative in Indonesia may provide an example of how a 
government alert initiator can leverage crowdsourced data to increase 
the overall effectiveness of alerts. While many emergency management 
agencies expressed concern about the potential for an additional data 
stream for crowdsourced information to overwhelm already understaffed 
Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs), ``NYCEM strongly believes that 
the future of crowdsourcing is through leveraging individual consumer 
cellular phones by upgrading the Wireless Emergency Alert System to 
support bidirectional, ``many-to-one'' communication.'' CSRIC V finds 
that the ability to gather information from the community (many-to-one 
communication) can make alerting (one-to-many communication) more 
effective if ``appropriately integrated into operations in a way that 
is responsive to the context of operation.'' CSRIC V identifies three 
use cases where many-to-one communications could be a particularly 
beneficial supplement to one-to-many communications, gathering targeted 
community feedback, assessing evacuation compliance, and during active 
shooter scenarios. CSRIC V recommends that ``FEMA should investigate 
modifying IPAWS to support `[m]any to one' communication and data 
collection,'' that ``ATIS should study the feasibility of mechanisms 
for the delivery of ``many to one'' data to FEMA IPAWS,'' and that the 
Commission should convene a panel of relevant experts to promote data 
science literacy among emergency managers and

[[Page 78548]]

establish best practices for using data gathered from ``social media'' 
monitoring. NAB and NPR also encourage the Commission to recognize the 
consumer benefits of Alert Messages that direct the public to turn on 
their radios for additional information during disaster recovery 
efforts.
    49. In light of the foregoing, we seek comment on the potential for 
WEA to serve as a secondary messaging tool for emergency managers, 
specifically during disaster relief efforts. Specifically, we seek 
comment on how to enhance WEA's support for many-back-to-one 
communication to facilitate emergency managers' response planning 
efforts, and on whether WEA can be made a more useful tool during and 
after emergencies by facilitating its ability to interface other 
authoritative sources of information. Are there existing needs or gaps 
in the public communications tools currently available to emergency 
managers for use during disaster relief efforts that WEA can fill? 
What, if any, critical capacities does WEA lack that could inhibit its 
utility for post-disaster communications?
    50. We seek comment on improvements to WEA that we should consider 
in order to ensure that it is optimized for this use, including by 
enabling WEA to be used as a tool for queueing the collection of 
targeted community feedback during disaster recovery efforts, to 
measure evacuation effectiveness, and during active shooter scenarios, 
as recommended by CSRIC V. We seek comment on whether using WEA in this 
manner could assist emergency management agencies' resource-need 
pairing during emergencies, and on any additional use cases where 
``many-to-one'' feedback could improve emergency response. We seek 
comment from technology vendors who have developed innovative solutions 
to aggregating and analyzing public response on the potential for 
implementation of those technologies in the emergency management 
context. We seek comment on whether best practices based in data 
science literacy are available to facilitate emergency managers' 
skillful use of targeted community feedback, and if not, on whether we 
should direct the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to convene 
a panel of experts to produce recommendations for this purpose, as 
recommended by CSRIC V. We also seek comment on the extent to which WEA 
can be used to funnel milling behavior towards other authoritative 
sources of information, such as radio or television, that may be better 
fit to provide critical information to the public in certain 
circumstances. Would such an approach make WEA more useful to emergency 
managers in disaster relief situations?

B. Incorporating Future Technical Advancements To Improve WEA

1. Multimedia Alerting
    51. As noted above, we are committed to allowing the public to 
realize the benefits of multimedia content in WEA, and we propose that 
an appropriate path to achieve this goal would be to require support 
for certain multimedia content, including thumbnail-sized images and 
hazard symbols, in Public Safety Messages on 4G LTE and future 
networks. We recognize that Participating CMS Providers have concerns 
about message delivery latency and network congestion that may result 
from including multimedia in WEA Alert Messages. Further, we 
acknowledge the record indicates that further standards development is 
necessary to support multimedia capabilities in WEA. As we discuss in 
further detail below, we believe these issues can be addressed given an 
appropriate regulatory framework and timeframe for compliance. 
Accordingly, we seek to develop the record on data constraints and 
technical parameters that should be associated with developing and 
implementing this functionality, and on a reasonable timeframe within 
which to require Participating CMS Providers to support it. Pursuant to 
the approach we propose to adopt, emergency management agencies could 
use Public Safety Messages to transmit thumbnail-sized images of 
evacuation routes in connection with Imminent Threat Alerts, an image 
of the face of a missing child after an AMBER Alert, or specific 
instructions for protective action to the access and functional needs 
community through the use of hazard symbols. We invite commenters to 
offer additional use cases where this functionality could help meet the 
public's need for actionable, multimedia-enabled content during 
emergencies.
    52. With respect to the potential for alert delivery latency, we 
observe that, according to the ATIS Feasibility Study for LTE WEA 
Message Length, WEA Alert Message segments can be transmitted every 80 
milliseconds to 5.12 seconds. We reason, therefore, that a thumbnail-
sized image could be transmitted over WEA cell broadcast in between 
0.88 seconds and 56.32 seconds. We would not want the transmission of 
multimedia content to delay receipt of the most time-sensitive Alert 
Message text. At the same time, however, we also believe that there are 
circumstances where the public would benefit from the receipt of 
multimedia content over WEA cell broadcast, even if they have to wait a 
minute to receive it. We therefore propose to require support for 
multimedia content only in Public Safety Messages, which may contain 
information that is not as time-sensitive as other types of Alert 
Messages. As Alert Messages in the Public Safety Message classification 
are designed for issuance for in connection with Alert Messages of 
other types, we believe they would provide an appropriate vehicle for 
multimedia-enabled content even when they cannot be delivered until 
minutes after the initial Imminent Threat or AMBER Alert delivers the 
primary, text-based Alert Message. We seek comment on this analysis.
    53. We seek comment on any appropriate technical constraints that 
should apply to the multimedia content that Participating CMS Providers 
would be required to support. We anticipate that constraints on the 
permissible size of multimedia data files would also help Participating 
CMS Providers to manage network loading. The ATIS Feasibility Study for 
WEA Supplemental Text shows that transmitting a thumbnail-sized photo 
over WEA cell broadcast would require the transmission of at least 
eleven WEA binary messages. The ATIS Feasibility Study for WEA 
Supplemental Text considers a ``thumbnail-sized photo'' to be 
approximately 1.5 x 1.5 inches, to have a resolution of 72 dots per 
inch (DPI), and to be presented as using 120 x 120 pixels. ATIS reasons 
that a thumbnail-sized image would be 14,400 bytes in size if an 8-bit 
color scale is used, and would require the broadcast of 3600 octets, 
assuming 25 percent compression. We seek comment on whether that 14,400 
bytes would be an appropriate maximum size for any multimedia content 
that a Participating CMS Provider could be required to transmit, as 
well as on any additional technical specifications or parameters that 
could facilitate multimedia transmission. We seek comment on any other 
implications or considerations we should take into account.
    54. With respect to the integration of support for hazard symbols 
into WEA's core functionality, CSRIC IV and CSRIC V recommend further 
study. The ATIS Feasibility Study for WEA Supplemental Text recommends 
that a study of the ``User Experience Design'' covering the ``human-
computer interaction'' between mobile users and hazard symbols should 
be undertaken by the WEA stakeholders followed by global 
standardization. According to ATIS,

[[Page 78549]]

standards would be needed to identify the specific hazard symbols 
appropriate for this use, and to describe hazard warning icon delivery 
to the mobile device, either via mobile device software or cell 
broadcast. We seek comment on this analysis. Would it be feasible to 
integrate support for hazard symbols into WEA using the GSM-7 character 
set or a Unicode character set? If so, would this approach offer a less 
burdensome alternative to supporting hazard symbols in all Alert 
Messages?
    55. With respect to concerns in the record regarding the 
possibility for increased network load, we propose to allow 
Participating CMS Providers to use network congestion mitigation 
strategies to feasibly and timely deliver multimedia-enabled Public 
Safety Messages. For example, we seek comment on whether staggering 
transmission of multimedia message segments could facilitate delivery 
of this content to subscribers, while mitigating potential network 
congestion concerns. Would it make sense to constrain any requirement 
to support multimedia to devices operating on 4G LTE and future 
networks? We seek comment on best practices that emergency management 
agencies could implement with respect to multimedia messaging if the 
transmission of such content implicated greater delay than text-only 
Alert Messages, and if Alert Messages that contained multimedia content 
could not be received by members of their communities on legacy 
networks or that are using legacy devices that no longer accept 
software updates. Recognizing the limitations of cell broadcast 
technology, to what extent would a requirement to support thumbnail-
sized images and hazard symbols spur Participating CMS Providers to 
integrate new technologies into their WEA systems that could improve 
their ability to support the low-latency transmission of high-quality 
multimedia content? For example, commenters agree that Multimedia 
Broadcast Multicast Service (eMBMS) would permit the broadcast of 
``large amounts of data, including multimedia content.'' We seek 
comment on the technical steps that would be required to integrate 
technology that supports the transmission of multimedia content into 
WEA.
    56. Allowing multimedia content in WEA Alert Messages would have 
tremendous public safety benefits. NYCEM, FEMA and TDI, for example, 
believe that allowing multimedia content in WEA Alert Messages would 
significantly contribute to Alert Message comprehension, particularly 
for individuals with disabilities, and FEMA adds that the use of 
graphical symbols could improve Alert Message interpretation by 
individuals with limited English proficiency. NCMEC states that 
multimedia content would ``greatly enhance the immediate usefulness of 
AMBER Alerts.'' San Joaquin County OES adds that multimedia content in 
WEA Alert Messages would hasten protective action taking and reduce 
milling. We seek comment on these analyses, as well as on any 
additional public safety benefits that multimedia messaging may enable. 
Even though Chester County EMA and The Weather Company suggest the 
inclusion of multimedia would be unnecessary in light of the 
availability of embedded references and ``third party apps and 
television that users normally use,'' we find that unique benefits 
could result from including multimedia content in Alert Messages, 
especially as Participating CMS Providers' ability to support this 
functionality evolves along with advancements in technology. For 
example, WEA Public Safety Messages could be used to push an 
authoritative interactive map to every community member with a WEA-
capable mobile device that shows the recipient's location relative to 
evacuation routes, shelter locations or resource distribution points. 
For communities struggling to recover from natural disasters, for 
example, this functionality would hold tremendous public safety value 
above and apart from multimedia-enabled emergency information available 
through other sources that in any case may not be as readily available 
as a consumer's mobile device. We also seek comment on whether those 
benefits would be particularly acute when implemented in an 
authoritative alerting services such as WEA that the public receives by 
default.
2. Multilingual Alerting
    57. We observe that, according to commenters, expanding the 
language capabilities of WEA has potential to yield particular benefits 
for those with limited English proficiency. The record suggests, 
however, that the technical issues that prevented Participating CMS 
Providers from supporting multilingual Alert Messages when WEA was 
first deployed continue to limit their ability to support Alert 
Messages in languages other than English and Spanish. While FEMA states 
that IPAWS and CAP have the capacity to support Alert Messages in 
languages other than English and Spanish, additional languages are not 
currently supported in Participating CMS Provider networks. According 
to Participating CMS Providers, significant standards-setting work and 
potentially support for new character sets would be required in order 
to enable them to support WEA Alert Messages in languages other than 
English and Spanish. Further, AT&T and Verizon observe that each 
additional WEA Alert Message language option will require Participating 
CMS Providers to transmit an additional Alert Message, which could 
threaten network capacity and risk alert delivery delays. In light of 
these ongoing issues and additional data, we agree with T-Mobile that 
``[t]he Commission should promote further study of the technical impact 
of multilingual WEA messages so that such messages can be incorporated 
into the WEA system in the future without creating unintended, adverse 
impacts.''
    58. Only 79 percent of individuals living in the United States that 
are 5-years old or older speak only English at home. According to the 
ACS Language Report, the top ten most spoken languages in the U.S. 
among individuals 5-years old or older are English, Spanish or Spanish 
Creole, Chinese, French or French Creole, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Korean, 
Arabic, Russian, and African languages. English-speaking ability varies 
greatly, even among speakers of the top ten languages in the United 
States. According to recent census data, ``less than 50 percent of 
those who spoke Korean, Chinese, or Vietnamese spoke English `very 
well.' '' According to the ACS Language Report, ``[p]eople who cannot 
speak English `very well' can be helped with translation services, 
education, or assistance in accessing government services.''
    59. We seek comment on the potential benefits of requiring 
Participating CMS Providers to support Alert Messages in languages 
other than English and Spanish. To what extent would emergency 
management agencies initiate Alert Messages in languages in addition to 
English and Spanish were Participating CMS Providers required to 
support them? To what extent would CMS Provider support for additional 
languages incent emergency management agencies to further develop their 
capabilities in initiating Alert Messages in those languages where 
relevant to their respective communities? What, if any, additional 
steps can we take to support emergency management agencies' efforts to 
develop multilingual alerting capabilities? We expect that emergency 
management agencies already integrate individuals who don't speak 
English very well into their communities' emergency response plans, and 
we seek comment on whether increasing emergency management agencies' 
multilingual alerting capability could help to further

[[Page 78550]]

improve disaster preparedness for these communities. How do emergency 
management agencies currently expect individuals with limited English 
proficiency to receive and respond to emergency information? Are the 
emergency management mechanisms currently in place sufficient to 
safeguard those individuals during crises?
    60. If we were to adopt rules to deepen WEA's language 
capabilities, we seek comment on whether we should prioritize support 
for those languages predominantly spoken in communities where, 
according to Census data, 50 percent or fewer speak English ``very 
well'' (e.g., Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean). Is the area of greatest 
need with respect to WEA's language capabilities ensuring that people 
who struggle with English comprehension can understand emergency 
communications? In the alternative, should we prioritize support for 
the largest language communities in the United States, notwithstanding 
the tendency of individuals in those language groups to speak English 
``very well''? We observe, for example, that, according to recent 
Census data, English and Spanish are by far the most popular languages 
in the United States, with Chinese and French a distant third and 
fourth.
    61. We seek comment on whether supporting Alert Messages written in 
ideographic languages, such as Vietnamese, Chinese and Korean, would 
pose unique challenges for WEA stakeholders, including Participating 
CMS Providers and emergency mangers. We note that WEA messages use GSM 
7-bit encoding, and that the 3GPP standard for cell broadcast allows 
switching to the basic Unicode (UCS-2) character set, which includes 
all living languages, in order to provide support for modern, 
ideographic languages such as Kanji. Do Participating CMS Providers' 
WEA infrastructure and WEA-capable mobile devices support this 
functionality? If not, what steps would be necessary to incorporate 
Unicode into WEA? We also seek comment on whether emergency management 
agencies would face particular difficulties in initiating Alert 
Messages in ideographic languages. Does alert origination software 
currently support initiating Alert Messages in ideographic languages? 
If not, what steps would be required in order to upgrade this software? 
Are there additional standards, protocols and system updates that would 
be required to enable alerting in Vietnamese, Chinese and Korean in 
particular? Further, we seek comment on whether WEA Alert Messages can 
be made available in American Sign Language (ASL) for subscribers that 
are deaf or hard of hearing. How would the provision of WEA Alert 
Messages in ASL allow for better accessibility to those who are ASL-
fluent?
    62. In addition to any potential changes to the WEA character set 
that may be required, we seek comment on any necessary preconditions to 
supporting additional languages in WEA in general, and to supporting 
Korean, Vietnamese or Chinese Alert Messages in particular. We also 
seek comment on whether support for additional languages would be 
burdensome for non-nationwide (e.g., regional, small, and rural) 
Participating CMS Providers, and if so, whether there are steps that we 
can take to accommodate these entities to make compliance more 
feasible. Would it be more appropriate for non-nationwide Participating 
CMS Providers to be required to support only the those particular 
languages, other than English and Spanish, that are predominant in the 
particular areas in which they provide service? We seek comment on any 
alternative approaches that would help achieve our objective of 
promoting accessibility of WEA Alert Messages.
3. Matching the Geographic Target Area
    63. While our geo-targeting requirement, as amended above, will 
improve WEA geo-targeting by facilitating the delivery of Alert 
Messages to a more granular polygon level, the limitations of cell 
broadcast-based geo-targeting may result in continued over-alerting. 
According to CSRIC IV, the ``ideal case'' from an alert originator 
perspective would be where ``all WEA-enabled mobile devices in the 
geographic area affected by an emergency event would receive the WEA 
Alert Message broadcast, and no mobile devices outside the defined 
alert area would receive those particular WEA Alert Message 
broadcasts.'' ``However,'' CSRIC IV reports, ``this ideal case cannot 
be realized using currently deployed cell broadcast alone.'' CSRIC V 
recommends that the Commission collaborate with WEA stakeholders to 
develop standards and implement systems that support enhanced, device-
based geo-targeting. CSRIC V recommends that the Commission set a goal 
that Participating CMS Providers geo-target Alert Messages in a manner 
that includes ``100% of the targeted devices within the specified alert 
area with not more than .10 mile overshoot,'' and states that WEA 
stakeholders, including Participating CMS Providers, ``have committed 
to working to close the gap between current capabilities and 
aspirational goals.''
    64. As we emphasize above, more granular geo-targeting remains a 
critical need for both consumers and emergency managers. Accordingly, 
we propose to require Participating CMS Providers to match the target 
area specified by alert originators. We anticipate that this may 
require Participating CMS Providers to leveraging the location sense of 
WEA-capable mobile devices on their networks. In the following 
paragraphs, we seek comment on how we should define ``matching'' the 
target area for purposes of any such requirement, as well as on steps 
that alert initiators and Participating CMS Providers can take to 
minimize alert delivery latency and maximize the amount of data 
available for other Alert Message content. We also seek comment on the 
readiness of innovations that could allow alert initiators to geo-
target more flexibly, and to smaller areas.
    65. As an initial matter, should a Participating CMS Provider be 
considered to have ``matched'' the targeted area for the purpose of 
this requirement if, as recommended by CSRIC V, 100 percent of devices 
within the targeted area receive the Alert Message with not more than 
0.1 mile overshoot? In the alternative, if providers are leveraging the 
same technology in the WEA context that is being used to provide indoor 
location, would it make sense to harmonize our geo-targeting accuracy 
requirement for WEA with our wireless E911 indoor location accuracy 
requirements? If not, why not? Further, would an alternative accuracy 
requirement be appropriate for non-nationwide Participating CMS 
Providers? We seek comment on any alternative approaches to defining 
``matching'' for the purposes of assessing compliance with our proposed 
requirement. In circumstances where Participating CMS Providers are 
unable to match the target area, we propose that they should be 
required to provide their best approximation of the target area, as we 
require in the Order. We seek comment on this approach.
    66. The record indicates that it will be technically feasible for 
Participating CMS Providers to comply with our requirement that they 
geo-target Alert Messages to an area that matches the target area, 
given appropriate time for the development of relevant standards and 
network modifications. We expect that Participating CMS Providers will 
be able to geo-fence their transmission of Alert Messages by 
transmitting target area coordinates to 100 percent of mobile devices 
in the target area, erring on the side of over-inclusion where

[[Page 78551]]

necessary. WEA-capable mobile devices would receive the Alert Message, 
including the target area coordinates, and determine whether they are 
currently located within the area those coordinates describe. If and 
only if the mobile device is within the target area, it would display 
the Alert Message to the subscriber. Commenters indicate that the 
suppression of the Alert Messages on mobile devices that are outside of 
the target area (geo-fencing) would allow Participating CMS Providers 
to match the target area specified by alert originators. We seek 
comment on this analysis, including any alternative approaches that 
Participating CMS Providers could use to match the target area or to 
implement a device-based approach to geo-targeting. The record 
indicates that technical issues, such as potential increases in message 
delivery latency, and reductions in the amount of data available for 
Alert Message text, can be resolved. We seek comment on how 
Participating CMS Providers will address these issues in conversation 
with other relevant WEA stakeholders. We seek comment on feasible 
methods Participating CMS Providers could use to mitigate sources of 
alert delivery latency that may be implicated by geo-targeting Alert 
Messages to an area that matches the target area specified by the alert 
originator. Participating CMS Providers and ATIS agree that meeting 
such an accurate geo-targeting standard could cause message delivery 
delay due to the device needing to determine its location before 
displaying the message, and due to network constraints. ATIS states 
that ``the only currently readily available technology [for device-
based geo-fencing] is GPS/GNSS'' and that, without network assistance, 
the ``time to acquire a GPS position can be over 13 minutes from a cold 
start . . . and up to 30 seconds for a warm start.'' To what extent 
could Assisted GPS reduce these times and to what extent would the CMS 
network be burdened by providing this assistance? Further, we seek 
comment on how long the mobile device should wait while attempting to 
determine its current location (e.g., acceptable Time-To-First-Fix 
(TTFF))? We note that, in the 911 context, we have established a 
maximum TTFF latency standard of 30 seconds for outdoor calls. Would 
that same standard be appropriate for geo-targeting to an area that 
matches the target area in light of our concerns about alert delivery 
latency? Finally, what should be the action of the mobile device if the 
mobile device location cannot be determined or cannot be determined 
within the time limit, for example, if a mobile device is turned off, 
or if its location services are turned off? Should the default setting 
be to display the Alert Message?
    67. We seek comment on the extent to which polygon compression 
techniques and alert originator best practices could maximize the 
amount of data that remains for Alert Message content if Alert Message 
coordinates are transmitted along with content to WEA-capable mobile 
devices. ATIS concludes that each coordinate pair would require data 
equivalent to that needed to display thirteen characters using current 
methods. However, researchers have examined methods of compressing 
coordinate data to consume between 9.7 percent and 23.6 percent of this 
data. We seek comment on feasible methods of leveraging polygon 
compression techniques in WEA. Should such techniques be used to set a 
maximum on the amount of data that can be consumed by polygon 
coordinates? Further, we seek comment on appropriate best practices for 
the number of decimal places to which a coordinate should be specified 
in order to conserve Alert Message space for text. CSRIC V recommends 
that alert originators determine the granularity of alert areas using 
vertices with two to five decimal places, depending on the nature of 
the hazard. CSRIC V finds that this would allow alert originators to 
target Alert Messages to with precision from 1.1 km to 1.1 meters. We 
seek comment on this recommendation and analysis. We note that, under 
current standards, a valid polygon consists of one-hundred coordinate 
pairs or fewer. Would rules or best practices be appropriate to 
determine the maximum number of coordinate pairs that should be 
included in an Alert Message? We seek comment on any additional 
technical challenges that Participating CMS Providers may face in 
complying with a more accurate geo-targeting standard, and on feasible 
methods of overcoming them.
    68. While we believe that a device-based approach is most likely to 
enable Participating CMS Providers to match the target area, we seek 
comment on whether continued focus on network-based approaches could 
enable Participating CMS Providers to meet this accuracy requirement. 
For example, could geo-targeting be improved by leveraging the 
relatively smaller coverage areas of network-based technologies, such 
as small cell technology, distributed antenna systems (DAS), Wi-Fi 
access points, beacons, commercial location-based services (cLBS), 
institutional and enterprise location systems, or smart building 
technology? We observe that these network-based technologies are widely 
deployed across the United States, and particularly in urban areas. Are 
CMS Provider networks configured to be able to send a WEA Alert Message 
over the control channel to these network-based technologies? What 
steps would be necessary to enable these technologies to assist in geo-
targeting? Since the radio frequency propagation areas of these 
technologies are significantly smaller than the propagation areas for 
large cell sites, do they hold potential to improve geo-targeting? If 
not, why not? We also seek comment on the reliability of network-based 
technologies relative to the larger transmission facilities 
Participating CMS Providers traditionally use for WEA cell broadcast. 
Would relying on these technologies as a path forward to further 
improving geo-targeting leave the system vulnerable to becoming far 
less accurate when its accuracy is needed most, including during 
Imminent Threat Alerts?
    69. Finally, we seek comment on whether additional, incremental 
improvements to geo-targeting could be achieved through standards 
updates that could allow Participating CMS Providers to support 
``nesting polygons.'' Nesting polygons describe overlapping geographic 
areas where one polygon is situated, or ``nests,'' at least in part, 
within the boundaries of another, larger polygon. We seek comment on 
the extent to which existing network technologies can be leveraged to 
support nesting polygons, provided that relevant standards are updated 
to support them. We anticipate that a scenario where nesting polygons 
could be useful would be where one WEA Alert Message is appropriate for 
broadcast in the area where an incident, such as a chemical spill, has 
occurred (e.g., an instruction to shelter in place), and another WEA 
Alert Message is appropriate for broadcast in the surrounding area 
(e.g., an instruction to evacuate). We seek comment on this example, 
and invite commenters to specify additional use cases where it would be 
useful to be able to specify nesting polygons as a target area. 
According to ATIS, current standards support geo-targeting Alert 
Messages to multiple polygons, but existing standards would interpret 
multiple, overlapping polygons as the union of those polygons. Nesting 
polygons, on the other hand, would require CMS networks to sometimes 
interpret overlapping polygons as providing an instruction to 
``subtract'' the internal polygon from the external polygon. According 
to ATIS, this functionality

[[Page 78552]]

would require an update to J-STD 101 as well as to the CAP standard. 
Would additional updates to alert origination software be required to 
support sending different messages to nested polygons?
    70. We reason that achieving a geo-targeting standard whereby 
Participating CMS Providers can match the target area specified by an 
alert originator, either through device- or network-based techniques, 
would have tremendous benefits for public safety, and would eliminate 
the current dangers of poor geo-targeting that deter many emergency 
managers from becoming authorized as WEA alert originators. As 
discussed above, alert originators continue to demand more accurate 
geo-targeting from WEA before they will rely on it for emergency 
messaging in situations where it could be dangerous for individuals in 
areas adjacent to the target area to receive instructions intended only 
for individuals within the target area. Further, each incremental 
improvement that Participating CMS Providers can make to geo-targeting 
incrementally reduces alert fatigue, and increases the public's trust 
in WEA as an alerting platform, thereby reducing milling and, 
potentially, network congestion. We seek comment on this reasoning. 
Finally, we note that the ATIS Feasibility Study for Supplemental Text 
observed that delivering target area coordinates to the mobile device 
consistent with a device-based approach to geo-targeting would be the 
first step towards enabling WEA Alert Messages to support high-
information maps, an improvement that emergency managers universally 
endorse. We seek comment on this observation. We also seek comment on 
alternative approaches we can take to improving WEA geo-targeting that 
would meet emergency managers' objectives while presenting lesser cost 
burdens to Participating CMS Providers.
4. WEA on 5G Networks
    71. As we noted in our Spectrum Frontiers proceeding in July 2016, 
5G networks ``will enable valuable new services, and accelerating the 
deployment of those services is a national priority.'' As 5G networks 
and devices are developed, we expect WEA capabilities to evolve as 
well, consistent with Congress' vision in enacting the WARN Act. Given 
the importance of our Nation's public alert and warning systems to 
promoting emergency response readiness, we must ensure that WEA Alert 
Messages continue to provide the public with vital and necessary 
information to take appropriate action to protect their families and 
property.
    72. While we understand that specific WEA capabilities for 5G 
networks and devices are not yet developed, we believe it is 
appropriate to seek comment on those capabilities now in light of the 
importance of designing these networks and devices with WEA 
capabilities in the early stages of development and throughout their 
development process. We disagree with CTIA that ``it is premature at 
this time to address specific WEA capabilities that 5G might enable.'' 
Participating CMS Providers are already examining how best to integrate 
5G technologies into their networks and industry stakeholders are 
currently working to shape the strategic development of the 5G 
ecosystem. We observe that Verizon is expected to begin 5G field trials 
in the next few months, and most experts predict that 5G will be widely 
available as soon as 2020. Further, the record suggests that 
technological upgrades can be costly and time-consuming, and we reason 
that including WEA alerts and warnings in 5G from the beginning can 
reduce total costs for Participating CMS Providers and hasten the 
deployment of improvements to WEA that could benefit the public. We 
therefore seek to initiate a dialogue that will foster a better 
understanding of how Participating CMS Providers intend to incorporate 
WEA capabilities into their 5G offerings, as well as to identify areas 
where we can help provide regulatory clarity, where needed, that can 
drive design and investment. For example, AT&T opines that ``[w]ith the 
standards for 5G now under development, it is important to have 
agreement that 360 characters is the maximum length for 4G and future 
services.''
    73. In light of the foregoing, we seek comment on how to best 
incorporate alerts and warnings into the development of 5G 
technologies, and on how 5G technologies may enable further 
enhancements to WEA. What additional measures could the Commission take 
to facilitate the incorporation of WEA capabilities into 5G as these 
networks and devices are being designed? We seek comment on what, if 
any, steps the Commission should take to continue to ensure that WEA 
evolves along with advancements in technology in the 5G environment. 
What standards need to be developed or what other mechanisms need to be 
in place to ensure that WEA will be incorporated, and what actions are 
providers undertaking already? Elsewhere in this FNPRM, we seek comment 
on how improvements in technology can help improve WEA, in terms of 
microtargeting delivery of Alert Messages to a precise geographic 
location, incorporating multimedia capabilities to improve message 
content, and facilitating swifter delivery of critical early earthquake 
alerts where every second counts. Is it anticipated that there will be 
additional space for WEA in 5G system information blocks than is 
currently allocated on the 4G control channel? To what extent will 5G 
introduce new capabilities that will permit additional life-saving 
enhancements to WEA? Are there any existing rules governing WEA that 
would be inapplicable to 5G or that would otherwise require adaptation 
to address 5G capabilities? We seek comment on how to enable further 
enhancements to WEA in 5G technologies, and on the obligations that CMS 
Providers that elect to provide WEA on 5G networks should incur, 
including related costs and benefits.

C. Developing Consumer Education Tools

1. Promoting Informed Consumer Choice at the Point of Sale
    74. In the WEA Third Report and Order, the Commission adopted 
certain disclosure requirements in order to ensure that CMS Providers 
``convey sufficient information'' to the public about the nature of 
their participation in WEA. CMS Providers electing in whole to transmit 
WEA Alert Messages are not required to provide notification of their 
participation at the point of sale. CMS Providers participating in 
part, on the other hand, are required to provide clear and conspicuous 
notice to new subscribers of their partial election at the point of 
sale. Specifically, CMS Providers participating in part must, at a 
minimum, state the following:

    [[CMS provider]] has chosen to offer wireless emergency alerts 
within portions of its service area, as defined by the terms and 
conditions of its service agreement, on wireless emergency alert 
capable devices. There is no additional charge for these wireless 
emergency alerts.
    Wireless emergency alerts may not be available on all devices or 
in the entire service area, or if a subscriber is outside of the 
[[CMS provider]] service area. For details on the availability of 
this service and wireless emergency alert capable devices, please 
ask a sales representative, or go to [[CMS provider's URL]].

    75. Similarly, CMS Providers electing not to transmit WEA Alert 
Messages are required to offer, at a minimum, the following point-of-
sale notification, ``[[CMS provider]] presently does not transmit 
wireless emergency alerts.'' We noted that our decision allowed, but 
did not require the disclosure of additional information regarding the 
technical

[[Page 78553]]

limitations of the WEA service offered by a Participating CMS Provider.
    76. We propose to require CMS Providers to disclose sufficient 
information at the point of sale to allow customers to make an informed 
decision about whether they would consistently receive WEA Alert 
Messages if they were to become a subscriber. To what extent do CMS 
Providers voluntarily provide additional information at the point of 
sale regarding the nature of their WEA participation beyond any 
disclosure required by our rules? Is our existing requirement, which 
requires CMS Providers participating in part to inform consumers at the 
point of sale that WEA ``may not be available on all devices or in the 
entire service area,'' sufficient to inform potential subscribers of 
whether they will receive a potentially life-saving alert through the 
Participating CMS Provider's network? If this point-of-sale 
notification is insufficient to support educated consumer choice among 
providers, what additional information would help to inform this choice 
and allow market forces to more aptly influence further improvements to 
WEA?
    77. If we base our proposed definitions of modes of participation 
in WEA on the devices a Participating CMS Provider makes WEA capable, 
the extent to which WEA is offered in their geographic service area, 
and the technologies they commit to use in support of their WEA 
service, would it be reasonable to require corresponding adjustments to 
consumer disclosures? We propose that, as a baseline, CMS Providers 
should provide information regarding the extent to which they offer WEA 
(in what geographic areas, and on what devices) at the point of sale. 
Would this information be sufficient to promote informed consumer 
choice? Should we also require CMS Providers to disclose at the point 
of sale the specific network technologies that they commit to use in 
offering WEA? We seek comment on the extent to which knowledge of the 
specific technologies that competing CMS Providers will use to support 
WEA would promote more informed consumer choice between CMS Providers. 
Should this disclosure also include the extent to which the 
Participating CMS providers' networks are able to offer full 360-
character Alert Messages? Would it be sufficient for Participating CMS 
Providers to provide potential subscribers with a link to a Web site 
describing their WEA capability at the point of sale, and would this 
approach help Participating CMS Providers to control costs associated 
with this proposal? With respect to CMS Providers who elect not to 
participate in WEA, should they be required to make any additional 
disclosures at the point of sale to ensure that consumers are aware 
that they will not be able to receive any potentially life-saving 
alerts through service with this carrier? We seek comment on the 
potential benefits and costs that might be associated with additional 
point-of-sale disclosures.
2. Promoting Informed Consumer Choice About the Receipt of WEA Alert 
Messages
    78. Section 602(b)(2) of the WARN Act provides that ``any 
commercial mobile service licensee electing to transmit emergency 
alerts may offer subscribers the capability of preventing the 
subscriber's device from receiving such alerts, or classes of such 
alerts, other than an alert issued by the President.'' Section 10.500 
of the Commission's rules requires Participating CMS Providers' WEA-
capable mobile devices to maintain consumers' opt-out preferences and 
display alerts to the consumer consistent with those selections. 
Pursuant to Section 10.280, a Participating CMS Provider may provide 
their subscribers with the option to opt out of Imminent Threat and 
AMBER Alerts, and must present the consumer ``with a clear indication 
of what each option means, and provide examples of the types of 
messages the customer may not receive as a result of opting out.'' The 
Commission adopted these requirements in the First Report and Order and 
the Third Report and Order, respectively, in order to allow 
Participating CMS Providers to accommodate variations in their 
infrastructures. In the WEA NPRM, we sought comment on the factors that 
lead consumers to opt out of receiving certain Alert Messages, 
including whether the manner in which Participating CMS Providers 
present their customers with opt-out choices impacts customer 
participation. We sought comment on whether Participating CMS Providers 
could offer customers a more nuanced opt-out menu in order to improve 
consumer choice.
    79. Apple states that ``enabling users to opt out of certain alerts 
at particular times or under specified conditions (such as when Do Not 
Disturb mode is turned on) would likely increase end-user 
participation.'' Microsoft agrees that consumers should have control 
over what types of alerts are received, and when. NWS observes that 
opt-out choices are currently presented in an inconsistent manner 
across devices and operating systems, and recommends standardizing the 
presentation of opt-out choices. On the other hand, ATIS expresses 
concern that ``adding complexity to the opt-out options may actually 
increase the number of subscribers choosing to opt-out of WEA,'' and 
Blackberry urges us to leave opt out functionality such as 
``scheduling'' and ``time of day'' features to device manufacturers' 
discretion. CSRIC V recommends that Commission collaborate with WEA 
stakeholders to create a set of ``minimum specifications for an 
enhanced, secured and trusted, standards-based, CMSP-controlled WEA 
mobile device based application . . . in order to ensure high level 
support.''
    80. We propose to require Participating CMS Providers to implement 
changes to the WEA application that would provide the public with more 
granular options regarding whether they receive WEA Alert Messages. In 
essence, Participating CMS Providers should provide consumers with 
tools that allow them to receive the alerts that they want to receive, 
in the manner they wish to receive them, and during the times they wish 
to receive them.
    81. First, we propose to amend Section 10.280(b) to require that 
Participating CMS Providers offer their subscribers more informed 
choices among the Alert Message classifications that they wish to 
receive. We seek comment on the approaches that Participating CMS 
Providers currently take to ``provide their subscribers will a clear 
indication of what each [Alert Message] option means,'' and on specific 
improvements that they could make to the WEA application to enable 
consumers to make more informed choices among the different types of 
WEA Alert Messages they will receive. As demonstrated in Appendix F, 
some Participating CMS Providers offer their subscribers the option to 
choose whether to receive ``Extreme'' and ``Severe'' Alert Messages, as 
well as AMBER Alerts. Are these options sufficiently clear to empower 
consumers to make informed choices among Alert Messages? Would it be 
more clear if the options that Participating CMS Providers offered 
their subscribers tracked our alert message classifications (i.e., 
``AMBER Alerts,'' ``Imminent Threat Alerts,'' and ``Public Safety 
Messages''), or would other names or phrases be more effective in 
promoting clear consumer choice about the types of Alert Messages they 
will receive? Would it be helpful to offer consumers a full explanation 
of the kinds of emergency situations about which they will receive 
information by virtue of

[[Page 78554]]

remaining opted in to receive Alert Messages of that category? For 
example, should consumers be informed that by remaining opted in to 
receive Imminent Threat Alerts they will receive information about 
imminent threats to their life and property, including significant or 
extraordinary threats that have either been observed in their area or 
likely to occur in the near future? Should consumers be informed that 
by remaining opted in to receive AMBER Alerts they will receive 
information that will empower them to assist law enforcement in 
locating abducted, lost, or otherwise missing children in their area 
that may be in imminent danger? We seek comment on best practices that 
have been developed with respect to the WEA interface that offer 
consumers a clear and easy-to-navigate menu of choices about whether 
and how to receive emergency alerts.
    82. We also propose to require that Participating CMS Providers 
enhance their subscribers' ability to personalize how they receive the 
Alert Messages of their choosing. In the Report and Order we allow 
Participating CMS Providers to offer their consumers the option to 
change the attention signal and vibration cadence for Public Safety 
Messages, and to receive Public Safety Messages only during certain 
hours. We also allow Participating CMS Providers to provide their 
customers 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. We seek comment on 
whether we should require Participating CMS Providers to offer their 
subscribers a more granular suite of choices for Imminent Threat Alerts 
and AMBER Alerts as well, including but not limited to the options that 
we allow Participating CMS Providers to offer to their subscribers for 
Public Safety Messages, and including the ability to modify the 
attention signal and vibration cadence that is presented when an Alert 
Message is received when the phone is idle. For example, would it be 
feasible to require Participating CMS Providers to allow users to limit 
the hours within which they receive WEA AMBER Alerts (e.g., only 
between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.)? Would it make more sense to offer 
consumers the option to modify or mute the attention signal and 
vibration cadence for Imminent Threat Alerts at night than to offer 
them the option to not receive Imminent Threat Alert during the night? 
In the alternative, we seek comment on whether we should require 
Participating CMS Providers to offer their subscribers the option to 
cache Alert Messages, rather than simply to opt in or out. Cached Alert 
Messages could be received without the associated attention signal and 
vibration cadence, and stored in a ``WEA Inbox.'' We seek comment on 
this approach. Taken together with our proposal that Alert Messages be 
appropriately preserved for user review, would providing users with the 
option to receive and cache Alert Messages provide many consumers with 
an appropriate balance between their perceived need to receive critical 
information during emergencies, and their desire to minimize the 
intrusiveness of the WEA attention signal and vibration cadence? We 
seek comment on the most common reasons why consumers opt out of 
receiving WEA AMBER Alerts and Imminent Threat Alerts, and on any 
additional steps that we can take to reduce these pain points through 
changes to the WEA opt-out menu.
    83. In the alternative, we seek comment on whether to require all 
Participating CMS Providers to adopt a standardized opt-out menu, as 
recommended by NWS, and in a manner consistent with CSRIC V's 
recommendation. In particular, we seek comment on the model opt-out 
menu produced by NWS that we attach as Appendix F. Would the subscriber 
choices modeled here be appropriate to standardize among Participating 
CMS Providers and device manufacturers? Would a standardized opt-out 
menu facilitate familiarity with emergency alerts across service 
providers, promote personalization and improve the consumer experience 
with WEA? We seek comment on how we could design a model WEA opt-out 
menu in a manner that would improve personalization without 
significantly increasing user-facing interface complexity? Would it be 
appropriate for the Commission to host a workshop for this purpose? We 
encourage commenters to submit visual representations of ideal WEA 
interfaces into the record to facilitate discussion and review of 
alternatives to this model opt-out interface. We anticipate that 
requirements for subscriber opt-out choices would implicate changes to 
the ATIS/TIA Mobile Device Behavior Specification and to WEA 
application software. We seek comment on this analysis. In our 
consideration of whether to require a standardized WEA opt-out menu, 
should we make any particular accommodations for non-nationwide 
Participating CMS Providers (e.g., small, regional, and rural 
providers)?

D. Improving WEA Transparency

1. Annual WEA Performance Reporting
    84. The Commission's Part 10 WEA rules do not establish a procedure 
for Participating CMS Providers to report the results of any required 
tests to alert originators or to government entities. As such, there is 
no available method for analyzing the success of C-interface, Required 
Monthly, or State/Local WEA Tests. In the WEA NPRM, we sought comment 
on whether we should formalize a test reporting procedure for WEA and, 
if so, on the format and specific information that we should require 
Participating CMS Providers to report.
    85. Hyper-Reach and the majority of public safety commenters 
support requiring Participating CMS Providers to report the extent of 
alert delivery latency, the accuracy of geo-targeting, and the 
availability and reliability of their WEA network because it would 
improve transparency and understanding of IPAWS/WEA among emergency 
managers, and because this transparency, in turn, could increase WEA 
adoption by non-participating emergency managers. CSRIC V states, for 
example, that ``confidence in WEA among [Alert Originators] is dampened 
by perceived unpredictability of WEA geo-targeting,'' and building 
confidence ``will require a means by which they can know that the 
polygon provided is what is actually delivered at the towers for 
distribution.'' Accordingly, CSRIC V recommends that ATIS and CTIA 
study methods of passively collecting and sharing data on the accuracy 
of geo-targeting with emergency management agencies. As demonstrated in 
Appendix G, NYCEM already independently generates performance reports 
on WEA geo-targeting, latency and reliability from actual Alert 
Messages issued in New York City. These tests demonstrate that some 
mobile devices in the target area do not receive WEA Alert Messages 
that are intended for them, and that some mobile devices do not receive 
Alert Messages intended for them until almost an hour after they are 
initially transmitted. APCO and Pinellas County EM urge the Commission 
to adopt reporting requirements specific enough to result in the 
production of uniform reports to emergency management agencies. While 
AT&T would support a requirement for Participating CMS Providers to 
report the results of RMTs, Sprint states that the kind of information 
we proposed to gather through test reporting (i.e., the extent of geo-
targeting and alert delivery latency) is not technically feasible to 
deliver.

[[Page 78555]]

Sprint and ATIS state that test reporting should be FEMA's 
responsibility.
    86. We propose to amend Section 10.350 to require Participating CMS 
Providers to submit annual reports to the Commission that demonstrate 
the following system performance metrics for their nationwide WEA 
deployment (Annual WEA Performance Reports).
     Geo-targeting. The accuracy with which the Participating 
CMS Provider can distribute WEA Alert Messages to a geographic area 
specified by an alert originator.
     Latency. An end-to-end analysis of the amount of time that 
it takes for the Participating CMS Provider to transmit a WEA Alert 
Message.
     Availability and Reliability. The annual percentage of WEA 
Alert Messages that the Participating CMS Provider processes 
successfully, and a summary of the most common errors with Alert 
Message transmission.

    We seek comment on these reporting elements and on the assessment 
methodologies Participating CMS Providers could use to produce Annual 
WEA Performance Reports below.

    87. First, we seek comment on whether an annual requirement would 
achieve the right frequency of reporting. We reason that WEA 
performance data recorded over a period of one year would be sufficient 
to provide a statistically significant sample of data to inform Annual 
WEA Performance Reports. We seek comment on this rationale. We note 
that the record reflects concern that reporting requirements will 
``result in an increased burden for carriers participating in the 
service on a voluntary basis,'' as well as concern that there is 
currently no method available to alert originators to verify system 
availability and reliability except anecdotally. Does our proposed 
approach strike the appropriate balance between these concerns? If not, 
we invite commenters to recommend alternative periodicities within 
which such reports should be required.
    88. In the alternative, would a single performance report to become 
due on a date certain, rather than an annual requirement, suffice to 
inform emergency managers and the public about WEA's capabilities? What 
types of changes, if any, would be substantive enough to warrant 
additional reporting beyond the initial report? For example, as 
Participating CMS Providers make material upgrades to their networks to 
incorporate new or updated technologies (e.g., 5G network 
technologies), would additional performance reporting be appropriate to 
demonstrate that WEA continues to satisfy its performance requirements, 
or to highlight the extent to which any system improvements may improve 
a Participating CMS Providers' WEA service? Would it be appropriate to 
adopt an alternative, less frequent reporting requirement for non-
nationwide Participating CMS Providers?
    89. We seek comment on the methodology by which Participating CMS 
Providers may develop Annual WEA Performance Reports. We anticipate 
that State/Local WEA Tests would be an effective method of collecting 
annual report data since they are test messages that may be used by 
state and local emergency managers to evaluate system readiness, and 
are required to be processed consistent with our Alert Message 
requirements. We seek comment on this analysis. Would a different 
classification of WEA Alert Message be more appropriate for use to 
collect performance data, be more likely to produce results that are 
representative of Alert Message delivery under actual emergency 
conditions, or be less burdensome to implement? For example, AT&T 
states that Participating CMS Providers' reporting obligations should 
be limited to RMTs. We observe that Section 10.350 does not require 
Participating CMS Providers to deliver RMTs to mobile devices, and 
allows RMTs to be distributed ``within 24 hours of receipt by the CMS 
Provider Gateway unless pre-empted by actual alert traffic or unable 
due to an unforeseen condition.'' Given these limitations, we seek 
comment on the value of RMTs as the basis for collecting Annual WEA 
Performance Report data. For example, could it be less burdensome and 
comparably effective for Participating CMS Providers to collect geo-
targeting data from cell sites to which RMTs are delivered, as opposed 
to from mobile devices to which State/Local WEA Tests are delivered? To 
what extent could an analysis of the radio frequency propagation 
characteristics of the particular constellation of cell sites and cell 
sectors chosen to geo-target an RMT be used as an accurate proxy for 
the geographic area to which an Alert Message with the same target area 
would actually be delivered? Further, we seek comment on whether RMTs 
could provide meaningful data about alert delivery latency, given that 
Participating CMS Providers are allowed to delay up to 24 hours before 
retransmitting them. For example, would it be less burdensome and 
comparably effective to allow Participating CMS Providers to schedule 
performance analyses during times when network usage is light? Would it 
be feasible and desirable to ``pause the timer'' on any applicable 
latency measurement at the CMS Provider Alert Gateway until such a time 
within 24 hours as becomes convenient to distribute the test message? 
Would such an approach undermine the representativeness of the latency 
data collected because actual Alert Messages are not held for any 
period of time in order to await more ideal network conditions?
    90. We seek comment on the specific data that Participating CMS 
Providers would be required to gather in order to complete 
statistically significant reports on the accuracy of WEA geo-targeting, 
the extent of alert delivery latency, and system availability and 
reliability. Would determining the accuracy of geo-targeting require 
either a measurement of the contours of the geographic area within 
which WEA-capable mobile devices receive the message, or an estimation 
of the radio frequency propagation contours of the cell broadcast 
facilities selected to geo-target the Alert Message? Would it require 
comparing the target area to the alert area? Would an average deviation 
from the target area be an adequate measure of the accuracy of geo-
targeting, or would emergency managers benefit from a report on the 
specific percentage of instances in which a Participating CMS Provider 
is able to meet our geo-targeting standard? Further, we seek comment on 
whether there are WEA geo-targeting scenarios that pose particular 
challenges to Participating CMS Providers. If so, should Participating 
CMS Providers be required to collect, analyze and report on geo-
targeting under those specific circumstances? In any case, should 
Participating CMS Providers be required to collect, analyze and report 
on their ability to geo-target Alert Messages to geocodes, circles, and 
polygons of varying complexities, and in varying geographic 
morphologies? How many samples of each type would be necessary to 
produce a statistically significant report on the accuracy of a 
Participating CMS Providers' WEA geo-targeting capability nationwide?
    91. Further, we seek comment on the specific data points that 
Participating CMS Providers would be required to gather in order to 
measure alert delivery latency. Would it be satisfactory to simply 
measure the amount of time that elapses from the moment that an alert 
originator presses ``send'' using their alert origination software to 
the moment that the Alert Message is displayed on

[[Page 78556]]

the mobile device? Would this single measurement suffice to give an 
alert originator an informed perspective on when the public could 
reasonably be expected to receive an Alert Message that they may send 
in a time-sensitive crisis? Would it also provide sufficient insight 
into system functionality to allow us to diagnose and address specific 
causes of alert delivery latency? Alternatively, would it be advisable 
to collect latency data at points in addition to the time of initial 
transmission and the time of receipt on the mobile device? For example, 
would it be advisable to analyze time stamps for Alert Messages 
received and transmitted at each of the A-E interfaces that comprise 
the WEA system in order to diagnose specific causes of latency, and to 
promote sufficient transparency to facilitate Commission action in the 
public interest? We seek comment on whether there are any particular 
circumstances in which Alert Messages are delivered more slowly than 
others. If so, should Participating CMS Providers be required to 
collect, analyze and report on alert delivery latency under those 
specific circumstances? In any case, should Participating CMS Providers 
be required to collect, analyze and report on alert delivery latency in 
varying geographic morphologies? How many independent measurements 
would be necessary to produce a statistically significant report on the 
degree of alert delivery latency at each WEA interface?
    92. Similarly, we seek comment on the specific data points that 
Participating CMS Providers would be required to collect in order to 
satisfactorily measure the regularity of system availability and 
reliability. Would the alert logging requirement that we adopt today 
suffice to determine the WEA system's rate of success at delivering 
Alert Messages? Where do errors with Alert Message transmission tend to 
occur? If at junctures other than the C-interface, does this militate 
for the collection of system availability data at each interface in the 
alert distribution chain in addition to the CMS Provider Alert Gateway? 
If less than 100 percent of WEA-capable mobile devices in the target 
area receive a WEA message intended for them, would this implicate 
shortcomings in system availability or reliability? If so, should 
Participating CMS Providers also be required to collect data on the 
percentage of WEA-capable mobile devices for which an Alert Message is 
intended that actually receive it, and to report this data to the 
Commission as a fundamental aspect of system availability and 
performance? Would this more nuanced approach be necessary in order to 
allow Participating CMS Providers to diagnose and correct any issues in 
alert distribution that may arise, and to promote sufficient 
transparency to facilitate Commission action in the public interest? 
Would an average measure of the rate of system availability be 
sufficient to grow emergency managers' confidence that the system will 
work as intended when needed, or do emergency managers require more 
granular data? Would it be necessary for Participating CMS Providers to 
log and report the CMAC attributes of each Alert Message at each of the 
C-E interfaces in order to establish whether the WEA system is able to 
deliver Alert Messages with ``five nines'' of reliability (i.e., to 
establish whether 99.999 percent of WEA Alert Messages are delivered 
successfully)? Is this an appropriate standard of reliability for the 
WEA system? If not, why not?
    93. We seek comment on whether emergency managers need any 
additional information beyond the accuracy of geo-targeting, the extent 
of alert delivery latency, and the regularity of system availability 
and reliability in order to understand the strengths and weaknesses of 
WEA as an alert origination tool. What, if any, additional data could 
Participating CMS Providers collect without incurring additional cost 
burdens, if we were to require them to collect each of the 
aforementioned data points? In the alternative, we seek comment on 
whether, and if so, to what extent making alert logs available upon 
emergency management agencies' request could satisfy their need for 
this information. Further, in addition to the possibility of requiring 
performance reports less frequently from non-nationwide Participating 
CMS Providers, we seek comment on whether such Participating CMS 
Providers should also be allowed to collect less granular data on 
system performance in order to reduce any cost burdens entailed by 
these proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
    94. We seek comment on whether we should defer to Participating CMS 
Providers regarding how they collect annual report data. Does such an 
approach provide Participating CMS Providers with increased flexibility 
that will reduce the burdens of these recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements? Would this approach only be appropriate for non-
nationwide Participating CMS Providers? We seek comment on whether one 
effective and efficient method of generating national data for annual 
submission to the Commission might be through the use of a 
representative sample of the different real world environments in which 
the WEA system would be used (e.g., the dense urban, urban, suburban 
and rural morphologies defined by the ATIS-0500011 standard). We 
anticipate that the use of a representative sample of geographic 
morphologies could reduce any burdens that may be associated with 
providing Annual WEA Performance Reports by allowing Participating CMS 
Providers to collect less data. We seek comment on this analysis.
    95. In the alternative, we seek comment on whether our State/Local 
WEA Testing model provides a framework to emergency managers that is 
sufficient to enable them to collect localized geo-targeting, latency, 
and system availability data without requiring additional involvement 
from Participating CMS Providers. We observe that, even in the absence 
of State/Local WEA Tests, NYCEM deployed a network of volunteers using 
mobile device offered by an assortment of Participating CMS Providers 
to collect data on WEA geo-targeting and latency in New York City. We 
applaud NYCEM for their voluntary effort to improve awareness about WEA 
system performance. We seek comment on whether such tests demonstrate 
that it would be feasible for any emergency management agency that 
wishes to gather performance statistics about WEA to do so for 
themselves. We seek comment on whether NYCEM's tests were able to 
produce statistically significant results, and if not, we seek comment 
on whether emergency managers would be willing to voluntarily 
collaborate and share test results with one another such that their 
findings could be aggregated into a statistically significant sample 
size.
    96. We propose to treat Annual WEA Performance Reports submitted to 
the Commission as presumptively confidential, as we have reports in the 
E911, Emergency Alert System (EAS), and Network Outage Reporting System 
(NORS) contexts. Similarly, we propose to require that Participating 
CMS Providers grant emergency management agencies' requests for 
locality-specific versions of these performance metrics if and only if 
the requesting entity agrees to provide confidentiality protection at 
least equal to that provided by FOIA. Would the production of the 
proposed performance metrics require Participating CMS Providers to 
disclose information that they consider to be proprietary? Would 
offering such aspects of Annual WEA Performance Reports presumptively 
confidential treatment and only requiring that that

[[Page 78557]]

Participating CMS Providers share them with entities that agree to 
provide confidentiality protection at least equal to that provided by 
FOIA ameliorate any concerns about the disclosure of potentially 
sensitive competitive information? Further, we seek comment on steps 
that Participating CMS Providers can take to protect consumer privacy 
if producing reliable performance data requires information to be 
extracted from end user mobile devices. We observe that we are not 
requesting data at the end user/mobile device level, and therefore 
assume that any such information would be aggregated or, at a minimum, 
de-identified.
    97. We anticipate that requiring Annual WEA Performance Reports 
would be likely to benefit emergency managers and the public. For 
example, we agree with Jefferson Parish EM that performance reports 
would help to improve system transparency with respect to ``how long it 
took for the alert to reach the public,'' whether there was ``under 
alerting or overlap of the alerts,'' and how often there are network 
conditions in which ``Emergency Managers . . . could not send alerts.'' 
We also agree with NYCEM that ``[a]s with any other mission-critical 
system, mobile service providers should be required to capture and 
report system errors'' in order to improve the system's security 
posture. Further, FEMA and other commenting emergency management 
agencies agree that reporting geo-targeting, latency and system 
availability and reliability data could provide a compelling 
demonstration of WEA's capacity to deliver timely, geo-targeted Alert 
Messages to specific areas and localities on a national scale, which 
could potentially increase WEA adoption by non-participating emergency 
managers who are ``reluctant to activate WEA'' without demonstrations 
of ``coverage and delivery latency within their jurisdiction.'' We seek 
comment on this assessment. We also seek comment on whether the greater 
transparency promoted by Annual WEA Performance Reports would better 
support alert originator and emergency operations center response 
planning. At the same time, we anticipate that regular performance 
reporting requirements may also be useful to us in our efforts to bring 
to light and address potential areas for improvement in the WEA system 
nationwide. Regardless, we seek comment on whether increases in system 
transparency created by Annual WEA Performance Reports would be likely 
to improve our ability to act in the public interest to remediate any 
issues that the reports may reveal. We seek comment on our analysis of 
these potential benefits, and on any other benefits that Annual WEA 
Performance Reports may provide.
2. Alert Logging Standards and Implementation
    98. As discussed above, we require Participating CMS Providers to 
log their receipt of Alert Messages at their Alert Gateway and to 
appropriately maintain those records for review. We now seek comment on 
whether and, if so, how to create a uniform format for alert logging, 
and on how the collection of more detailed system integrity data could 
be integrated into Annual WEA Performance Reports. We seek comment on 
the extent to which emergency managers would benefit from 
standardization of the format of Participating CMS Providers' alert 
logs. Emergency managers confirm that there is value in log keeping by 
Participating CMS Providers, but CMS Providers confirm there is 
significant variation among them with respect to log keeping. Absent 
standardization of alert logging capabilities, would emergency managers 
be forced to contend with this variation in a manner that may 
significantly decrease the value of alert logs? Does this support the 
value proposition of a uniform standard consistently applied to 
Participating CMS Providers' log keeping? Would the creation of a 
uniform format require the modification of standards relevant to Alert 
Gateway functionality? Would updates to Alert Gateway software also be 
required?
    99. We also seek comment on whether the logging requirements we 
adopt today should extend beyond the CMS Provider Alert Gateway to the 
RAN and to WEA-capable mobile devices in furtherance of our goal of 
improving WEA transparency. We anticipate that alert logging beyond the 
Alert Gateway will continue to improve the transparency of the WEA 
system, will contribute to emergency managers' confidence that the 
system will work as intended when needed, and will improve our ability 
to detect and remediate any latent issues. We seek comment on this 
analysis. Will requiring Participating CMS Providers to log error 
reports and the CMAC attributes of Alert Messages at the CMS Provider 
Alert Gateway, as we do today, be sufficient to safeguard the integrity 
of WEA? If not, would it be advisable to require that Participating CMS 
Providers log this information at each of the C-E interfaces? We also 
seek comment on whether data other than, or in addition to error 
reports and CMAC attributes can be utilized as indicia of system 
integrity. Do Participating CMS Providers currently safeguard WEA 
system integrity through mechanisms other than, or in addition to alert 
logging? Further, we seek comment on whether requiring Participating 
CMS Providers to log data relevant to the accuracy of geo-targeting, 
the extent of alert delivery latency, and the system availability and 
reliability could contribute to the collection of data for Annual WEA 
Performance Reports? For example, if we were to require Participating 
CMS Providers to log alert receipt and transmission time stamps at each 
of the C-E interfaces, would that data contribute to their ability to 
report on specific sources of alert delivery latency?

E. Compliance Timeframes

    100. The rules we propose in this FNPRM would leverage commercially 
available technologies to improve public safety. In this regard, we 
take notice of the current state of technology, and propose timeframes 
that are informed by the processes and procedures that Participating 
CMS Providers and mobile device manufacturers state are necessary to 
implement changes to their WEA service. For ease of reference, the 
table below sets forth proposed timeframes for compliance with our 
proposed rules. We also seek comment on timeframes within which we 
could reasonably expect Participating CMS Providers to reach other 
policy objectives we discuss in this FNPRM.

                Figure 4--Proposed Compliance Timeframes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Rule amendment                    Compliance timeframe
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defining the Modes of Participation in   Within 120 days of the rules'
 WEA.                                     publication in the Federal
                                          Register.
Infrastructure Functionality...........  Within 30 days of the rule's
                                          publication in the Federal
                                          Register.
Alert Message Preservation.............  Within 30 months of the rule's
                                          publication in the Federal
                                          Register.
Earthquake Alerting....................  Within 30 months of the rules'
                                          publication in the Federal
                                          Register.
Multimedia Alerting....................  Within 30 months of the rules'
                                          publication in the Federal
                                          Register.

[[Page 78558]]

 
Multilingual Alerting..................  We seek comment on reasonable
                                          timelines for Participating
                                          CMS Providers to support the
                                          transmission of WEA Alert
                                          Messages in various languages.
Matching the Geographic Target Area....  Within 42 months of the rules'
                                          publication in the Federal
                                          Register, or within 24 months
                                          of the completion of all
                                          relevant standards, whichever
                                          is sooner.
Promoting Informed Consumer Choice at    Within 120 days of the rules'
 the Point of Sale.                       publication in the Federal
                                          Register.
Promoting Informed Consumer Choice       Within 30 months of the rules'
 through the WEA Interface.               publication in the Federal
                                          Register.
Annual WEA Performance Reporting.......  Within 30 months of publication
                                          in the Federal Register of a
                                          notice announcing the approval
                                          by the Office of Management
                                          and Budget of the modified
                                          information collection
                                          requirements.
Alert Logging..........................  We seek comment on reasonable
                                          timeframes for Participating
                                          CMS Providers to improve their
                                          tracking of system performance
                                          through alert logging.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    101. We propose a 30-month compliance timeframe for each proposed 
rule where compliance would be expected to require updates to standards 
and system specifications, as well as software updates for various 
components of the WEA system. These proposals include requiring 
Participating CMS Providers make changes to the WEA interface to 
promote informed consumer choice, requiring them to expedite delivery 
of earthquake-related Alert Messages, requiring them to provide a 
method of accessing pending Alert Messages, requiring support for 
multimedia content in Public Safety Messages, and requiring them to 
track and report on critical system performance metrics. We seek 
comment on this approach and analysis. In the Report and Order, we 
concluded that 30 months was an appropriate timeframe within which to 
require Participating CMS Providers to comply with rules that required 
updates to software and standards because it takes twelve months for 
appropriate industry bodies to finalize and publish relevant standards, 
another twelve months for Participating CMS Providers and mobile device 
manufacturers to develop and integrate software upgrades consistent 
with those standards into embedded plant and to complete required 
``technical acceptance testing,'' and then six more months for 
Participating CMS Providers and mobile device manufacturers to deploy 
this new technology to the field. We seek comment on whether, unlike 
changes to WEA Alert Message content we adopt in the Report and Order, 
our WEA interface and Alert Message preservation proposals will likely 
only require changes to WEA-capable mobile devices, not Participating 
CMS Providers' networks. If so, would mobile device manufacturers be 
able to integrate these enhanced capabilities into their mobile devices 
on a faster timeline than we allow for compliance with rules that 
implicate more systemic changes?
    102. With respect to our proposal to require Participating CMS 
Providers to produce and share critical system performance metrics, we 
anticipate that compliance would require updates to software and 
standards, as well as the coordinated efforts of professionals employed 
by Participating CMS Providers in order to design and implement 
appropriate data collection and sharing mechanisms. We seek comment on 
this reasoning. We seek comment whether compliance with this proposal 
would require updates to software and standards akin to those required 
by rules we adopt in the Report and Order, and, relatedly, on whether 
we could reasonably expect Participating CMS Providers to complete 
these updates within thirty months. We anticipate that some portion of 
the design planning required to determine the types of data and data 
collection methodologies appropriate for this task will take place 
during the course of this proceeding as industry stakeholders consider 
what compliance with our proposal would require of them. We also 
anticipate that this work could continue in parallel with the 
development of appropriate standards that describe this data collection 
task. Accordingly, we do not anticipate that any unique project 
planning component of this proposal will militate for allowing 
Participating CMS Providers additional time within which to comply, but 
we seek comment on this analysis. We also propose to provide 
Participating CMS Providers with a period of one year from the date of 
required compliance to produce their first annual WEA performance 
report (i.e., within 42 months of publication in the Federal Register 
of a notice announcing the approval by the Office of Management and 
Budget of the modified information collection requirements). We 
anticipate that one year will be sufficient for Participating CMS 
Providers to schedule any required data collections, and to aggregate 
that data into useful reports. We seek comment on this analysis.
    103. We propose to require Participating CMS Providers to match the 
target area specified by alert originators within 42 months of the 
rules' publication in the Federal Register, or within 24 months of the 
completion of all relevant standards, whichever is sooner. This is 
consistent with CSRIC V's recommendations that we allow 18 months for 
the development of standards ``in consideration of device 
compatibility, potential privacy issues, network congestion and 
consumer impacts due to increased data plan usage,'' and that ``[o]nce 
the standards work is complete, full system deployment including new 
handsets should be deployed within no more than 24 months.'' We seek 
comment on this proposal. We also seek comment on whether and how this 
timeframe could be expedited, given the critical public need to employ 
more precise geo-targeting standards. Rather than adopting a single 
implementation timeframe, should we benchmark compliance timeframes 
based on a percentage of Alert Messages that meet the standard (e.g., 
40 percent of Alert Messages within two years, 80 percent of Alert 
Messages within six years)? Could this approach enable compliance for a 
percentage of Alert Messages in a shorter timeframe by enabling 
Participating CMS Providers to implement improvements to geo-targeting 
by facilitating implementation on a rolling basis and without waiting 
for industry standardization? We note that Participating CMS Providers 
voluntarily improved geo-targeting relative to our foregoing county-
level

[[Page 78559]]

requirement without industry standardization. We seek comment on why 
standards would be necessary to support a ``matching'' requirement 
where they do not seem to have been needed to support a ``best 
approximate'' requirement. Further, CSRIC V finds that Participating 
CMS Providers would need 36-48 months to support nesting polygons, 
where 18-24 months is allocated to the modification of appropriate 
standards, and 18-24 months is allocated for development and 
implementation in Participating CMS Providers' networks. We seek 
comment on this analysis. Why would enabling geo-targeting to nesting 
polygons require more time than the record shows is necessary to modify 
standards and software to support rules we adopt today? We seek comment 
on a reasonable timeframe within which to integrate additional network-
based technologies, such as small cells, into the WEA infrastructure in 
order to achieve incremental improvements to WEA geo-targeting. Could 
such an integration take place within a shorter timeframe that that 
which we may allow for the integration of eMBMS or another ulterior 
technology into WEA because the network components that we consider 
above are already integrated into Participating CMS Providers 4G-LTE 
networks?
    104. We propose to require compliance with our proposed point-of-
sale notification requirements, and with our new definitions of the 
modes of participation in WEA insofar as they necessitate a renewed 
obligation to file election letters within 120 days of the rule's 
publication in the Federal Register. We anticipate that compliance with 
these proposed rules would require time and effort on the part of 
attorneys and communications professionals employed by Participating 
CMS Providers in order to update any required point-of-sale 
notifications, and potentially to update Participating CMS Providers' 
election letters on file with the Commission. We seek comment on this 
analysis, and relatedly, we seek comment on whether 120 days would be a 
sufficient period of time within which to expect Participating CMS 
Providers to complete this task. We observe that in the Ensuring the 
Continuity of 911 Communications Report and Order, the record supported 
allowing Participating CMS Providers 120 days to update their point-of-
sale notification to advise consumers of the availability of a backup 
power solution that provides 911 access during a commercial power loss. 
We seek comment on whether 120 days would also be adequate in this 
context, and if not, we invite commenters to provide specific details 
as to how our proposal presents unique challenges. We also seek comment 
on whether we could reasonably expect Participating CMS Providers to 
file any required update to their election letter within this 120-day 
timeframe, noting that in the WEA Third Report and Order, we required 
CMS Providers to file their election letter within 30 days.
    105. We propose to require compliance with our WEA infrastructure 
functionality proposal within 30 days of the rules' publication in the 
Federal Register. We do not anticipate that Participating CMS Providers 
would need to take any action to achieve compliance with this proposed 
rule, if adopted, because, as we reason above, Participating CMS 
Providers do not rely on the language we propose to remove. We seek 
comment this analysis. If the deletion of this language would require 
CMS Providers otherwise in compliance with our Part 10 rules to take 
action in order to continue to participate, what specific steps would 
be necessary to comply with these rules as revised? How much time would 
those steps take to complete? If any Participating CMS Provider were to 
fall within this category, would it likely be a non-nationwide 
Participating CMS Provider? If so, would it be appropriate to make any 
special accommodations for non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers 
to facilitate their continued participation?
    106. We also seek comment on reasonable timeframes in which to 
expect Participating CMS Providers to be able to reach the other policy 
objectives that we discuss above, including developing a uniform 
standard for alert log formatting and developing additional alert 
logging capabilities throughout the WEA system and deepening WEA's 
language support capabilities. With respect to alert logging, we seek 
comment on whether one year would be sufficient for industry to 
complete a standard to describe a uniform alert log format that will 
facilitate comparison of Participating CMS Providers' WEA services, as 
we concluded would be appropriate for standards necessitated by rules 
we adopt in the Report and Order. We also seek comment on whether 30 
months would be an appropriate period of time within which to require 
logging at additional junctures in the WEA system. Would software 
updates be required to implement this change?
    107. We seek comment on a reasonable timeframe within which to 
require Participating CMS Providers to support transmission of Alert 
Messages in languages in addition to English and Spanish. Could 
standards appropriate to support additional languages in WEA, including 
ideographic languages, be completed or otherwise integrated into WEA 
within one year, consistent with our reasoning about the time that it 
takes to complete standards in the Report and Order. We seek comment on 
whether software would need to be updated in order to support 
additional languages as well given the two-year timeframe that we allow 
Participating CMS Providers to update software to support a language in 
addition to English (i.e., Spanish) in the Report and Order. Would it 
be possible for Participating CMS Providers to bundle software upgrades 
enabling support for additional languages into any software upgrades 
that they may undertake in order to comply with our Spanish-language 
requirement? If not, why not?
    108. Finally, we seek comment on a reasonable implementation 
timeframe for our proposal to prioritize earthquake-related Alert 
Messages at the Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateway. Would 
Participating CMS Providers be able to implement this change on the 
same 30-month timeframe that we allow for other proposals anticipated 
to necessitate changes to software and standards? Could any changes to 
the prioritization of earthquake-related Alert Messages in transit be 
completed within the same timeframe? If not, what additional 
considerations should we take into account in our analysis of what 
changes in Alert Message prioritization in transit will require? We 
seek to implement each of our proposed rules in as swift of a timeframe 
as possible, while ensuring that our proposed rules do not pose undue 
burdens for Participating CMS Providers, recognizing the current state 
and technology. We invite commenters to offer into the record any 
additional considerations relevant to compliance with our proposed 
rules.

III. Ordering Clauses

    109. 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

[[Page 78560]]

Rulemaking in PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94 is hereby adopted.
    110. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
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.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Managing Director.
[FR Doc. 2016-26901 Filed 11-7-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P