Blue Alert EAS Event Code, 29811-29820 [2017-13718]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 125 (Friday, June 30, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29811-29820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13718]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 11

[PS Docket No. 15-94; FCC-17-74]


Blue Alert EAS Event Code

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) proposes to revise its rules governing the Emergency Alert 
System (EAS) to incorporate a new event code, ``BLU'', for Blue Alerts. 
Adding this event code would allow alert originators to issue an alert 
whenever a law enforcement officer is injured or killed, missing in 
connection with their official duties, or if there is an imminent and 
credible threat to cause death or serious injury to law enforcement 
officers.

DATES: Comments are due on or before July 31, 2017 and reply comments 
are due on or before August 29, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 15-94, 
by any of the following methods:
    [ssquf] Federal Communications Commission's Web site: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    [ssquf] Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience 
delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
    [ssquf] 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: Gregory Cooke, Deputy Division Chief, 
Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security 
Bureau, at (202) 418-2351, or by email at Gregory.Cooke@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in PS Docket No. 15-94, FCC 17-74, 
adopted on June 22, 2017, and released on June 22, 2017. The full text 
of this is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-1257), 445 12th Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: 
www.fcc.gov. This document does not contain proposed information 
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 
Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any 
proposed information collection burden for small business concerns with 
fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork 
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
    Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this 
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in 
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
    [ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
    [ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file 
an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or 
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, 
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    [ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for 
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 
12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of 
before entering the building.
    [ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
    [ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
    People With Disabilities: 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).

Synopsis

I. Introduction

    1. In this NPRM, we propose to revise the Federal Communications 
Commission's (Commission or FCC) Emergency Alert System (EAS) rules to 
adopt a new EAS event code that will allow the transmission of ``Blue 
Alerts'' to the public over the EAS. In doing so, we propose measures 
to advance the important public policy of protecting our nation's law 
enforcement officials through facilitating the apprehension of suspects 
who pose an imminent and credible threat to law enforcement officials 
and aiding search efforts to locate missing officers. Further, by 
initiating this proceeding, we also seek

[[Page 29812]]

to promote the development of compatible and integrated Blue Alert 
plans throughout the United States, consistent with the Rafael Ramos 
and Wenjian Liu National Blue Alert Act of 2015 (Blue Alert Act) and 
the need articulated by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 
Service (COPS Office) of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) 
to establish a dedicated EAS event code for Blue Alerts.

II. Background

    2. The EAS. The EAS is a national public warning system through 
which broadcasters, cable systems, and other service providers (EAS 
Participants) deliver alerts to the public to warn them of impending 
emergencies and dangers to life and property. Although the primary 
purpose of the EAS is to equip the President with the capability to 
provide immediate communications and information to the general public 
during periods of national emergency, the EAS also is used by other 
federal agencies, such as the National Weather Service (NWS), to 
deliver weather-related alerts, as well as by state and local 
governments to distribute other alerts such as AMBER Alerts. EAS 
Participants are required to deliver Presidential alerts; delivery of 
all other alerts, including NWS weather alerts and state and local EAS 
alerts, is voluntary. EAS alerts are configured using the EAS Protocol, 
which utilizes fixed codes to identify the various elements of an EAS 
alert so that each alert can deliver accurate, secure, and 
geographically-targeted alerts to the public. Of particular relevance 
to this proceeding, the EAS Protocol utilizes a three-character ``event 
code'' to describe the nature of the alert (e.g., ``CAE'' signifies a 
Child Abduction Emergency, otherwise known as an AMBER Alert). EAS 
alerts are distributed in two ways: (1) Over-the-air, through a 
hierarchical, broadcast-based ``daisy chain'' distribution system, and 
(2) over the Internet, through the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency's Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS), which 
simultaneously sends data-rich alerts in the Common Alerting Protocol 
(CAP) format to various public alerting systems.
    3. Blue Alerts. The Blue Alert Act was enacted to encourage, 
enhance, and integrate the formation of voluntary ``Blue Alert plans 
throughout the United States in order to disseminate information when a 
law enforcement officer is seriously injured or killed in the line of 
duty, is missing in connection with the officer's official duties, or 
an imminent and credible threat that an individual intends to cause the 
serious injury or death of a law enforcement officer is received, and 
for other purposes.'' As required by the Blue Alert Act, DOJ has 
designated the COPS Office Director as the National Blue Alert 
Coordinator (National Blue Alert Coordinator). Accordingly, the 
National Blue Alert Coordinator has developed a set of voluntary 
guidelines (Blue Alert Guidelines) for states to use in developing 
their Blue Alert plans in a manner that will promote compatible and 
integrated Blue Alert plans throughout the United States.
    4. Blue Alerts may be initiated by a law enforcement agency having 
primary jurisdiction over the incident. The Blue Alert Guidelines 
provide three criteria for Blue Alert issuance, any one of which should 
be met before a Blue Alert is issued. First, an alert may be issued 
when ``the agency confirms that a law enforcement officer has been 
killed, seriously injured, or attacked and with indications of death or 
serious injury.'' Second, an alert may be issued in the event of a 
``threat to cause death or serious injury to a law enforcement 
officer.'' Under this criterion, the agency initiating the Blue Alert 
should confirm that the threat is ``imminent and credible,'' and, to 
the extent the threat arises from the acts of a suspect, such suspect, 
``at the time of receipt of the threat,'' should be ``wanted by a law 
enforcement agency.'' Third, where a law enforcement officer is 
reported missing, an agency may issue a Blue Alert if it concludes that 
``the law enforcement officer is missing in connection with the 
officer's official duties'' and that ``there is an indication of 
serious injury to or death of the law enforcement officer.'' With 
respect to each of these three scenarios, the agency should not issue 
the Blue Alert unless ``any suspect involved has not been apprehended'' 
and ``there is sufficient descriptive information of the suspect, 
including any vehicle and license tag information.'' The Blue Alert Act 
also provides that an alert should be issued only in those areas most 
likely to result in the apprehension of the suspect, and that an alert 
should be suspended once the suspect is apprehended.
    5. Additionally, the National Blue Alert Coordinator is charged 
with cooperating with the Chairman of the FCC to carry out the Blue 
Alert Act. In its 2017 Report to Congress, the COPS Office noted that 
it has complied with this directive by establishing a point of contact 
with the FCC, and by commencing outreach efforts to pursue a dedicated 
EAS event code.

III. Discussion

    6. We propose to revise the Commission's EAS rules to add a new 
``Blue Alert'' event code to the EAS and thus ``promote compatible and 
integrated Blue Alert plans throughout the United States'' as called 
for in the Blue Alert Act. Several developments support taking this 
action today. The Blue Alert Act was adopted to help the states provide 
effective alerts to the public and law enforcement when police and 
other law enforcement officers are killed or in danger. In order to 
ensure that these state plans are compatible and integrated throughout 
the United States as envisioned by the Blue Alert Act, the Blue Alert 
Coordinator has made a series of recommendations to Congress. Among 
them, the Blue Alert Coordinator identified the need for a dedicated 
EAS event code for Blue Alerts and noted the alignment of the EAS with 
the implementation of the Blue Alert Act. We propose that by adopting a 
dedicated EAS event code to deliver Blue Alerts, our rules can help 
facilitate the delivery of Blue Alerts to the public in a uniform and 
consistent manner that promotes the compatible and integrated Blue 
Alert plans contemplated by the Blue Alert Act. We seek comment on this 
proposal below.
    7. We propose to amend Section 11.31(e) of the EAS rules to add a 
new ``BLU'' event code to the codes contained within the EAS Protocol. 
Consistent with the guidance issued by the National Blue Alert 
Coordinator, we anticipate this code would be used by alert originators 
to disseminate information related to (1) the serious injury or death 
of a law enforcement officer in the line of duty, (2) an officer who is 
missing in connection with their official duties, or (3) an imminent 
and credible threat that an individual intends to cause serious injury 
to, or kill, a law enforcement officer. We also propose that such 
alerts would be confined to those areas most likely to facilitate 
capture of the suspect, and would be suspended when the suspect is 
apprehended. As with other non-Presidential alerts, carriage of Blue 
Alerts and use of the Blue Alert event code would be voluntary. We seek 
comment on this proposal.
    8. Efficacy of the EAS as a mechanism for delivering Blue Alerts. 
We seek comment on the efficacy of the EAS as a mechanism for the 
delivery of Blue Alerts. We note that, for over two decades, the EAS 
has proven to be an effective method of alerting the public and saving 
lives and property. EAS Participants continue to voluntarily

[[Page 29813]]

transmit thousands of alerts and warnings annually regarding severe 
weather threats, child abductions, and other local emergencies.
    9. We seek comment on whether the current system could accommodate 
Blue Alerts as effectively as it does these other types of alerts. Are 
there constraints that would impede the ability of the EAS to contain 
the information required under the Blue Alert Guidelines? For example, 
EAS alerts are subject to a two-minute time limit. Can the information 
required by the Blue Alert Guidelines be communicated within a two-
minute time frame? We note that EAS alerts delivered over the IPAWS can 
contain detailed text files, non-English alerts, or other content-rich 
data that is not available to EAS alerts delivered via the broadcast-
based daisy chain. Do Blue Alerts contain extra text files or other 
data-rich content that would benefit from IPAWS' capabilities? Would it 
have a negative impact on the value of an EAS Blue Alert that such 
data-rich content may not be delivered to all EAS Participants, 
depending on whether they receive the alert through IPAWS or through 
the broadcast-based daisy chain?
    10. Further, EAS Alerts are limited to the geographic contours and 
service areas of broadcasters and cable service providers. In light of 
this, are EAS alerts suited to deliver Blue Alerts in a targeted 
geographic manner, consistent with the Blue Alert Act, which provides 
that Blue Alerts, to the maximum extent practicable, ``be limited to 
the geographic areas most likely to facilitate the apprehension of the 
suspect involved or which the suspect could reasonably reach, which 
should not be limited to state lines''? Can EAS Participants distribute 
Blue Alerts to such smaller, more narrowly targeted geographic areas? 
We note that, in the future, if ATSC 3.0 DTV is approved by the 
Commission as proposed in the ATSC 3.0 NPRM, television broadcasters 
using ATSC 3.0 expect to have the capability of tailoring emergency 
alert information for specific geographic areas. In particular, what is 
the ability of small cable operator EAS Participants to limit the 
geographic area of a Blue Alert? To what extent do states use the EAS 
to send Blue Alerts? Do any states send Blue Alerts outside of the EAS 
structure? What has been their experience? Would the EAS serve as a 
more effective means of conveying the information required by the Blue 
Alert Guidelines?
    11. Implementation of Blue Alerts. We seek comment on whether--
assuming that the EAS would be an efficient manner of distributing Blue 
Alerts--the establishment of a dedicated EAS event code would help to 
facilitate the implementation of the Blue Alert Guidelines in a 
compatible and integrated manner nationwide, as contemplated by the 
Blue Alert Act. The COPS Office states ``a dedicated Blue Alert EAS 
event code would serve as the central and organizing element for Blue 
Alert plans coast-to-coast and greatly facilitate the work of the 
National Blue Alert Network.'' We seek comment on this statement.
    12. As of November 2016, 27 states have implemented Blue Alert 
plans. We observe that states' implementation of Blue Alert plans vary. 
For example, Montana and Florida utilize the ``Law Enforcement 
Emergency'' (LEW) EAS event code to transmit Blue Alerts, whereas 
Washington is creating its own ``Blue Alert System'' for voluntary 
cooperation between law enforcement, and radio, television, cable, and 
satellite systems. To what extent do current state guidelines for 
delivering a Blue Alert differ from the Blue Alert Guidelines? Would a 
dedicated EAS event code help ensure that both Blue Alerts and related 
outreach are undertaken in a consistent manner nationally? We seek 
comment on the distribution methods states currently employ to deliver 
Blue Alerts. To the extent states use different distribution methods to 
deliver Blue Alerts, do these various distribution methods detract from 
the effectiveness of Blue Alerts? We seek comment on the experience of 
any states that have adopted Blue Alerts as part of their statewide 
alerting systems. We seek comment on whether the adoption of a 
dedicated EAS Blue Alert event code would encourage EAS Participants to 
deliver Blue Alerts.
    13. We additionally ask whether availability of a dedicated Blue 
Alert EAS event code would promote the adoption of additional Blue 
Alert systems throughout the nation. According to the COPS Office, a 
dedicated EAS event code would ``facilitate and streamline the adoption 
of new Blue Alert plans throughout the nation and would help to 
integrate existing plans into a coordinated national framework.'' As 
the National Blue Alert Coordinator noted in its 2016 Report to 
Congress, a majority of states and territories do not yet have Blue 
Alert systems. Would facilitating law enforcement agencies' ability to 
utilize existing EAS distribution networks alleviate much of the burden 
associated with designing and implementing Blue Alert systems and 
plans? Would the implementation of a dedicated Blue Alert EAS code 
encourage states that do not have Blue Alert plans to adopt, in whole 
or in part, existing procedures of states that have implemented Blue 
Alert plans? Has the lack of a dedicated Blue Alert EAS event code 
impeded adoption of Blue Alert plans? Further, would utilizing the 
nationwide EAS architecture help integrate existing plans into a 
coordinated national framework? In this regard, would integrating state 
Blue Alert plans into the EAS help individual states work together when 
suspects or threats cross state borders, as envisioned by the Blue 
Alert Act?
    14. Alternately, we seek comment on whether existing event codes 
are sufficient to convey Blue Alert information. According to the COPS 
Office, there is a lack of urgency associated with existing event 
codes, which do not ``suggest immediate action on the part of 
broadcasters.'' As noted above, at least two states utilize the ``Law 
Enforcement Warning'' (LEW) EAS code to transmit Blue Alerts. The COPS 
Office observes, however, that the LEW event code is used for events 
such as road closures and notifying drivers of hazardous road 
conditions and is not an effective means to transmit Blue Alerts. We 
seek comment on this observation. Is the use of LEW effective to 
provide information to help protect law enforcement officials? For what 
purposes is LEW otherwise used? Does utilizing an existing EAS code for 
a Blue Alert detract from the existing code's ability to serve its 
intended purpose? Without adoption of a Blue Alert code, would law 
enforcement agencies be hampered by being forced to use codes that do 
not directly apply to the situation, nor convey the necessary 
information? Further, would the use of existing EAS event codes to 
broadcast a Blue Alert create confusion? Do other event codes contain 
instructions that might confuse the public or direct the public to take 
unsafe actions in response to the underlying situation? For example, in 
the 2016 NWS Report and Order, the Commission adopted new dedicated 
event codes for certain weather events, noting that the existing TOR 
event code for tornados provided the public with incorrect guidance 
about what actions to take in response to hurricane-related weather 
events, such as storm surges. Is there a similar risk of confusion with 
using existing EAS event codes in lieu of a dedicated Blue Alert event 
code?
    15. Public Awareness and Outreach. We seek comment on how the 
public may respond to Blue Alert EAS codes. Would a dedicated Blue 
Alert EAS event code allow law enforcement to provide a warning that 
the public

[[Page 29814]]

recognizes immediately as a Blue Alert, e.g., because Blue Alerts would 
be issued only under specific criteria that are nationally consistent? 
The COPS Office states that a dedicated EAS event code would ``convey 
the appropriate sense of urgency'' and ``galvanize the public awareness 
necessary to protect law enforcement officers and the public from 
extremely dangerous offenders.'' We seek comment on this position. 
Would a dedicated event code facilitate consistent and effective public 
outreach educating the public to recognize and respond to Blue Alerts?
    16. In this regard, we seek comment on what actions states have 
taken to educate the public on Blue Alerts and appropriate responses to 
Blue Alerts. For example, we note that the Blue Alert Foundation has 
prepared model Public Service Announcements (PSAs) for use by states to 
educate the public about Blue Alerts. Have states adopted these PSAs or 
other types of outreach to educate the public about Blue Alerts and 
appropriate responses to them? How often have Blue Alerts been 
activated and through what means or media have they been issued? How 
has the public reacted to Blue Alerts? In the past, the Commission has 
noted its concern that over-alerting or alerting to unaffected areas 
can lead to alert fatigue. Has public response indicated that is the 
case in connection with Blue Alerts? We encourage commenters to provide 
examples of all available public responses to Blue Alerts that have 
been delivered since the adoption of the Blue Alert Act and DOJ's Blue 
Alert Guidelines.
    17. Timeframe. We seek comment on the timeframe in which a 
dedicated Blue Alert EAS event code could be implemented. In the NWS 
Report and Order, the Commission required EAS equipment manufacturers 
to integrate the severe weather-related EAS event codes into equipment 
yet to be manufactured or sold, and to make necessary software upgrades 
available to EAS Participants, no later than six months from the 
effective date of the rules, reasoning that the prompt deployment of 
alerts using the new codes would be consistent with the safety of the 
public in affected areas. We believe that adding a Blue Alert EAS event 
code would trigger similar technical and public safety requirements 
regarding equipment readiness. We therefore propose that EAS equipment 
manufacturers should integrate the Blue Alert event code into equipment 
yet to be manufactured or sold, and make necessary software upgrades 
available to EAS Participants, no later than six months from the 
effective date of the rules. We seek comment on this proposal.
    18. With regard to EAS Participants, we note that in the NWS 
proceeding the Commission allowed EAS Participants to implement the new 
event codes on a voluntary basis. The Commission further noted that it 
has taken this approach when it has adopted other new EAS event codes 
in the past, and that the record did not reflect any basis to take a 
different approach. We therefore propose to take a similar approach 
here and would allow EAS Participants to upgrade their equipment 
(whether through new equipment that is programmed to contain the code 
or through implementing a software upgrade to install the code into 
equipment already in place) on a voluntary basis until such time as 
their equipment is replaced. We seek comment on our proposal. If 
commenters disagree with our analysis or proposed timeline, they should 
specify alternatives and the specific technical bases for such 
alternatives.
    19. Wireless Emergency Alerts. We note that along with the EAS, a 
primary public alert warning system regulated by the Commission is 
Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA), a system that allows wireless 
providers (participating CMRS Providers) to voluntarily deliver 
critical warnings and information to Americans through their wireless 
phones. In its 2017 Report to Congress, the COPS Office notes that many 
Americans depend on both the EAS and WEA for public alerts and 
warnings. The COPS Office goes on to note its intent that Blue Alerts 
be delivered to the public over wireless devices as well as over the 
EAS. We note that EAS event codes are not required by the Commission's 
rules for a WEA message to be processed, but seek comment on whether 
the adoption of a dedicated EAS code for Blue Alerts would have any 
effect on WEA. For example, would the use of a Blue Alert EAS event 
code have any impact on how the IPAWS infrastructure and the networks 
of participating CMRS Providers would process a Blue Alert WEA? To what 
extent, if any, have states used WEA to deliver Blue Alerts to the 
public? Have such WEA messages been initiated by the use of existing 
EAS event codes?
    20. Would the adoption of a dedicated EAS event code help ensure 
that Blue Alerts issued over WEA are swiftly processed and delivered to 
the public? If we were to adopt a dedicated Blue Alert EAS event code, 
and the alert originator were to select ``BLU'' as the event code type, 
could this automatically prepopulate the WEA message--thereby saving 
critical seconds--with uniform language that might be applicable to all 
Blue Alerts (such as by automatically including alert message text 
saying ``This is a Blue Alert for [area]'')? We assume that WEA Blue 
Alerts would be classified as either an Imminent Threat Alert or the 
newly adopted Public Safety Message, depending on the circumstances. We 
seek comment on this assumption, and ask whether alert initiators, 
Participating CMRS providers, or other WEA stakeholders believe it 
would be helpful to receive additional guidance or direction regarding 
how Blue Alerts should be classified for purposes of WEA. Are there 
other reasons adopting a dedicated EAS Blue Alert event code would 
facilitate or otherwise affect the delivery of Blue Alerts to the 
public over WEA?
    21. Costs and Benefits. We seek comment on the total costs and 
benefits associated with the proposed addition of Blue Alerts to the 
EAS. For those states that have adopted State Blue Alert Plans, have 
Blue Alerts been effective in protecting law enforcement officers and/
or apprehending criminals? Would a dedicated EAS code produce a more 
efficient result than utilizing an existing event code or alternate 
delivery mechanism?
    22. In the background section of this NPRM, we describe how AMBER 
Alerts are a voluntary partnership between law-enforcement agencies, 
broadcasters, transportation agencies, and the wireless industry to 
activate an urgent bulletin in the most serious child-abduction cases. 
Would the adoption of a dedicated EAS event code help facilitate a 
similar partnership to promote the safety of law enforcement officers? 
Would Blue Alerts have a similar impact as AMBER Alerts? We seek 
comment on whether statistical information concerning AMBER Alerts is 
relevant to Blue Alerts. The DOJ reports that AMBER Alerts were 
directly responsible for recovering more than 25% of children reported 
missing in 2015. According to DOJ statistics, 868 children have been 
rescued due to Amber Alerts. In 2015 alone, 50 of the 153 recoveries 
were the direct result of Amber Alerts, constituting more than 25% of 
the recovered children reported missing that year. Is it reasonable to 
expect a similar success rate for EAS Blue Alerts? What is the expected 
reduction in time to find a lost or abducted child as a result of the 
introduction of the EAS Code for AMBER Alerts? Would a similar 
reduction of time occur with an EAS Blue Alert code?
    23. We seek comment on whether introducing a dedicated EAS event 
code

[[Page 29815]]

would help save the lives of law enforcement officers or the public. We 
observe that 135 law enforcement officials were killed in 2016. The 
COPS Office argues that the EAS framework is a valuable resource that 
can ``expedite information sharing and facilitate the quick 
apprehension of dangerous criminals who pose an immediate threat to law 
enforcement and communities they serve.'' Would utilizing a dedicated 
event code facilitate faster information sharing and dissemination of 
information to the public? The COPS Office additionally argues that 
Blue Alerts can ``provide instructions to keep innocent persons safe 
and information on what to do if a suspect is spotted.'' Would a faster 
and more uniform means of disseminating Blue Alerts, such as through a 
dedicated EAS event code, save lives (whether directly as to law 
enforcement officials, or indirectly as to innocent bystanders that 
might be harmed by the same emergency)? To quantify the life-saving 
value of the EAS, we assign a dollar value to reductions in the risk of 
losing human lives, referred to as the ``Value of a Statistical Life'' 
(VSL). VSL describes ``the additional cost that individuals would be 
willing to bear for improvements in safety (that is, reductions in 
risks) that, in the aggregate, reduce the expected number of fatalities 
by one.'' We estimate that the dollar value of VSL in 2017 is 
approximately $9.6 million.
    24. We seek comment on the benefits of a dedicated EAS Blue Alert 
code with respect to potentially providing an additional path of 
communication to others who may be best positioned to provide 
assistance, including off-duty public safety officials and the media. 
EAS Blue Alerts also could quickly provide the media with information 
that they can disseminate to the public. In this regard, could EAS Blue 
Alerts lower the amount of time that police forces devote to alerting 
the media, allowing more time for personnel to devote to responding to 
the emergency? We seek comment on this category of benefits and cost 
reductions.
    25. We also seek comment on the costs of the proposed event code. 
In the NWS Report and Order, the Commission noted that the record 
indicated that the new severe weather-related codes could be 
implemented by EAS Participants via minimally burdensome and low-cost 
software downloads. Is the same true for the proposed Blue Alert event 
code? In the record of the NWS Report and Order, Monroe Electronics 
indicated that the new severe weather-related event codes could be 
implemented in its device models through a software update downloaded 
from its Web site, while Sage Alerting Systems indicated that end users 
could implement the proposed event codes in 10 minutes or less at no 
cost other than labor. In the NWS Report and Order, the Commission 
expected total costs for the codes adopted in that order would not 
exceed the one-time $3.5 million implementation cost ceiling. We 
believe that adopting a Blue Alert EAS event code presents similar 
technical issues to those raised in the NWS Order. Accordingly, we 
believe that the same costs would apply to the adoption of a Blue Alert 
EAS event code as applied to the severe weather event codes adopted in 
the NWS proceeding, and tentatively conclude that the costs for adding 
a dedicated Blue Alert EAS event code would not exceed the one-time 
$3.5 million implementation cost ceiling that the Commission expected 
in the NWS Report and Order. We seek comment on this analysis.
    26. We believe $3.5 million represents a conservative estimate 
because it assumes all 28,508 broadcasters and cable companies will 
spend the maximum of one hour downloading and installing a Blue Alert 
specific software update. We note that, as of July 30, 2016, EAS 
Participants were required to have equipment in place that would be 
capable, at the minimum, of being upgraded by software to accommodate 
EAS modifications like what we propose here. We also believe that the 
actual cost imposed will fall far below the $3.5 million cost ceiling, 
because it is premised on the assumption that downloading the software 
updates will take one hour, whereas Sage estimated in the NWS Report 
and Order that a similar download and installation would take ten 
minutes. Further, we see no reason why the Blue Alert event code could 
not be bundled with a general software upgrade that EAS Participants 
would otherwise install anyway, during the regular course of business. 
We tentatively conclude that the installation costs imposed on EAS 
Participants, together with the software update costs incurred by 
equipment manufacturers, would be far below the $3.5 million ceiling 
estimated in the NWS Report and Order. We seek comment on our tentative 
conclusions. We also seek comment on the cost to EAS equipment 
manufacturers of creating software updates, testing these updates, 
supplying them to their customers, and providing any related customer 
support. We recognize that potential costs also may include management 
oversight software updates.
    27. The COPS Office observes that a dedicated event code would 
convey the necessary sense of urgency and galvanize the public 
awareness necessary to protect law enforcement and the public from 
dangerous offenders, avoid utilizing existing codes which are used for 
mundane informational purposes, facilitate the adoption of new Blue 
Alert plans and integrate existing plans into a cohesive framework, and 
serve as a central and organizing element for Blue Alert plans 
nationally. We acknowledge DOJ's guidance and expertise as to the 
potential benefits of Blue Alerts, and combine that with our own 
analysis to support the tentative conclusion that the benefits of the 
proposed event code will outweigh its costs. We seek comment on this 
tentative conclusion.
    28. Finally, are there costs or benefits that should be considered 
that are not captured in the above discussion? Are there alternative or 
additional approaches that could increase benefits and/or reduce costs? 
We seek comment on whether there are alternative or additional measures 
that the Commission could take to improve the introduction of Blue 
Alerts over the EAS, in order to promote the important public policy 
objective of protecting our nation's law enforcement officials.

IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    29. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA) the Commission has 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 NPRM. 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 in the NPRM. The 
Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). 
In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published 
in the Federal Register.

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

    30. In this NPRM, the Commission proposes adding a new Emergency 
Alert System (EAS) Event Code, covering Blue Alerts (``Blue Alert 
Warning''). The Blue Alert Act charges the Community Oriented Policing 
Service (COPS Office) with identifying policies and procedures for 
disseminating Blue Alerts to the public that are effective, and can be 
implemented with no additional cost. Blue Alert carriage and

[[Page 29816]]

use of the Blue Alert event code would be voluntary. In its 2016 Report 
to Congress, the COPS Office identified a dedicated EAS event code for 
Blue Alerts as a means of disseminating Blue Alerts to the public, and 
a necessary element to align the EAS with implementation of the Blue 
Alert Act overall. EAS Participants who decide to carry the Blue Alert 
would be able to accommodate the new code with a software upgrade of 
equipment already in place but not yet capable of handling these codes 
(any new equipment allowed under existing rules is either similarly 
upgradeable or will already be programmed to handle the code). In this 
NPRM, we seek comment on whether adding a ``Blue Alert'' code to the 
EAS would serve the public interest by furthering the goal of the Blue 
Alert Act by disseminating information to the public that protects law 
enforcement officials and the public at large.

B. Legal Basis

    31. Authority for the actions proposed in this NPRM may be found in 
sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 
624(g), 706, and 715 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 
403, 544(g), 606, and 615.

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

    32. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the 
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently 
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA). Below, we describe and estimate the number of 
small entity licensees that may be affected by the adopted rules.
    33. 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 
that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry 
specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the 
regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's 
Office of Advocacy, in general, a small business is an independent 
business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small 
businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, 
which translates to 28.8 million businesses. Next, the type of small 
entity described as 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 1,621,215 small organizations. Finally, the small entity 
described as a ``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.'' U.S. Census Bureau data published in 2012 indicate that 
there were 89,476 local governmental jurisdictions in the United 
States. We estimate that, of this total, as many as 88,761 entities may 
qualify as ``small governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, we estimate that 
most governmental jurisdictions are small.
    34. Radio Stations. This Economic Census category comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by 
radio to the public. Programming may originate in the station's own 
studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA 
has established a small business size standard for this category as 
firms having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2012 shows that 2,849 radio station firms operated 
during that year. Of that number, 2,806 operated with annual receipts 
of less than $25 million per year, 17 with annual receipts between $25 
million and $49,999,999 million and 26 with annual receipts of $50 
million or more. Therefore, based on the SBA's size standard, the 
majority of such entities are small entities.
    35. According to Commission staff review of the BIA Publications, 
Inc. Master Access Radio Analyzer Database as of June 2, 2016, about 
11,386 (or about 99.9 percent) of 11,395 commercial radio stations had 
revenues of $38.5 million or less and thus qualify as small entities 
under the SBA definition. The Commission has estimated the number of 
licensed commercial radio stations to be 11,415. We note that the 
Commission also has estimated the number of licensed NCE radio stations 
to be 4,101. Nevertheless, 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.
    36. We also note that in assessing whether a business entity 
qualifies as small under the above definition, business control 
affiliations must be included. The Commission's estimate therefore 
likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected 
by its action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not 
include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, 
to be determined a ``small business,'' an entity may not be dominant in 
its field of operation. We further note, that it is difficult at times 
to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, and the 
estimate of small businesses to which these rules may apply does not 
exclude any radio station from the definition of a small business on 
these basis; thus, our estimate of small businesses may be over-
inclusive.
    37. FM Translator Stations and Low-Power FM Stations. FM 
translators and Low Power FM Stations are classified in the category of 
Radio Stations and are assigned the same NAICs Code as licensees of 
radio stations. This U.S. industry, Radio Stations, comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by 
radio to the public. Programming may originate in their own studios, 
from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA has 
established a small business size standard which consists of all radio 
stations whose annual receipts are $38.5 million dollars or less. U.S. 
Census data for 2012 indicate that 2,849 radio station firms operated 
during that year. Of that number, 2,806 operated with annual receipts 
of less than $25 million per year, 17 with annual receipts between $25 
million and $49,999,999 million and 26 with annual receipts of $50 
million or more. Based on U.S. Census Bureau data, we conclude that the 
majority of FM Translator Stations and Low Power FM Stations are small.
    38. Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category 
``comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images 
together with sound.'' These establishments operate television 
broadcast studios and facilities for the programming and transmission 
of programs to the public. These establishments also produce or 
transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television 
stations, which, in turn, broadcast the programs to the public on a 
predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in

[[Page 29817]]

their own studios, from an affiliated network, or from external 
sources. The SBA has created the following small business size standard 
for such businesses: those having $38.5 million or less in annual 
receipts. The 2012 Economic Census reports that 751 firms in this 
category operated in that year. Of that number, 656 had annual receipts 
of $25,000,000 or less, 25 had annual receipts between $25,000,000 and 
$49,999,999, and 70 had annual receipts of $50,000,000 or more. Based 
on this data, we therefore estimate that the majority of commercial 
television broadcasters are small entities under the applicable SBA 
size standard.
    39. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial 
television stations to be 1,384. Of this total, 1,264 stations (or 
about 91 percent) had revenues of $38.5 million or less, according to 
Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro 
Television Database (BIA) on February 24, 2017, and, therefore, these 
licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In 
addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed 
noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations to be 394. 
Notwithstanding, 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.
    40. 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. In addition, 
another element of the definition of ``small business'' requires that 
an 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 broadcast station is dominant in its 
field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to 
which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the 
definition of a small business on this basis and therefore is possibly 
over-inclusive.
    41. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. This industry 
comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating studios and 
facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a subscription or fee 
basis. The broadcast programming is typically narrowcast in nature 
(e.g., limited format, such as news, sports, education, or youth-
oriented). These establishments produce programming in their own 
facilities or acquire programming from external sources. The 
programming material is usually delivered to a third party, such as 
cable systems or direct-to-home satellite systems, for transmission to 
viewers. The SBA size standard for this industry establishes as small 
any company in this category which receives annual receipts of $38.5 
million or less. Based on U.S. Census data for 2012, in that year 725 
establishments operated for the entire year. Of that number, 488 
operated with annual receipts of $10 million a year or less and 237 
establishments operated with annual receipts of $10 million or more. 
Based on this data, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
establishments operating in this industry are small.
    42. Cable System Operators (Rate Regulation Standard). The 
Commission has developed its own small business size standards for the 
purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a 
``small cable company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers 
nationwide. Industry data indicate that there are currently 4,600 
active cable systems in the United States. Of this total, all but nine 
cable operators nationwide are small under the 400,000-subscriber size 
standard. In addition, under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a 
``small system'' is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. 
Current Commission records show 4,600 cable systems nationwide. Of this 
total, 3,900 cable systems have fewer than 15,000 subscribers, and 700 
systems have 15,000 or more subscribers, based on the same records. 
Thus, under this standard as well, we estimate that most cable systems 
are small entities.
    43. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard 
for small cable system operators, which is ``a cable operator that, 
directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 
one percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not 
affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in 
the aggregate exceed $250,000,000 are approximately 52,403,705 cable 
video subscribers in the United States today. Accordingly, an operator 
serving fewer than 524,037 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator 
if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of 
all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Based 
on available data, we find that all but nine incumbent cable operators 
are small entities under this size standard. We note that the 
Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable 
system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual 
revenues exceed $250 million. Although it seems certain that some of 
these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross 
annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, we are unable at this time to 
estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators 
that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the 
Communications Act.
    44. Custom Computer Programming Services. This industry is 
comprised of 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 $27.5 million or less. 
According to data from the 2012 U.S. Census, there were 47,918 
establishments engaged in this business in 2012. Of these, 45,786 had 
annual gross receipts of less than $10,000,000. Another 2,132 
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.
    45. 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 1,250 or fewer 
employees. U.S. Census data for 2012 shows that 841 establishments 
operated in this industry in that year. Of that number, 828 
establishments operated with fewer than 1,000 employees, 7 
establishments operated with between 1,000 and 2,499 employees and 6 
establishments operated with 2,500 or more employees. Based on this 
data, we conclude that a majority of manufacturers in this industry are 
small.
    46. Satellite Telecommunications. This category comprises firms 
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other 
establishments in the

[[Page 29818]]

telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and 
receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or 
reselling satellite telecommunications.'' The category has a small 
business size standard of $32.5 million or less in average annual 
receipts, under SBA rules. For this category, U.S. Census Bureau data 
for 2012 shows that there were a total of 333 firms that operated for 
the entire year. Of this total, 299 firms had annual receipts of less 
than $25 million. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of 
satellite telecommunications providers are small entities.
    47. Software Publishers. This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in computer software publishing or publishing and 
reproduction. Establishments in this industry carry out operations 
necessary for producing and distributing computer software, such as 
designing, providing documentation, assisting in installation, and 
providing support services to software purchasers. These establishments 
may design, develop, and publish, or publish only. The SBA has 
established a size standard for this industry of annual receipts of 
$38.5 million per year. U.S. Census data for 2012 indicates that 5,079 
firms operated in that year. Of that number, 4,697 firms had annual 
receipts of $25 million or less. Based on that data, we conclude that a 
majority of firms in this industry are small.
    48. All Other Telecommunications Providers. The ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' category is comprised of establishments that are 
primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, 
such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station 
operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged 
in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities 
connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of 
transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications 
from, satellite systems. Establishments providing Internet services or 
voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied 
telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The 
SBA has developed a small business size standard for ``All Other 
Telecommunications,'' which consists of all such firms with gross 
annual receipts of $32.5 million or less. For this category, U.S. 
Census data for 2012 shows that there were 1,442 firms that operated 
for the entire year. Of these firms, a total of 1,400 had gross annual 
receipts of less than $25 million. Thus, a majority of ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' firms potentially affected by the rules adopted 
can be considered small.
    49. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. 
Broadband Radio Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint 
Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution 
Service (MMDS) systems, and ``wireless cable,'' transmit video 
programming to subscribers and provide two-way high speed data 
operations using the microwave frequencies of the Broadband Radio 
Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) (previously 
referred to as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)).
    50. BRS. 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.
    51. 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.
    52. EBS. The SBA's Cable Television Distribution Services small 
business size standard is applicable to EBS. There are presently 2,436 
EBS licensees. All but 100 of these licenses are held by educational 
institutions. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as 
small entities. Thus, we estimate that at least 2,336 licensees are 
small businesses. Since 2007, Cable Television Distribution Services 
have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers are 
comprised of establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or 
providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that 
they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, 
and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission 
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of 
technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired 
telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a 
variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP 
services; wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution; and 
wired broadband Internet services.'' The SBA's small business size 
standard for this category is all such firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees. U.S. Census data for 2012 shows that there were 3,117 firms 
that operated that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 
1,000 employees. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms 
in this industry can be considered small. In addition to Census data, 
the Commission's internal records indicate that as of September 2014, 
there are 2,207 active EBS licenses. The Commission estimates that of 
these 2,207 licenses, the majority are held by non-profit educational 
institutions and school districts, which are by statute defined as 
small businesses.
    53. Direct Broadcast Satellite (``DBS'') Service. DBS service is a 
nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and 
audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic ``dish'' antenna 
at the subscriber's location. DBS is now included in SBA's economic 
census category ``Wired Telecommunications Carriers.'' The Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers

[[Page 29819]]

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 combination of 
technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired 
telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a 
variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP 
services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution; and 
wired broadband internet services. By exception, establishments 
providing satellite television distribution services using facilities 
and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry. The 
SBA determines that a wireline business is small if it has fewer than 
1500 employees. U.S. Census data for 2012 indicates that 3,117 wireline 
companies were operational during that year. Of that number, 3,083 
operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Based on that data, we 
conclude that the majority of wireline firms are small under the 
applicable standard. However, currently only two entities provide DBS 
service, which requires a great deal of capital for operation: DIRECTV 
(owned by AT&T) and DISH Network. DIRECTV and DISH Network each report 
annual revenues that are in excess of the threshold for a small 
business. Accordingly, we must conclude that internally developed FCC 
data are persuasive that, in general, DBS service is provided only by 
large firms.
    54. Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau 
defines this industry as ``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 communications 
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology 
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use 
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to 
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, 
including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming 
distribution, and wired broadband internet services. By exception, 
establishments providing satellite television distribution services 
using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in 
this industry.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard 
for Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which consists of all such 
companies having 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census data for 2012 
shows that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year. Of this 
total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this 
size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered 
small.
    55. 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.
    56. 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 services, paging 
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The 
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. 
Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for 
the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or 
fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus, 
under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers 
(except satellite) are small entities.

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

    57. None.

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

    58. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed 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 or 
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use 
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) and exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.''
    59. The rule changes contemplated by the NPRM would implement 
certain EAS warning codes that are unique, and implemented by small 
entity and larger-sized regulated entities on a voluntary basis through 
equipment already in place (or a software upgrade thereof). The costs 
to EAS Participants associated with implementing the codes contained in 
the proposed rule changes are expected to be de minimis and limited to 
the cost of labor for downloading software updates, to the extent any 
updates are required at all. Nevertheless, we have invited comment on 
the costs associated with implementation of the proposed Blue Alert 
code in order to more fully understand the impact of the proposed 
action and assess whether any action is needed to assist small 
entities. Similarly, while we believe that the costs incurred by 
equipment manufacturers to write a few lines of code to implement the 
Blue Alert code will be minimal, we have also invited comments on the 
cost to EAS equipment manufacturers of creating software updates, 
testing these updates, supplying them to their customers, and providing 
any related customer support. Additionally, we have invited Commenters 
to propose steps that the Commission may take to further minimize any 
significant economic impact on small entities. When considering 
proposals made by other parties, commenters are invited to propose 
significant alternatives that serve the goals of these proposals.

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

    60. None.

V. Procedural Matters

A. Ex Parte Rules

    61. The proceeding this NPRM initiates shall be treated as a 
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's 
ex parte rules.

[[Page 29820]]

Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written 
presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within 
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline 
applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex 
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentation must: (1) List all persons attending or otherwise 
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was 
made; and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during 
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of 
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the 
presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the 
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or 
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings 
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data 
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of 
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda 
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, 
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available 
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., 
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding 
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    62. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, the 
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of 
the policies and rules addressed in this document. The IRFA is set 
forth in Appendix B. Written public comments are requested in the IRFA. 
These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing 
deadlines as comments filed in response to this NPRM, as set forth on 
the first page of this document, and have a separate and distinct 
heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.

C. Paperwork Reduction Analysis

    63. This document does not contain proposed information 
collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new 
or modified information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork 
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198.

II. Ordering Clauses

    64. Accordingly, It is ordered that pursuant to sections 1, 2, 
4(i), 4(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 624(g), 706, and 
715 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 
154(i), 154(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 544(g), 606, 
and 615, this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is Adopted.
    65. It is Further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, Shall send a 
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking including the Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 11

    Emergency Alert System.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 11 as follows:

PART 11--EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM (EAS)

0
1. The authority citation for part 11 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151, 154 (i) and (o), 303(r), 544(g) and 
606.

0
2. Amend Sec.  11.31 by adding entry of ``Blue Alert'' to the table in 
paragraphs (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  11.31  EAS protocol.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-13718 Filed 6-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P