Emergency Alert System; Wireless Emergency Alerts, 40606-40636 [2023-12725]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 21, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40606-40636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12725]



[[Page 40605]]

Vol. 88

Wednesday,

No. 118

June 21, 2023

Part VI





Federal Communications Commission





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





47 CFR Part 10





Emergency Alert System; Wireless Emergency Alerts; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 21, 2023 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 40606]]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 10

[PS Docket No. 15-94; PS Docket No. 15-91; FCC 23-30; FR ID 146184]


Emergency Alert System; Wireless Emergency Alerts

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) proposes requirements for commercial mobile service 
providers (CMS Providers) that have elected to participate in the 
Wireless Emergency Alert system (WEA) to make WEA more accessible, 
including to people who primarily speak a language other than English 
or Spanish and people with disabilities who cannot access messages 
displayed in conventional formats. Additionally, the document proposes 
to weave WEA more seamlessly into people's lives through increased 
flexibility in whether an attention signal or vibration is triggered 
when a WEA is triggered. The document also proposes performance 
measures for WEA to satisfy and greater transparency for alerting 
stakeholders regarding where and on what devices they offer WEA as well 
as information about WEA performance. These requirements would assist 
the millions of people who do not speak English or Spanish, as well as 
those with disabilities, understand and respond to WEA messages, and 
result in a more precise and tailored use of WEA through increased 
flexibility and options for consumers and alerting authorities. With 
this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice), the 
Commission seeks comment on the proposed rules and any suitable 
alternatives.

DATES: Comments are due on or before July 21, 2023 and reply comments 
are due on or before August 21, 2023. Written comments on the Paperwork 
Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be 
submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and 
other interested parties on or before August 21, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 15-94; 
and PS Docket No. 15-91, by any of the following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's website: https://www.apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Mail: 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 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. Commercial overnight mail 
(other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be 
sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal 
Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 
L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
    Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission 
no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a 
temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of 
individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
     People With Disabilities. To request materials in 
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or 
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 
(voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding this 
Further Notice, please contact Michael Antonino, Cybersecurity and 
Communications Reliability Division, Public Safety and Homeland 
Security Bureau, (202) 418-7965, or by email to 
[email protected].
    For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act 
information collection requirements contained in this document, send an 
email to [email protected] or contact Nicole Ongele, Office of Managing 
Director, Performance and Program Management, 202-418-2991, or by email 
to [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 23-30, adopted April 
20, 2023, and released April 21, 2023. This FNPRM addresses Wireless 
Emergency Alerts (WEA). Though we are not specifically proposing 
changes to our Part 11 rules regarding the Emergency Alert System 
(EAS), this FNPRM references both the EAS and WEA dockets and we have 
historically sought comment on WEA in both dockets, including the 
underlying NPRM to which this further notice connects. The full text of 
this document is available by downloading the text from the 
Commission's website at: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-30A1.pdf.

Synopsis

Introduction and Background

    1. It is essential that the public be able to receive WEA messages 
in their native language and that alerting authorities better 
understand WEA performance. Accordingly, we propose to require CMS 
Providers that have elected to participate in WEA (Participating CMS 
Providers) take measures to:
     Make WEA more accessible, including to people who 
primarily speak a language other than English or Spanish and people 
with disabilities who cannot access messages displayed in conventional 
formats;
     Integrate WEA more seamlessly into people's lives through 
increased flexibility in whether the attention signal and/or vibration 
is triggered;
     Satisfy performance measures for WEA; and
     Provide alerting stakeholders with greater transparency 
regarding where and on what devices they offer WEA, as well as 
information about WEA performance.
    Through these proposals, we intend to help the millions of people 
who primarily speak languages other than English or Spanish, as well as 
those with disabilities, better understand and take protective actions 
in response to WEA messages; facilitate the more tailored use of WEA 
through increased flexibility and options for the alerting authority 
and consumer; and provide alerting authorities with the information 
they need to use WEA with confidence.
    2. WEA is a tool for authorized federal, state, and local 
government entities to geographically target alerts and warnings to 
WEA-capable mobile devices of Participating CMS Providers' subscribers. 
The Warning Alert and Response Network (WARN) Act establishes WEA as a 
voluntary system in which CMS providers may elect to participate and 
gives the Commission authority to adopt ``relevant technical standards, 
protocols, procedures and other technical requirements . . . necessary 
to enable commercial mobile service alerting capability for

[[Page 40607]]

commercial mobile service providers that voluntarily elect to transmit 
emergency alerts.'' Pursuant to this authority, the Commission has 
adopted requirements to prescribe WEA capabilities, WEA testing, and 
WEA election procedures. While participation by wireless providers is 
voluntary, those that offer the service must adhere to the technical 
and operational requirements established by the Commission. The 
Commission requires each CMS Provider to file an election with the 
Commission indicating whether it intends to transmit emergency alerts 
``in whole or in part.'' Twenty one of the 76 wireless providers that 
elect to transmit alert messages, including the three nationwide 
service providers AT&T, Verizon Wireless, and T-Mobile, have elected to 
transmit emergency alert messages ``in part.'' A CMS Provider that 
elects, in whole or in part, not to transmit emergency alerts is also 
required to make that election in writing to the Commission, provide 
conspicuous notice at the point of sale of any devices that will not 
transmit emergency alerts, and notify its existing subscribers of this 
election. While Participating CMS Providers, including the three 
nationwide providers, serve the majority of wireless consumers, 
hundreds of wireless providers (over 450 of them) have elected not to 
transmit WEA alert messages.
    3. Federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial emergency 
management agencies apply to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's 
(FEMA's) Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) Program 
Management Office to become authorized as alerting authorities. FEMA 
authorizes alerting authorities to issue WEA and other alerts through 
IPAWS either individually or as part of a Collaborative Operating Group 
(COGs) after they enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with FEMA 
agreeing to certain rules of behavior.
    4. The Commission does not currently require Participating CMS 
Providers to measure the performance of their WEA service. In 2016, the 
Commission proposed to require Participating CMS Providers to annually 
report on the performance of their WEA systems, and sought comment on 
whether Participating CMS Providers should log additional information 
about the WEA alert messages that they transmit to enable performance 
measurements, including at the mobile device where WEA alert messages 
are received. In 2018, the Commission sought additional comment on how 
WEA's performance should be measured and reported, and how the 
Commission should address inconsistent WEA delivery. In 2022, the 
Commission sought to refresh the issue of developing metrics for WEA 
performance and reporting standards to assist stakeholders with 
understanding the effectiveness of WEA in their alerting areas, and 
identify areas for improvement. We proposed that Participating CMS 
Providers report on reliability, speed, and accuracy to help 
stakeholders develop an understanding of the WEA system's end-to-end 
performance. We also sought comment on how these metrics should be 
defined and how the data should be logged and reported to the 
Commission.
    5. In 2020, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviewed the 
federal response to natural disasters, and examined the Commission's 
oversight of WEA in particular. GAO observed that WEA usage has 
increased and now serves as the nation's primary alerting method. GAO 
noted that while the FCC collects test data from Emergency Alert System 
(EAS) tests, a similar mechanism does not exist for WEA. GAO found 
that, while the FCC has required Participating CMS Providers to 
implement new WEA capabilities, it ``has not developed goals and 
performance measures to help monitor how well the new capabilities 
perform during emergencies.'' GAO observed that ``because [the] FCC 
does not have specific goals and performance measures to monitor WEA 
improvements, [the] FCC will have difficulty assuring that these 
improvements are working as intended during emergencies and identifying 
areas where performance is lacking, which could undermine authorities' 
confidence in using IPAWS.'' Accordingly, GAO recommended that the FCC 
should develop measurable goals and performance measures for WEA. In 
response, the Commission stated it would ``complete geo-targeting pilot 
testing with selected local jurisdiction partner(s)'' and ``complete 
associated rulemaking to adopt performance measures for enhanced WEA 
capabilities, as appropriate.''
    6. Over the years, the Communications Security, Reliability and 
Interoperability Council (CSRIC) has studied and reported on various 
aspects of the WEA system. In 2014, CSRIC IV discussed the possibility 
of including maps and other graphic information in WEA alert messages, 
concluding that more study was necessary. More recently, in 2022, CSRIC 
VIII examined the issue of WEA performance reporting and developed 
technical requirements for an application programming interface (API) 
that would allow WEA firmware to leverage native mobile device 
capabilities. CSRIC VIII recommended automated performance data 
reporting via email and discussed alternative ways to implement WEA 
performance reporting, including through the use of staged devices. 
CSRIC VII also recommended enhancements to WEA messages such as support 
for machine-based translation, location aware maps, and other 
multimedia content.

Discussion

A. Making WEA More Accessible

    7. People with native languages other than English or Spanish, or 
people with disabilities, may be excluded during emergencies if they 
are not notified in a manner that they can understand. We tentatively 
conclude that WEA needs to do more to deliver essential warnings in 
languages and in a format that is most likely to reach those 
communities who need this information most. Accordingly, we propose to 
require Participating CMS Providers to ensure that the WEA-capable 
mobile devices they sell have the capacity to translate alert messages 
into most subscribers' alert language preferences and support 
multimedia content. We seek comment on these proposals as well as on 
any other actions that the Commission can take to empower alerting 
authorities to deliver emergency alerts in an accessible manner to 
everyone in their communities.
Enhancing WEA's Language Support
    8. We propose to require Participating CMS Providers to take steps, 
described below, to ensure that their subscribers' WEA-capable mobile 
devices have the capacity to translate English-language alert messages 
that they receive into the default language preferences of most 
subscribers by taking advantage of machine translation technologies. 
This proposal would address alerting authorities' need to be able to 
communicate with people in their communities in languages other than 
English or Spanish, irrespective of the alerting authorities' in-house 
language translation capabilities.
    9. We seek comment on the technical feasibility of this proposal. 
Based on recent feedback from industry participants, we believe machine 
translation technologies have matured sufficiently to support such a 
requirement. Just last month, for example, AT&T posited that ``software 
translation technologies are sufficiently mature to effectively support 
the translation of WEA alerts into the most commonly spoken languages'' 
and recommended that ``translation beyond

[[Page 40608]]

English and Spanish use the software translation capabilities provided 
by mobile device operating systems.'' CSRIC VIII also reports that 
``[w]ith improvements in language translation technology, there is an 
opportunity to provide WEAs in the user-preferred language via language 
translation.'' Machine translation technologies such as Google Cloud 
Translation and Apple Translate are pre-installed on many WEA-capable 
mobile devices. A device-level API to leverage these applications could 
make WEA messages accessible to every major language group in the U.S. 
A machine translation application could access an English-language WEA 
message before it is presented to the subscriber by using this API, 
translate the English-language alert into the device's preferred 
language, and then present the translated alert instead of or in 
addition to the English-language version. Improvements in the accuracy 
and reliability of machine-based automatic translation technology also 
may have implications for expanding the distribution of emergency 
information over the Emergency Alert System (EAS) in languages other 
than English, as the Commission has noted in the past. We seek comment 
on the technical feasibility of this approach and on any other 
considerations for implementing machine translation technology, 
including its use in distributing information over EAS. Currently, 
Participating CMS Providers transmit Spanish-language versions of WEA 
messages created by alerting authorities so that they may be presented 
in addition to the English language version. As CSRIC VIII explained, 
``[i]f multiple additional languages are included in the WEA broadcast, 
capacity limits may not allow for the expected behavior of the WEA 
system in the case of a crisis scenario with multiple live alerts in 
three or more languages.'' Should WEA messages presented in other 
languages also be presented in addition to, rather than instead of, the 
English-language version?
    10. We propose to require the WEA-capable mobile devices that 
Participating CMS Providers sell to support the presentation of 
emergency alerts in the 13 most commonly spoken languages in the United 
States, in addition to English: Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, 
Arabic, French, Korean, Russian, Haitian Creole, German, Hindi, 
Portuguese, and Italian. Best Buy Health/Lively suggests that the 
Commission should ``identify a specific group of commonly spoken 
languages to which WEAs will be expanded.'' We seek comment on whether 
we have identified the right set of languages for WEA to support.
    11. We seek comment on the accuracy of machine translation 
technologies for these languages. Are there languages that, due to the 
accuracy and ease of machine translation, should be added to the list 
above? For which languages does machine translation perform most 
accurately and reliably? We invite commenters to submit information 
identifying the languages for which sufficiently accurate machine 
translation technology is currently available and estimating the number 
of years until the technology for machine translation of other 
languages will be sufficiently mature for this purpose. What metric(s) 
are commonly used to describe the accuracy of machine translation 
technologies? How accurate must machine translation be to effectively 
convey emergency information?
    12. We also seek comment on whether existing mobile devices in the 
marketplace today have the capacity to support machine translation 
software. Would subscribers need to purchase new devices to benefit 
from machine translation for WEA? We seek comment on steps that we can 
take to eliminate obstacles to consumer access to machine translation 
for WEA messages. In addition to (or in lieu of) installing machine 
translation software on consumers' devices, could such software or 
functionality be deployed in Participating CMS Providers' networks or 
elsewhere in the framework for generating and distributing WEA 
messages?
    13. Template-based alerts. We seek comment on alternative 
approaches to promoting multilingual WEA. We observe that the New York 
City Emergency Management Department supports multilingual alerting in 
13 different languages in addition to English through its Notify NYC 
application. This application presents an English-language message, 
along with a link to 13 other pre-scripted translations. These alert 
message translations have been written by people fluent in the 
languages and vetted with native speakers from language communities. 
This allows alerts to reach communities of people who otherwise may not 
understand the alerts they receive. We seek comment on whether this 
approach could be supported by Participating CMS Providers and/or 
handset vendors in a modified manner that would eliminate the need to 
click on a URL. Instead, the pre-scripted translations for the most 
common alerts could be pre-installed and stored in the mobile device 
itself. These templates would be ``activated'' by a data element 
included in alert message metadata, which would prompt the mobile 
device to display the relevant template alert message in the mobile 
device's default language chosen by the consumer. We seek comment on 
which messages should be translated and pre-loaded into WEA firmware, 
and into which languages they should be translated. Could devices 
offered by Participating CMS Providers support the presentation of the 
most common alert messages in the 13 most commonly spoken languages in 
the United States in this manner? Could this be achieved by translating 
the most common alerts into these 13 languages and storing those 
translations at the device? In the event that a mobile device is 
configured with a default language preference other than one for which 
a translation exists, could the device default to displaying the alert 
in English?
    14. We observe that Google and the United States Geological Survey 
(USGS) have partnered to deliver ShakeAlert earthquake early warning 
system messages to Android Mobile devices by supporting communication 
that triggers Android mobile devices to display alert content pre-
installed on the mobile device. We seek comment on whether this 
approach would enable multilingual alerting and simultaneously 
alleviate industry concerns about bandwidth limitations. We seek 
comment on whether a data element would be able to be transmitted with 
a relatively small bandwidth.
    15. We also observe that Dr. Jeanette Sutton, University of Albany, 
has been funded by the Department of Homeland Security to create a 
Message Design Dashboard that enables alerting authorities to quickly 
craft template alerts from prefabricated message elements. If the 
message elements that the Message Design Dashboard uses to create alert 
and warning messages were translated into languages other than English 
and stored at the mobile device, could mobile devices automatically 
translate this prefabricated alert message content? We also seek 
comment on whether there any other technological or practical 
approaches that would enable alerting authorities to deliver alert 
messages in languages that they do not, themselves, speak.
    16. American Sign Language. We note that ASL is not derived from 
English, nor any spoken language. It is an independent linguistic 
system with morphological and grammatical complexity comparable to or 
exceeding that of spoken languages. Against this backdrop, we seek 
comment on whether

[[Page 40609]]

and how WEA might be improved to provide support for American Sign 
Language (ASL). Would a significant number of deaf and hard-of-hearing 
people benefit from having WEA messages presented in ASL format on 
their mobile devices in lieu of the conventional text format used for 
WEA messages? Could a pre-scripted, template-based approach work for 
ASL? Can video content be compressed for storage on the mobile device? 
Are there any other feasible solutions for ASL?
    17. Text-to-speech. Many people with vision disabilities, including 
elderly people, rely on text-to-speech functionality to make text more 
accessible. While the WEA system does not incorporate text-to-speech 
functionality at present, many blind and low-vision subscribers may 
already have screen reading (text-to-speech) functionality installed on 
their mobile devices. We seek comment on the extent to which such 
applications are in use and on whether they can generate audible 
versions of WEA messages. CSRIC VIII recommends that WEA be enhanced to 
speak the name of the type of hazard to which a WEA message pertains in 
English and/or the user preferred language when the WEA message is 
presented on the device. We seek comment on whether Participating CMS 
Providers could support a text-to-speech functionality for the name of 
the hazard to which a WEA message pertains. Would this limited text-to-
speech capability provide equal access to emergency information for 
those that rely upon it? Could Participating CMS Providers support 
text-to-speech for other alert message elements, like the geographic 
area to which the alert message applies or the entire WEA message? 
Could Participating CMS Providers support this text-to-speech 
functionality in English, Spanish, and other languages? We seek comment 
on the accuracy and reliability of such text-to-speech technologies and 
on whether the resulting audible information is comprehensible to most 
listeners. We invite commenters to identify the languages for which 
acceptable text-to-speech applications are currently available and 
those for which they are not. Can such technologies be tailored to 
generate information that can be understood by people who speak 
languages in different regional dialects or accents? For example, 
speakers of Cantonese Chinese may not be able to understand a spoken 
sentence in the Mandarin dialect or vice versa, even though all use the 
same written form of the language. Similarly, Spanish speakers 
accustomed to Mexican or Central American accents may find it difficult 
to follow Spanish spoken in an Argentinian or Castilian accent, and 
vice versa. Would text-to-speech enable people with vision disabilities 
to understand and act on the alerts they receive more readily? How 
should the risk that relying on text-to-speech functionality for WEA 
alert messages might yield confusing mispronunciations be weighed 
against the public benefits of vulnerable populations receiving alert 
messages? Would a template-based approach to supporting multilingual 
alerting facilitate the use of text-to-speech technologies because it 
would allow stakeholders an opportunity to verify the audio conversion 
of pre-fabricated messages for accuracy and accessibility?
Improving WEA's Effectiveness With Multimedia Content
    18. We propose to require support for certain multimedia content in 
WEA messages and to sunset aspects of our existing WEA message 
requirements to free up bandwidth to support this capability. Alerting 
authorities currently do not have the ability to send multimedia 
content through WEA, despite a robust record demonstrating their desire 
to do so. Alerting authorities state that the ability to send 
multimedia content would improve emergency planning and response, 
provide additional information during emergencies, personalize threats, 
improve message comprehension for people with disabilities, and 
function as a way to reach people who do not speak English. In 
response, industry has expressed concerns about bandwidth limitations 
of cellular networks, possible delay of receipt of the alert message, 
and costs. Since the last time the Commission sought comment on these 
issues, CSRIC VIII issued a report that recommends WEA messages include 
a link to access ``location-aware'' maps. A location-aware map would 
depict the alert's target geographic area and the alert recipient's 
position in relation to the target area. CSRIC VIII suggests that this 
enhancement is feasible leveraging current technology and would promote 
public safety.
    19. We propose to require Participating CMS Providers to support 
the sending of thumbnail-sized images in WEA messages over the air. 
ATIS' Feasibility Study for WEA Supplemental Text finds that 
Participating CMS Providers could support the transmission of an 
appropriately formatted, thumbnail-sized image using 0.013 megabytes of 
data. We seek comment on whether the image format contemplated by ATIS 
would minimize the burden that transmission of such data would impose 
on Participating CMS Providers while providing sufficient resolution to 
be accessible on modern mobile device displays. The National Center for 
Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) has long advocated for the 
Commission to enable them to transmit a thumbnail-sized image of a 
missing child within the body of a WEA alert, noting that ``in those 
cases in which AMBER Alert is credited for the safe rescue of a child 
89% included a picture and/or vehicle and license plate information.'' 
Other alerting authorities support this proposal because of its 
``obvious helpful implications.'' The Commission has received 
complaints indicating that the public may be finding that AMBER Alerts 
that do not contain an image of a missing child do not meaningfully 
enable the public to assist in the search for that child. Industry 
commenters generally oppose this proposal because of concerns about 
incompatibility with the cell broadcast method used for WEA and 
latency. Microsoft recommends that transmission of thumbnail-sized 
photos ``should be permitted only after applicable standards have been 
developed and only for AMBER Alerts which, while time sensitive, are 
better positioned than other types of emergency warnings to tolerate a 
60-second latency.'' We seek comment on how long the delay caused by 
including a thumbnail-sized photo would be. Alerting authorities often 
use embedded references in WEA messages to direct the public to a 
website that contains information about a missing child, but the 
additional effort needed to click through a link to learn more about a 
child abduction and possible concerns over the legitimacy of embedded 
links may prevent many people from rendering assistance. Moreover, the 
web servers on which alerting authorities host emergency information 
often become congested, rendering their information unavailable. We 
tentatively conclude that including a picture of a missing child in the 
body of an AMBER Alert will make WEA AMBER Alerts significantly more 
attention-grabbing and, as a result, motivate more people to more 
effectively render assistance to law enforcement to search for a 
missing child. We seek comment on this view.
    20. Such multimedia displays might yield benefits for WEAs 
concerning a broad range of emergencies beyond AMBER alerts. APCO 
states that, more broadly ``providing more detailed information about 
an emergency

[[Page 40610]]

through embedded multimedia would help reduce milling behavior and 
duplicative 9-1-1 calls.'' We seek comment on use cases other than 
AMBER Alerts where alerting authorities could improve the public's 
response to alerts and warnings by including thumbnail-sized images in 
their WEA messages, and whether the tradeoffs for bandwidth, latency, 
and other considerations would support this use.
    21. We propose to free up bandwidth on the cell broadcast channel 
over which Participating CMS Providers have chosen to transmit alert 
messages. Are there any steps that can be taken to continue to provide 
active mobile devices that are incapable of receiving 360-character 
maximum alert messages with access to WEA while still freeing up 
bandwidth? For example, should we sunset the requirement to transmit a 
90-character-maximum version of alerts in addition to the 360-
character-maximum version? If adopted, by the time this rule becomes 
effective, we believe that the percentage of active mobile devices that 
are incapable of receiving 360-character alert messages is likely to be 
negligible. We seek comment on this proposal and on this view. Would 
this reduce the total number of bits needed to transmit an alert 
message? Could those bits be reallocated to other WEA functionalities, 
such as the transmission of thumbnail-sized images? We also seek 
comment on any other bandwidth saving measures that could be 
implemented to more effectively allocate available bandwidth.
    22. We also propose to require Participating CMS Providers to 
support the presentation of ``location-aware maps'' in WEA messages. 
When the Commission last sought comment on this issue in 2016, alerting 
authorities were in favor of including location-aware maps in WEA 
messages to personalize alerts and bolster awareness. Industry 
commenters did not oppose. CSRIC VIII observes that ``maps are commonly 
used to depict alert location across a variety of alert dissemination 
methods (e.g., TV, social media)'' and states that presenting WEA alert 
messages via mapping applications on the device ``could help the 
recipient better understand the boundaries of the Alert Area and the 
device's location relative to the Alert Area.'' CSRIC VIII concludes 
that location-aware maps should be incorporated into WEA such that 
alert message ``text is immediately displayed and an additional option 
to display a WEA map is provided.'' The map displayed by the native 
application would be enhanced by the target area information already 
included in WEA messages so that consumers could more easily comprehend 
that the alert message is intended for them and that they should 
promptly take responsive action. There would be no need for 
Participating CMS Providers to transmit additional information over the 
air to support this functionality. Would this approach of providing 
consumers with a link allowing them access to a location-aware map 
alleviate industry's concerns about bandwidth limitations? We seek 
comment on the benefits of including location-aware maps in WEA 
messages without having to transmit map data over the air. Are there 
any other technological approaches that could be taken to achieve this 
result?
    23. In our discussion of multilingual alerting above, we seek 
comment on whether it is feasible for Participating CMS Providers to 
support the transmission of a data element that triggers mobile devices 
to display pre-installed, translated alert content. Could this same 
technological approach be leveraged to prompt mobile devices upon 
receipt of a WEA alert to display other media content pre-installed on 
the mobile device, such as infographics? Alerting authorities ask the 
Commission to enable them to send infographics that, for example, show 
alert recipients how to shelter in place. We note that the National 
Weather Service has created many potentially beneficial infographics 
relating to weather-based emergencies, such as guidelines to be 
followed before and during tornados, hurricanes, and floods. We seek 
comment on whether support for infographics would increase WEA's 
ability to prompt people to take protective actions during emergencies 
more quickly and effectively. What other media could be pre-installed 
on mobile devices and presented upon a receipt of a WEA message or 
signal that would improve public safety outcomes when events threaten 
life and property?
    24. We seek to refresh the record on whether Participating CMS 
Providers could enable WEA messages to include a symbol set designed 
for emergency communications, such as that developed by the National 
Alliance for Public Safety GIS (NAPSG) Foundation and endorsed by FEMA 
IPAWS. When the Commission sought comment on these issues in 2016 and 
2018, alerting authorities favored this proposal, stating that hazard 
symbols would ``allow for quicker comprehension and therefore increase 
accessibility, including for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, 
deafblind, and deaf with mobility issues.'' FEMA IPAWS states that 
``symbols can help make public alerts and warnings more effective for 
people with disabilities, those with limited English proficiency, and 
the whole community.'' Industry commenters have historically opposed 
this proposal because of concerns about incompatibility with the cell 
broadcast technology used for WEA, questions about the utility of 
symbols, and the need for consumer education, but CSRIC VIII recommends 
that ``WEA message presentation include a standardized symbol 
representative of the event,'' and recommends that ATIS, public warning 
risk communications experts, and social scientists should develop 
standards and best practices and choose a symbol set to use. If we do 
require Participating CMS Providers to support the inclusion of symbols 
in WEA messages, should we require them to support a specific symbol 
set? If so, which one? As a technical matter, would Participating CMS 
Providers support symbols by transmitting them over the air or by pre-
installing them on mobile devices? As a practical matter, what steps 
could alerting authorities or federal, state, local, tribal, and 
territorial government agencies take to educate the public about 
emergency communications symbols so that their receipt results in rapid 
comprehension and action? Would it be possible to ensure that graphics 
and links to images are readable by screen readers for persons who are 
blind or have low vision?

B. Integrating WEA More Seamlessly Into People's Lives

    25. In the decade since WEA launched, alerting authorities have 
leveraged WEA for new and different types of circumstances. The 
incidence of active shooter incidents in the United States has risen 
precipitously. Climate conditions have resulted in wildfires grow more 
intense and destructive, and hurricanes cause more rainfall and 
increased coastal flooding. Alerting authorities have turned to WEA to 
help them to keep their communities safe in the face of these threats. 
We believe that WEA can and must improve to meet the challenge that 
evolving threats pose. Accordingly, we propose to allow alerting 
authorities more flexibility in how WEA messages are presented to 
accommodate different emergencies, while ensuring that people with 
disabilities are afforded access to information. We also propose 
measures to prevent unnecessary consumer opt-out and facilitate more 
effective public awareness testing. We seek comment on these proposals 
and on any additional measures that the Commission can take to ensure 
that WEA is a suitable tool to mitigate loss of life and property 
damage during today's most serious emergencies.

[[Page 40611]]

1. Allow Alerting Authorities More Flexibility in How WEA Messages Are 
Presented
    26. The Commission's WEA rules do not give alerting authorities 
control over how mobile devices present the WEA audio attention signal 
or the vibration cadence. The mandatory presentation of the WEA audio 
attention signal and vibration cadence could prevent the use of WEA 
during an active shooter scenario, where the attention signal and 
vibration could draw the attacker's attention to those who need to stay 
hidden to stay safe. The mandatory presentation of these signals might 
also result in user annoyance and WEA opt-out, particularly where WEA 
is used in connection with a public health crisis such as the COVID-19 
pandemic. Accordingly, we propose to require that Participating CMS 
Providers be able to send WEA messages, at the alerting authority's 
option, without triggering the audio attention signal and the vibration 
cadence. We seek comment on the relative benefits and burdens of this 
proposal, if adopted. Would providing alerting authorities the ability 
to customize how WEA messages are sent (e.g., with or without the WEA 
audio attention signal and/or vibration cadence) make WEA safer to use 
during active shooter events and less intrusive (and thus more 
versatile) to use during public health emergencies or other less 
emergent but nevertheless important public safety situations? We seek 
comment on whether an alert received without the attention signal and/
or vibration cadence could fail to grab alert recipients' attention 
during time-sensitive active shooter situations.
    27. We seek comment on steps that the Commission can take to 
balance the need for alerting authorities to be able to suppress the 
presentation of the WEA attention signal with the need to present 
accessible alert messages to people with access and functional needs. 
In addition to the suppression of the WEA audio attention signal, 
should alerting authorities be able to suppress the vibration cadence? 
The WEA vibration cadence may result in a sound that gives away the 
location of a person in hiding or cause annoyance. It also may be 
necessary for consumers who are deaf or hard of hearing to know that 
they have received an emergency alert. Should we limit the suppression 
of the attention signal and/or the vibration cadence to specific 
circumstances (e.g., active shooter) situations only, and if so, what 
should those situations be? Or, should we defer to the alerting 
authority to best accommodate and balance competing considerations 
without limitation? If we adopt requirements that WEA support text-to-
speech, should alerting authorities also have discretion to suppress 
this capability? Finally, we ask commenters to identify whether and 
which standards and/or device-level software or firmware would need to 
be modified to enable this capability for alerting authorities. We seek 
comment on whether the 12 months that the Commission has previously 
allocated for the development of WEA standards would be sufficient for 
this purpose. If not, why not? We also seek comment on any other 
technical issues that may arise in implementing this functionality at 
the mobile device.
2. Prevent Unnecessary Consumer Opt-Out
    28. We are concerned that members of the public might experience 
alert fatigue and might be annoyed by WEA's audio attention signal and 
vibration cadence, leading them to opt out of receiving WEA alert 
messages entirely. Consumers who have opted out of receiving WEA alert 
messages have no chance of receiving potentially life-saving emergency 
instructions through WEA. To remedy this, we propose to require 
Participating CMS Providers to provide their subscribers with the 
option to durably turn off WEA's audio attention signal and vibration 
cadence for all alerts. The Commission's rules allow for consumers to 
be able to mute the audio attention signal and vibration cadence. In 
2016, we sought comment on whether the Commission should require 
Participating CMS Providers to support consumer choice by allowing 
consumers to receive WEAs with the audio attention signal and vibration 
cadence turned off by default as an alternative to opting out of WEA 
entirely. Microsoft Corporation, California Governor's Office of 
Emergency Services, and the New York City Emergency Management 
Department support allowing consumers to change their WEA delivery 
preferences, including by allowing them to receive WEAs without the 
attendant audio attention signal and vibration cadence. We seek to 
refresh the record on this issue. How do mobile device manufacturers 
operationalize silencing the WEA audio attention signal and vibration 
cadence when users set their devices to ``do not disturb'' mode? What 
other options do consumers have to personalize the audio attention 
signal and vibration cadence? We tentatively conclude that 
Participating CMS Providers should work with mobile device 
manufacturers to present this option to subscribers in the mobile 
device's WEA notification settings in addition to the current, binary 
choice to opt in or opt out. We seek comment on this approach.
    29. We seek comment on whether giving consumers the option to 
suppress the presentation of the WEA audio attention signal and 
vibration cadence promotes consumer choice and would make it more 
likely that people interested in receiving alert messages--but not 
interested in being interrupted by them--can continue to receive 
potentially life-saving instructions intended for them. Given that most 
Americans check their cellphones frequently, we do not anticipate a 
lengthy delay in the time it takes for a consumer to view an alert. 
What other public safety and consumer benefits would attend this 
proposal, if adopted? We note, however, that if the rule is adopted, 
consumers who have already opted out of receiving alert messages may 
not be aware that the option to receive alert messages without being 
interrupted by them is available. How might this information be best 
shared with the public? Should Participating CMS Providers re-set WEA-
capable mobile devices to their default opt-in status as part of their 
implementation of this proposal? Would they have the technical ability 
to do so? To what extent would CMS Providers require support from 
device manufacturers to support such a re-set and update? Could such a 
re-set take place without affecting other settings on a user's device 
(e.g., location)? Should the customer be made aware of the attempted 
re-set, and if so, how? We seek comment on any alternatives that would 
help to ensure that the public is able to yield the public safety 
benefits of this proposal.
    30. We seek comment on whether there are additional reasons why 
consumers commonly opt out of receiving WEA messages. Currently, when 
consumers receive an alert, some mobile device operating systems 
present the alert together with an option for the consumer to go to 
their WEA notification settings, where the only option presented is 
opt-out. Does this operating system functionality promote unnecessary 
WEA opt-out? We seek comment on alternative ways in which unnecessary 
consumer opt-out can be mitigated or prevented.
3. Facilitate More Effective WEA Public Awareness Exercises
    31. We seek comment on whether our current rules governing State/
Local WEA tests are impeding the ability of emergency managers to fully 
understand how WEA operates within their unique jurisdictions and 
circumstances and to

[[Page 40612]]

engage in important public awareness exercises. At present, our rules 
authorize Participating CMS Providers to transmit a State/Local WEA 
Test message, which consumers must affirmatively opt in to receive. 
Alerting authorities thus cannot conduct an end-to-end WEA test, where 
members of the public receive the test message by default, without 
receiving a waiver of the Commission's rules. In contrast, the 
Commission's rules allow EAS Participants to participate in two Live 
Code Tests per calendar year, provided that the entity conducting the 
test takes specified actions to make clear that the alert being sent is 
only a test. We continue to believe that State/Local WEA Tests are 
valuable tools for system readiness testing and proficiency training. 
To the extent State/Local WEA Tests are used for proficiency training 
and alerting authorities' system checks alone, the fact that the public 
does not receive State/Local WEA Tests by default is beneficial. This 
same attribute, however, prevents State/Local WEA Tests from being 
useful tools for raising public awareness about how to respond to 
emergencies that are likely to occur. Over the years, the Commission 
has granted waivers in certain circumstances to enable alerting 
authorities to test WEA using alerts that the public receives by 
default. In assessing these waivers, the Commission has balanced 
raising awareness about emergencies with protecting against alert 
fatigue.
    32. Based on the experience we have gained from evaluating these 
waiver requests, we believe we can identify circumstances where it is 
beneficial for consumers to receive WEA test messages by default 
without conducting a case-by-case evaluation of waiver requests, going 
forward. Thus, we propose to authorize Participating CMS Providers to 
support up to two end-to-end WEA tests (in which consumers receive test 
messages by default) per alerting authority each year, provided that 
the alerting authority: (1) conducts outreach and notifies the public 
in advance of the planned WEA test and that no emergency is, in fact, 
occurring; (2) includes in its test message that the alert is only a 
test; (3) coordinates the test among Participating CMS Providers, state 
and local emergency authorities, relevant State Emergency 
Communications Committees (SECCs), and first responder organizations; 
and (4) provides notification to the public in widely accessible 
formats that the test is only a test. We note these conditions are the 
same conditions that attend alerting authorities' conduct of EAS Live 
Code Tests and the Commission has routinely conditioned waiver its 
rules to conduct public awareness exercises on these criteria. We seek 
comment on whether we should condition authorization on alerting 
authorities conducting certain types of outreach or on the outreach 
being completed a certain period of time before transmitting the test. 
We also seek comment on whether, as an additional condition to conduct 
public awareness exercises, alerting authorities should have to keep 
records on how they comply with the above-mentioned four conditions, 
and produce these records if requested by a Participating CMS Provider 
or the Commission. We believe that, by authorizing Participating CMS 
Providers to support up to two tests per alerting authority each year 
without filing waiver requests or obtaining our permission in advance, 
we can reduce unnecessary administrative burdens on alerting 
authorities, CMS Providers, and ourselves, and thereby eliminate a 
potential obstacle to conducting end-to-end WEA tests that advance 
several public interest goals. We seek comment on this proposal and on 
whether the same conditions that are appropriate for EAS tests are also 
relevant for such WEA system tests. We further propose that alerting 
authorities issue these WEA tests as ``Public Awareness Tests'' to make 
clear that the test messages will be sent to the public by default.
    33. We seek comment on the benefits and costs of this proposal. 
Would this amendment of our rules facilitate more seamless joint 
exercises of EAS and the WEA system? Would they make the WEA system a 
more powerful tool for proactively warning the public in advance of 
emergencies, ultimately preparing them to take more effective 
protective actions in the event that an emergency actually occurs? We 
also seek comment on how this amendment of the rules may affect alert 
fatigue. Are the proposed rules restrictive enough to mitigate 
potential alert fatigue? Recognizing that alerting authorities may have 
overlapping jurisdictions (e.g., a city, within a county, within a 
state), should we limit the number of tests to two per county (or other 
geographic area) per year, to ensure that alerting authorities 
coordinate with one another to prevent alert fatigue for their 
citizens? Are there any additional conditions or alternatives that 
could make WEA a more effective tool for raising public awareness about 
emergency situations likely to occur while mitigating the risk of alert 
fatigue?

C. Establishing a WEA Database To Promote Transparency About WEA 
Availability and Benchmark WEA Performance

    34. We propose to modernize the WEA election process and facilitate 
access to WEA availability and performance information through the 
development of a Commission-hosted WEA Database. At present, to access 
information about WEA's availability in their jurisdictions, alerting 
authorities and the public must review all of the WEA election letters 
filed with the Commission. Even then, those letters are often unclear 
about whether a Participating CMS Provider participates in whole or in 
part and their level of support for WEA geographically and on different 
types of mobile devices. We anticipate that the WEA Database would be 
an interactive portal where CMS Providers submit information about the 
availability and performance of WEA on their networks, and where such 
information could be readily accessible to both alerting authorities 
and the public.
1. Reporting Information About WEA Availability
    35. We propose to require all CMS Providers, irrespective of 
whether they elect to transmit WEA messages, to report their level of 
WEA participation in a WEA Database. In order for the WEA Database to 
be effective in providing a full understanding of WEA coverage, we 
propose the database should identify which CMS Providers offer WEA, in 
what geographic areas, and on which devices. In addition, this 
information must be current.
    36. Identify which wireless providers offer WEA. We propose to 
require that CMS Providers identify whether they elect to participate 
in WEA in whole or in part, or whether they elect not to participate. 
If a CMS Provider elects to participate in part or not to participate 
at all, we propose that they provide an explanation or basis for this 
decision using free form text. CMS Providers should submit their 
election in the WEA Database regardless of whether they have previously 
filed in the docket. We propose that CMS Providers should also identify 
the entities on behalf of which they are filing. We seek comment on 
this proposal. It is often difficult for the Commission and alerting 
authorities to know which service providers are participating in WEA 
because CMS Providers take inconsistent approaches to disclosing the 
names of subsidiary companies on behalf of which their election is 
filed, any ``doing business as'' names under which they are offering

[[Page 40613]]

services that support WEA, and the names of Mobile Virtual Network 
Operators (MVNOs) and wireless resellers through which their network 
supports WEA. Should this responsibility be limited to entities with 
which CMS Providers have a contractual relationship? Are there any 
other relationships a CMS Provider's WEA election should capture to 
better identify wireless providers' WEA participation status? This 
proposed requirement would make WEA elections more uniform and provide 
a more complete picture of WEA's availability nationwide. To ease the 
burden of this proposal, the WEA Database would leverage any relevant 
information that is available through existing Commission systems like 
the Commission Registration System (CORES). We seek comment on the 
burdens such proposals would impose upon CMS Providers and on any 
alternative approaches that the Commission could take to accurately 
identify the universe of the entities that participate in WEA.
    37. Identify where WEA is Offered. We propose to require CMS 
Providers to disclose the extent to which they offer WEA in the 
entirety of their geographic service area. We seek comment on this 
proposal. When CMS Providers elect to transmit WEA messages ``in part'' 
today, those elections often provide little information about what ``in 
part'' means as a practical matter. For example, they rarely specify 
whether there are geographic areas excluded from their WEA coverage. 
This could lead to confusion about the extent to which the public 
receives WEA messages. This is problematic from the standpoint of an 
alerting authority trying to plan for how it will reliably communicate 
with the public during an emergency. For example, during this past 
wildfire season, alerting authorities and the Commission struggled to 
identify whether the non-delivery of WEA alert messages in New Mexico 
was due to service degradation or the Participating CMS Providers' 
choice not to transmit WEA alert messages in the affected counties. 
Would information about the geographic areas where CMS Providers 
support WEA be helpful to alerting authorities during situations like 
the New Mexico wildfires?
    38. For CMS Providers that report in the WEA Database that they are 
participating in WEA in whole, we propose to represent their geographic 
service area using the voice geographical information system (GIS) 
coverage area, which CMS Providers submit to the Commission as their 
mobile voice coverage area in the biannual Broadband Data Collection 
(BDC). We believe that the voice channel coverage area is a 
conservative estimate of the control channel which is used to deliver 
the WEA coverage. The estimate is conservative because voice 
communication has a higher bandwidth requirement than data transferred 
over the control channel, resulting in a smaller coverage area than the 
control channel. We believe that this conservative estimate may be 
appropriate to avoid misleading consumers into thinking they will 
receive a WEA where they will not. We seek comment on this approach. 
For those CMS Providers that do not support WEA through their entire 
geographic service area, we propose to require them to submit a GIS 
polygon coverage area that most accurately represents their WEA 
coverage area. We seek comment on whether these proposals would 
represent a cost-effective and accurate approach to reporting WEA 
availability, in a manner that would be readily understood by other 
stakeholders. Do the cost savings for Participating CMS Providers 
attendant to using a voice coverage shapefile already on file with the 
Commission outweigh the potential public safety benefit of a more 
precise representation of a WEA coverage area? Would a source of 
geospatial data other than shapefile be either less burdensome to 
produce or more beneficial to alerting authorities? We seek comment on 
any alternative ways of reporting this information and their associated 
benefits and costs.
    39. Does information about the geographic availability of WEA need 
to be supplemented with additional information about WEA delivery to be 
useful to alerting authorities? For example, because our WEA rules 
require Participating CMS Providers to support WEA for roaming 
subscribers, would it be a more helpful representation of a WEA 
coverage area if Participating CMS Providers submitted a shapefile 
describing their WEA coverage area and any additional areas where they 
have a roaming agreement with another Participating CMS Provider? Do 
Participating CMS Providers have access to such information from 
roaming partners in the first instance? If not, we seek comment on 
whether to require Participating CMS Providers to provide a list of 
their roaming partners via the WEA database to allow the database to 
compile that coverage area information. Further, it is unclear from the 
record whether mobile assets (e.g., cells on wheels (COWs), cells on 
light trucks (COLTs)) deployed to compensate for cell site outages were 
provisioned into providers' WEA systems. During emergencies, cell 
facilities that normally would be capable of transmitting WEA messages 
to a certain geographic area might not be available to do so. Should 
CMS Providers who file reports in the Disaster Information Reporting 
System (DIRS) regarding a particular emergency also include information 
about whether any COWs and COLTs deployed support WEA? We seek comment 
on the benefit to alerting authorities of knowing whether COWS/COLTS 
deployed in their area support WEA. Would the value of this information 
be enhanced if Participating CMS Providers also disclosed the location 
of those deployable assets? Should CMS Providers report if they do not 
support WEA when using certain network technologies (e.g., a CMS 
Provider sends WEA messages on its 5G network, but not its 3G network)? 
Are there other kinds of information about WEA availability that CMS 
providers should be required to report, and if so, how would that 
information assist alerting authorities in protecting the public? We 
also seek comment on how this information, if required, should be 
reported to ease burdens and promote uniformity in reporting. For 
example, for network technology information, should CMS Providers be 
presented with simple checkboxes to indicate whether they offer WEA on 
all deployed generations of wireless network technology or on all 
available deployable mobile assets? Should the Commission use 
Participating CMS Providers' technology specific shapefiles submitted 
as part of the BDC for this purpose?
    40. Identify which devices support WEA. Like geographic area, ``in 
part'' WEA elections rarely share information about the mobile devices 
that are capable of receiving WEA messages. While this information is 
provided by CMS Providers at the point of sale, it is prohibitively 
difficult for alerting authorities to aggregate that information from 
all possible points of sale, including by third-party retailers. For 
this reason, we propose to require Participating CMS Providers to 
report in the WEA Database all mobile devices that the Participating 
CMS Provider currently offers for sale that are WEA-capable. We seek 
comment on this proposal. By collecting this information in a uniform 
way in a single database, we believe that alerting authorities will be 
better able to understand how WEA messages will be received by 
individuals in their jurisdiction and better able to determine if WEA 
is an appropriate tool for their emergency

[[Page 40614]]

communications needs. For example, would this information help alerting 
authorities to understand the deployment status of new WEA 
capabilities, the availability of which may be dependent on 
Participating CMS Providers' and equipment manufacturers' decisions 
about whether to support deployed mobile devices with software updates? 
Most Participating CMS Providers do, though, maintain public online 
information relating to device WEA capabilities. How can we avoid 
creating confusion in light of the already existing public information? 
We note that our proposal, if adopted, would not shed light on the WEA 
capabilities of the installed base of mobile devices that connect to 
the Participating CMS Provider's network but are not sold by the 
Participating CMS Provider at the time of reporting. Does this create a 
predictable gap in alerting authorities' and the Commission's 
understanding of WEA's availability? How could Participating CMS 
Providers provide alerting authorities and the Commission with 
visibility into WEA capabilities of the mobile devices operating on the 
Participating CMS Provider's network but that they do not sell? Do all 
versions of a given make and model of mobile device have the same WEA 
capabilities, irrespective of where they are sold? Or, does a mobile 
device's WEA capabilities depend on firmware specific to Participating 
CMS Providers? We seek comment on any alternative approaches that might 
further reduce reporting burdens. We particularly encourage commenters 
to address other ways the Commission may leverage data CMS Providers 
already submit to the Commission to alleviate any burden attendant to 
reporting this information.
    41. To modernize our rules and better support this proposed 
reporting requirement, we propose to update the definition of what 
constitutes a ``WEA-capable mobile device.'' We observe that as WEA's 
capabilities have evolved over the last several years, the definition 
of what is considered a WEA-capable mobile device has not evolved with 
it. As a result, mobile devices have continued to be considered ``WEA-
capable'' even if they do not support the capabilities that have become 
central to WEA's effectiveness, such as supporting a 360-character 
message length or the inclusion of URLs. We are concerned that if the 
term ``WEA-capable'' continues to include any mobile device with at 
least partial WEA functionality, consumers might be confused and 
mistakenly believe that all ``WEA-capable'' mobile devices offer all 
WEA capabilities. Accordingly, we propose to amend our rules to define 
a ``WEA-capable mobile device'' as a mobile device that is compliant 
with the Part 10, Subpart E equipment requirements, and to make 
explicit that WEA-capable mobile devices must support the alert message 
requirements in Part 10, Subpart D (e.g., support for the alert message 
classifications, national alert prioritization, WEA message elements, 
the 360-maximum character limit, geo-targeting, roaming, and support 
for both English- and Spanish-language alerts). We seek comment on this 
proposal. We also seek comment on any alternative approaches.
    42. The Commission's rules currently define a ``mobile device'' for 
the purpose of WEA as ``[t]he subscriber equipment generally offered by 
CMS providers that supports the distribution of WEA Alert Messages.'' 
We observe that this definition does not account for mobile devices 
that do not support WEA messages. Accordingly, we propose to update the 
definition of a ``mobile device'' for the purpose of WEA as ``any 
customer equipment used to receive commercial mobile service.'' We seek 
comment on this proposal. We believe that this amended definition 
appropriately acknowledges the possibility that a mobile device does 
not support WEA, while also being broad enough to potentially include 
devices that are commonly considered to be mobile devices, such as 
tablets, wearables, or other non-smartphone devices. This amended 
definition may also increase access to WEA messages by individuals with 
disabilities who frequently rely on these devices for connecting to 
wireless services. Individuals with mobility or dexterity disabilities 
may find smaller devices too difficult to use; thus, these devices may 
accommodate those with such disabilities. We seek comment on whether 
these devices are capable of receiving WEAs. Would providing WEA to 
data-plan-enabled tablets and other devices that receive commercial 
mobile service allow individuals with disabilities (e.g., individuals 
that lack the manual dexterity required to manipulate a smaller device) 
to receive WEA messages for the first time?
    43. Provide current information. We propose to require that CMS 
Providers update the WEA Database within 30 days of a change in their 
WEA participation. Currently, our rules do not require CMS Providers to 
update their WEA election status when the nature of their WEA service 
profile changes and, in fact, most CMS Providers have not updated their 
election to transmit alert messages since filing their initial election 
in 2008. As a result, we are concerned that many WEA elections could 
now be outdated and do not accurately reflect WEA's current 
availability. We propose that a 30-day timeframe reflects an 
appropriate balance between affording CMS Providers adequate time to 
submit an update and providing stakeholders current information on WEA 
availability. We seek comment on this proposal. Rather than requiring 
that CMS Providers update their WEA elections within 30 days of a 
change in their participation, should updates be required periodically, 
irrespective of updates based on a change in their participation? If 
so, how often should those updates be required? The BDC requires filers 
to update their filings biannually (i.e., twice each year). Would this 
biannual update approach work for WEA or would this result in alerting 
authorities frequently accessing outdated information in the WEA 
Database that undermines their emergency communication efforts? 
Alternatively, if changes to WEA availability are made infrequently, 
would a biannual filing be unnecessary?
2. Improving WEA's Performance To Make It a More Effective Life-Saving 
Tool
    44. To improve the effectiveness of WEA, and consistent with the 
recommendations of the GAO, we propose to establish WEA performance 
minimums that Participating CMS Providers must satisfy for every WEA 
message they send. Press reports indicate that, due to deficiencies in 
Participating CMS Providers' implementation of WEA, many people are not 
receiving critical, timely information during life-threatening and 
time-sensitive emergencies, such as earthquakes or wildfires, while 
others are receiving information that is irrelevant to them, which 
degrades the value of the WEA system as a whole. When people receive 
alert messages not relevant to their geographic area, they may learn to 
ignore the WEA messages they receive or they may opt out of receiving 
WEA messages entirely. It is our understanding that inconsistent WEA 
performance may have led some emergency management agencies to delay 
becoming authorized as alerting authorities and may have caused others 
to limit their use of WEA. Are there other reasons why emergency 
management agencies may delay becoming authorized as alerting 
authorities or otherwise limit their use of WEA, such as the costs of 
establishing and maintaining alerting

[[Page 40615]]

capabilities with third party vendors? We seek comment on these issues.
    45. WEA Reliability. To ensure that all WEA-capable mobile devices 
within a target area receive alerts intended for them, we propose to 
require Participating CMS Providers to meet a minimum requirement for 
the reliability with which they deliver WEA messages to their 
subscribers. We note that our rules already require WEA messages to be 
delivered to 100 percent of the target area. We are concerned that this 
requirement is not sufficient to ensure that the public can rely on 
their Participating CMS Provider to deliver to them promptly the WEA 
messages intended for them every time, including when they enter the 
alert's target area after the alert's initial transmission. We seek 
comment on an improvement to our existing minimum reliability 
requirement that is technically feasible and generally achievable 
across circumstances. For example, we seek comment on whether 
Participating CMS Providers should deliver WEA messages to all WEA-
capable mobile devices that are within an alert message's target area 
at the time the Participating CMS Provider initially transmits the 
message. We also seek comment on whether Participating CMS Providers 
should deliver WEA messages to all WEA-capable mobile devices that 
enter the alert message's target area after the initial transmission, 
while the alert message is active. This approach would go one step 
further than our existing requirement by ensuring that the messages 
delivered to that area to be presented to the subscriber, regardless of 
whether the subscriber is in the target area at the time the alert is 
transmitted or enter the target area later, provided the alert remains 
active. Are there any technical challenges that may prevent all devices 
from receiving and presenting alerts? How can those challenges be 
addressed.
    46. WEA Accuracy. The Commission's WEA rules require Participating 
CMS Providers to deliver WEA messages with no more than 0.1 of a mile 
overshoot unless, for example, mobile devices have location services 
disabled or legacy networks and devices could not be updated to support 
geofencing, in which case Participating CMS Providers are permitted to 
send an alert to their best approximation of the target area. We seek 
comment on whether these exceptions to the Commission's existing 
accuracy requirement remain necessary and, if not, we propose to sunset 
them. For example, we seek comment on whether WEA-capable mobile 
devices located more than 0.1 miles outside of a targeted area should 
suppress alerts for that area, regardless of whether its location 
services are enabled. We are concerned that this exception may be 
resulting in considerable WEA overshoot. We seek comment on the extent 
to which this exception is still necessary for modern WEA-capable 
mobile devices. Since the Commission adopted its enhanced WEA geo-
targeting requirement, industry WEA stakeholders have changed the WEA 
functionality of mobile devices from being enabled by software to being 
enabled by firmware. As we have seen in other public safety contexts, 
even when a consumer disables location services, a CMS Provider may 
still access that data when necessary (e.g., to support 9-1-1 calling). 
We seek comment on whether we should require location services to 
always be enabled for WEA on WEA-capable mobile devices, even if they 
are disabled for other uses.
    47. We also seek on whether to eliminate the exception to those 
same geotargeting rules that exempts legacy networks and mobile devices 
that cannot be updated. Under this approach, mobile devices could not 
be considered ``WEA-capable'' unless they can comply with the 
geotargeting requirements. We believe this would be consistent with our 
proposal, discussed in greater detail above, to update the definition 
of ``WEA-capable mobile device'' to only include devices that support 
the alert message requirements in part 10, subpart D. We seek comment 
on this approach, and the likely effect of churn. We seek comment on 
whether any legacy CMS network facilities cannot be updated to support 
geofencing. If so, why? On what timeframe do Participating CMS 
Providers intend to remove these legacy network elements from their 
facilities?
    48. We seek comment on other reasons why WEA-capable mobile devices 
may be falling short of meeting our existing geo-targeting 
requirements. Are these shortfalls related to the amount of time mobile 
devices are allowed to calculate their location before displaying the 
alert? Why might a mobile device be unable to calculate its location 
for the purposes of WEA within the permissible period, even when the 
device's location services are turned on and available to the WEA 
firmware? Is there another issue or problem with the geofencing 
solution being used in WEA-capable mobile devices? Alternatively, we 
invite industry stakeholders to submit test results or studies 
demonstrating that their devices strike the correct balance between 
presenting WEA messages in a timely and accurate manner.
    49. WEA Speed. We propose to require Participating CMS Providers to 
satisfy minimum speed requirements, to ensure WEA messages are 
displayed as swiftly as possible during emergencies where every second 
counts. We seek comment on a minimum speed requirement that is 
technically feasible and generally achievable across circumstances. For 
example, we seek comment on whether Participating CMS Providers should 
present alerts within five minutes on 99% of WEA-capable mobile devices 
that have not opted out from receiving the alert and are within the 
target area? For devices that enter a targeted geographic area after 
the initial transmission of the alert, we propose that the five minutes 
be measured from the time that they entered the target area. Should we 
measure 5 minutes as the amount of time between receipt of the alert 
message at the Participating CMS Provider alert gateway and 
presentation of the alert on the device? We note that the ATIS WEA 
geofencing standard allows mobile devices to take up to four minutes 
and fifteen seconds to determine their location before defaulting to 
displaying the alert. To the extent that some devices may need 
additional time to confirm their locations, we believe that a 
requirement of five minutes provides sufficient time to do so. We 
believe that this approach would acknowledge that there may be 
localized complexities in the radio frequency environment that may 
prevent some devices from receiving the first transmission of an alert. 
Is five minutes the appropriate speed requirement for WEA, and if not, 
what should that requirement be? Are there any circumstances that may 
result in significant delay in the time between the transmission of an 
alert by a Participating CMS Provider and presentation by a WEA-capable 
mobile device? If so, how should we adjust our WEA speed metric to 
compensate? On the other hand, should we require more than 99% of 
opted-in WEA 3.0-capable devices to present WEA alerts within five 
minutes, and if so, why? Alternatively, we seek comment on the 
percentage of mobile devices that may be able to display an alert 
within one second. Would one second from receipt at the Participating 
CMS Provider alert gateway be an appropriate benchmark for the 
percentage of mobile devices that already have a location determination 
at the time they receive a WEA and therefore need to engage in limited 
additional processing before presenting the alert message? How else 
could we benchmark WEA's speed to reflect

[[Page 40616]]

latencies between receipt between Participating CMS Providers.
    50. We seek comment on the public safety benefits of requiring 
Participating CMS Providers to optimize their network's performance to 
satisfy these performance minimums. Would these performance minimums 
make WEA a much more effective and dependable emergency communication 
tool? Would the adoption of these performance minimums cause more 
alerting authorities to use WEA, or motivate more emergency management 
agencies to become alerting authorities? If these performance metrics 
are not the right minimum benchmarks for WEA's performance, how should 
the Commission benchmark WEA's reliability, accuracy, and speed? We 
seek comment on any additional WEA performance data regarding how the 
public is currently receiving alerts and how that data should affect 
the adoption of minimum WEA performance minimums.
    51. Other WEA Performance Improvements. As an alternative, or in 
addition to ensuring WEA's minimum performance as described above, we 
seek comment on whether to require Participating CMS Providers to take 
specific measures to improve WEA's reliability. Should we require 
Participating CMS Providers to retransmit alert messages at one-minute 
intervals throughout an alert's active period, as AT&T currently does? 
Other major Participating CMS Providers only broadcast an alert message 
a single time or a limited number of times after a delay of at least 
several minutes. We are concerned that this means that people entering 
the target area after the initial transmission may not receive the 
alert in a timely manner. We seek comment on whether this requirement 
would improve WEA's reliability, particularly among people that enter 
an alert's target area during an alert's active period, but after 
Participating CMS Providers' initial transmission of the alert. We also 
seek comment in the alternative on whether to require Participating CMS 
Providers to take specific measures to improve WEA's accuracy. Pursuant 
to WEA standards, receipt of a WEA message does not necessarily prompt 
geofencing-capable mobile devices to obtain a fresh location fix. 
Receipt of a WEA message prompts a geofencing-capable mobile device to 
determine its location, but if the mobile device has a stored record of 
its location, the mobile device may use that record rather than obtain 
a fresh location fix from the network, even if the location information 
stored on the mobile device is old and inaccurate. We seek comment on 
whether this is a deficiency in the standard that predictably leads the 
location information available to WEA to be less accurate than our 0.1 
of a mile requirement. Should the message that Participating CMS 
Providers send to mobile devices to trigger them to obtain a location 
fix for the purpose of WEA geofencing prompt mobile devices to obtain a 
fresh location if the location fix that it has is not sufficiently 
accurate or fresh to comply with our existing WEA accuracy requirement? 
From where should mobile devices seek to retrieve this location fix 
(e.g., GPS, A-GPS, device-based hybrid location) to best balance 
potentially competing concerns about accuracy and network impacts? What 
other potential technical measures could Participating CMS Providers 
implement to optimize the WEA system's reliability, accuracy, or speed?
3. Reporting Information About WEA's Performance
    52. To help measure and enforce compliance with our proposed 
performance requirements, as well as to help public safety stakeholders 
understand how WEA works in their respective areas, we propose that 
Participating CMS Providers submit data to the Commission regarding 
WEA's reliability, accuracy and speed using the WEA Database. In doing 
so, we also address and build on the record developed in our 2022 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2022 FNPRM), where public safety 
commenters argue that performance reporting would directly assist them 
in using WEA effectively, and that reliability, speed, and accuracy are 
the most important performance metrics on which Participating CMS 
Providers should report.
    53. For each of the performance areas (reliability, accuracy, and 
speed), we seek comment on the data set that should be submitted to the 
Commission, as well as the source of data from which the data set 
should be derived. In each instance, data submitted should be 
sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the Commission's performance 
requirements across a variety of circumstances that reflect real-world 
conditions. We seek comment on whether this necessitates collecting raw 
data representing performance on individual mobile devices, or whether 
there are alternative viable ways to capture WEA performance as 
experienced by subscribers. What measures would handset manufacturers 
and OS vendors need to take to capture, store, and provide such 
information? What are the privacy implications of this proposal for 
users? Does this proposal raise implications for device manufacturers' 
security and privacy policies or for device costs? Can CMS Providers 
access or collect raw data at the device level? Does current technology 
allow for device manufacturers and Participating CMS Providers to 
connect location data to a customer's decision to opt-in to WEA 
participation? We seek comment on whether Participating CMS Providers 
should submit aggregated data and percentages on the performance of 
mobile devices as a whole for all alerts, or whether it is feasible to 
collect performance information from a sample, such as a randomized 
portion of all mobile devices or data about certain specified alerts. 
If commenters favor reporting performance information expressed as a 
percentage, we seek comment on the proposed equations by which 
Participating CMS Providers would calculate WEA's reliability, 
accuracy, and speed, as it would be important to adopt uniform 
equations across all providers.
    54. We anticipate that data can be gathered at the device level 
that is derived from data elements that Participating CMS Providers can 
potentially log, such as unique alert message identifiers, the 
geographic target area, and the opt-in status of the device. We seek 
comment on the following Figure 2, which depicts our assessment of 
where data elements relevant to WEA performance could be available for 
logging by Participating CMS Providers and WEA-capable mobile devices.
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

[[Page 40617]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21JN23.068

BILLING CODE 6712-01-C
    Does Figure 2 accurately capture the data elements and their 
respective locations where Participating CMS Providers could 
potentially log them to measure WEA's performance? Is it technically 
feasible for Participating CMS Providers to log each of the data 
elements that currently reside in their network during WEA 
transmission, because Participating CMS Providers already log many such 
data elements under our rules. Is it technically feasible for WEA-
capable mobile devices to receive a firmware update to enable them to 
log those data elements described above that are uniquely available at 
the mobile device, because mobile devices already log data about the 
tasks they perform as part of routine device processes? We seek comment 
on potential changes to standards and software that Participating CMS 
Providers, handset manufacturers, and handset OS vendors would need to 
complete to comply with this proposal, if adopted. We seek comment on 
any refinements that would make the collection of WEA performance data 
less burdensome and/or more effective.

[[Page 40618]]

    55. We seek comment on how these data elements, as well as other 
information available to Participating CMS Providers, can be used to 
demonstrate WEA's performance. One approach would be for Participating 
CMS Providers to submit data to the Commission's WEA Database regarding 
the number of WEA-capable mobile devices located inside an alert 
message's geographic target area that are capable of receiving an alert 
and opted into sharing WEA performance information; the number of WEA-
capable mobile devices located outside an alert message's geographic 
target area that are capable of receiving an alert (e.g., mobile 
devices that meet the foregoing criteria and are connected to the cell 
facility that initially transmits the WEA message); the number of such 
devices located inside and outside the area that are opted into 
presenting the alert; and the number of those devices inside and 
outside of the area that presented the alert. Could the Commission use 
this data to calculate the percentage of devices in the target area 
that succeeded at displaying or suppressing an alert? For measuring 
WEA's speed, one approach would be for Participating CMS Providers to 
also submit to the Commission's WEA Database the times at which mobile 
devices received and presented an alert, as well as the time when the 
alert was received at a Participating CMS Provider's alert gateway. 
Could the Commission use this data to calculate WEA's speed? Are there 
any other ways the Commission should use these or other data elements 
to measure WEA performance?
    56. Would Participating CMS Providers face technical challenges in 
collecting or reporting this information? While CSRIC VIII states that 
the total number of devices in the alert area is unknown and ``cannot 
be obtained without a complete redesign of existing cellular 
technology,'' we observe that a cell site can generate a record, at any 
given time, of how many mobile devices are attached to it. We seek 
comment on this assessment. We also seek comment on CSRIC VIII's view 
that it is not possible for Participating CMS Providers to know the 
number of devices in a targeted area that have opted into sharing WEA 
performance data. Is CSRIC VIII correct? What steps could be taken to 
improve the ability to Participating CMS Providers to obtain this 
information? CSRIC VIII finds that WEA-capable mobile devices currently 
do not know whether they are receiving the first WEA broadcast or a 
later WEA broadcast. Could Participating CMS Providers take measures to 
enable devices to identify the initial transmission?
    57. We seek comment on the feasibility of measuring WEA's 
performance using staged devices, as contemplated by CSRIC VIII. 
Specifically, could Participating CMS Providers capture actionable 
information about WEA's performance by conducting regular testing using 
devices positioned in and around the target area of a Required Monthly 
Test (RMT)? Could such a testing and performance measurement 
requirement also leverage State/Local WEA Tests or leverage alerting 
authority and Participating CMS Provider volunteers? How would the 
resulting data differ in quality from data derived at the device level 
from real WEA activations? Would there be any limitations to the public 
safety benefits of measuring performance using staged devices? We seek 
comment on whether there would be any cost or time savings attendant to 
this approach if Participating CMS Providers had to update network and 
mobile device firmware to measure WEA's performance using staged 
devices.
    58. We also seek comment on any privacy implications if information 
is collected at the mobile device level. In response to the 2022 FNPRM, 
some commenters raise consumer privacy concerns about the nature of the 
data that Participating CMS Providers would collect from mobile devices 
to support a reporting requirement, especially location data. We 
believe that Participating CMS Providers would not need to collect any 
personally identifiable information (PII) or customer proprietary 
network information (CPNI) to provide device-level data. Specifically, 
Participating CMS Providers would not have to collect precise location 
information. Rather, each WEA-capable mobile device would potentially 
have to log and provide to the Participating CMS Provider only whether 
the device was located inside the target area or farther than 0.1 miles 
from the target area. We seek comment on this view. We also note that 
CMS Providers already have access to location information about their 
customers' mobile devices by virtue of their provision of service. If, 
contrary to our expectations, CMS providers were required to collect 
precise location information to satisfy WEA reporting obligations, we 
would require CMS providers to protect that information subject to the 
same statutory and regulatory duties that apply to the most sensitive 
CPNI. We seek comment on this approach. We also seek comment on the 
other specific data elements that CMS Providers would need to collect 
to satisfy their reporting obligations and the extent to which the 
information types collected could be minimized to protect consumer 
privacy.
    59. To further safeguard consumer privacy, in the event we were to 
proceed with a device-level approach, we propose that Participating CMS 
Provider should offer subscribers the ability to opt out of 
participating in the collection of information necessary to measure 
WEA's performance. We believe that Participating CMS Providers could 
enable this consumer choice by adding a simple, binary toggle switch to 
the existing WEA settings menu. We note that, by comparison, CSRIC VIII 
examines a method of automatically collecting WEA performance data from 
mobile devices whose users have opted in to share WEA performance 
analytic data with their wireless provider. Should we affirmatively 
prohibit Participating CMS Providers from collecting or using precise 
mobile device location information or any PII or CPNI for purposes of 
reporting this information to the Commission? Should we require 
Participating CMS Providers to timely and securely destroy any data 
gathered solely for the purpose of this collection? Should the mobile 
devices, Participating CMS Providers, or the WEA Database perform 
functions to further anonymize the data collected? We seek comment on 
other potential privacy impact mitigations. Our intent is to ensure 
that any approach to collecting performance data would not change 
wireless providers' existing access to mobile device location data or 
change the compliance status of their existing information collections 
under applicable privacy laws and regulations. We seek comment on any 
refinements to our proposals that would further this goal.
    60. We seek comment on any alternative approaches to WEA 
performance reporting. For example, CSRIC VIII also recommends that the 
FCC consider a requirement for an automated email to convey WEA 
performance reporting information from Participating CMS Providers to 
an alerting authority or a centralized reporting location for each sent 
WEA. We seek comment on the utility of WEA performance information 
communicated by email directly to alerting authorities, either in 
addition or as an alternative to a WEA database. CSRIC VIII recommends 
that the details of this approach be worked out between alerting 
authorities, PBS, and Participating CMS Providers. We encourage WEA 
stakeholders to submit

[[Page 40619]]

a detailed proposals of how this alternative approach could work in 
practice.
    61. Reporting timeframe. In what timeframe should Participating CMS 
Providers collect and submit WEA performance data to the WEA Database? 
To reduce the risk of wireless service performance degradation during 
an emergency, should Participating CMS Providers collect and report WEA 
performance data sufficiently outside of any actual activation of WEA? 
For example, Participating CMS Providers could submit data to the WEA 
Database within 24 hours of the issuance of the WEA message or State/
Local WEA Test to which the performance data pertains. Would it be 
feasible for Participating CMS Providers to delay collecting WEA 
performance information until off-peak network hours? CSRIC VIII raises 
concerns, however, that ``[e]ven delayed automated reporting, triggered 
at a later time, carries that possibility of localized congestion 
during the reporting period.'' What timeframe would strike the right 
balance between timely performance reporting that provides relevant, 
actionable information, and the need to protect networks from 
congestion during actual emergencies?
4. Establishing a WEA Database
    62. Data submission. We seek comment on the most cost-effective 
mechanism for CMS Providers to submit WEA elections and performance 
information into the WEA Database, while minimizing burdens on CMS 
Providers. We propose that WEA elections and WEA performance data be 
filed electronically using a web-based interface and, if feasible, an 
application programming interface (API). In addition to an API, what 
other tools or features should we consider when designing the data 
submission elements of the WEA Database to ease reporting burdens and 
improve efficiency? For example, would Participating CMS Providers 
prefer to submit information regarding the WEA-capable mobile devices 
they support either through a file upload or through a form, or should 
both options be available?
    63. Promote stakeholder understanding. To promote transparency and 
address alert originators' need to better understand WEA performance in 
their respective areas, we propose to enable the WEA Database to 
provide information about WEA availability and performance. With 
respect to WEA availability information, we seek to ensure that the 
public has access to information about which service providers offer 
WEA, in which locations, and on what devices, so they are empowered to 
make the right decisions for their unique needs when they choose a 
mobile device and service plan. We seek comment on this proposal, and 
on whether the use of the WEA database is the most effective manner to 
convey this information.
    64. We also seek comment on how the WEA Database can best meet 
consumers' and alerting authorities' need for information about WEA's 
performance. To maximize relevance for alert originators, we propose to 
provide performance data expressed as percentages of mobile devices 
satisfying our reliability, accuracy, and speed performance standards, 
and to provide this information on a per provider and per geographic 
area basis. We seek comment on this approach. For example, with respect 
to reliability, we propose to provide the percentages of devices that 
succeeded and failed at presenting the alert. We expect this would help 
alerting authorities better understand how many people within their 
jurisdictions would receive an alert, which would inform their 
decisions about how to use WEA in conjunction with other emergency 
communication tools. For accuracy, we propose to provide the 
percentages of devices outside of the geographic target area that 
failed to suppress the alert. We expect this would help alerting 
authorities better understand the extent of WEA message overshoot, 
which we expect would inform their future decisions about how to best 
target their alerts. For speed, we propose to provide the percentiles 
of time that CMS Providers take to both ensure an alert's receipt as 
well as the alert's presentation on mobile devices, following the CMS 
Provider's receipt of the alert at their alerting gateway (i.e., the 
10th, 25th, 50th, 90th, and 99th percentile time figures). We expect 
this would help alerting authorities better understand how quickly 
their alerts reach the public, which would inform their future 
decisions about the optimal times to send alerts and whether delays in 
the delivery of those alerts warrant the supplementary use of other 
emergency communication tools. We propose that alerting authorities be 
able to use the WEA Database to see WEA's performance both for their 
own activations and nationwide so that they can better contextualize 
any performance issues they may experience. We believe this approach 
would provide up-to-date information about WEA and thereby greatly 
improve alerting authorities' visibility into WEA. The database would 
allow alerting authorities to better understand WEA's reach when 
planning whether and how to use WEA during emergencies, thus increasing 
its value as a tool to protect life and property.
    65. To avoid disclosing information that Participating CMS 
Providers may consider to be competitively sensitive, we do not propose 
to use the WEA Database to disclose the number of WEA-capable mobile 
devices that are located within the alert message's geographic target 
area at the time the Participating CMS Provider initially transmits the 
message or the number of WEA-capable mobile devices connected to cell 
facilities transmitting the alert message that are located farther than 
0.1 miles outside of the message's geographic target area at the time 
the Participating CMS Provider initially transmits the alert message. 
We seek comment on this approach. We anticipate that using a dedicated 
database would be more efficient than the current practice of searching 
for WEA elections that have been filed directly in a docket one-by-one 
and downloading individual election letters, which are unlikely to be 
uniform in how they make their elections. We seek comments on our 
views. What alternative steps could we take to make WEA election 
information more accessible to relevant stakeholders?
    66. Public Access. We propose that the contents of the WEA Database 
be available to the general public. We believe the general public has 
an interest in knowing whether and to what extent the WEA system is 
available in their local area, as well as whether the WEA system 
performs reliably in their local area. We also believe the public 
should have an informed expectation about the likelihood that they will 
receive alert messages that do not apply to them. We seek comment on 
these views. Will making WEA availability and performance information 
more readily available in the WEA database influence consumer 
purchasing decisions related to CMS service and mobile devices? Will 
this foster increased market competition around WEA performance? We 
seek comment on the extent to which emergency management agencies 
accessing the publicly available WEA Database that are not currently 
authorized by FEMA to issue alerts through IPAWS, might be encouraged 
to become authorized and, as a result, increase the availability of 
alert messages to unserved areas.
    67. We observe that the WEA availability information that 
Participating CMS Providers would submit to the WEA Database is already 
publicly available, although not

[[Page 40620]]

aggregated with other WEA information. The information that 
Participating CMS Providers would supply to the WEA Database about 
their WEA coverage area is already publicly available through the 
National Broadband Map, which makes available for download the mobile 
voice coverage areas collected through the Broadband Data Collection. 
Similarly, many Participating CMS Providers already make publicly 
available information about the WEA-capable mobile devices that they 
offer at the point of sale. If we were to require Participating CMS 
Providers to disclose whether they make WEA available using currently 
deployed public cellular network technologies, that would likely 
require them to disclose information that is not currently public, but 
we do not believe that this disclosure would warrant confidential 
treatment either. The Commission grants the presumption of 
confidentiality to outage information submitted in NORS for reasons 
related to national security and competitive sensitivity, but we do not 
believe those same concerns exist here. We seek comment on our views.
    68. We also do not believe that WEA performance information 
submitted in the WEA Database would warrant confidential treatment. We 
do not believe that the public availability of this information raises 
any concerns about national security or competitive sensitivity, and it 
would not include any PII or CPNI. Data submitted to the WEA Database 
under this proposal would already be aggregated and anonymized with 
other mobile device data by CMS Providers and could not be deanonymized 
to obtain any information about an individual mobile device's receipt 
of an alert message. Because of this aggregated, anonymized approach to 
data collection, the Commission does not anticipate that it will 
receive any CPNI or PII. Accordingly, we seek comment on whether WEA 
performance information requires confidential treatment or other data 
privacy protection and, if so, why. We note that since FEMA and the 
Commission began testing WEA on nationwide and regional bases in 2018, 
the Commission has regularly made publicly available after-action 
reports that describe WEA's performance during the exercise. Similarly, 
the WEA Database would make after-action performance analysis available 
to alerting authorities. We seek comment on why information about 
Participating CMS Providers' performance in the WEA Database should be 
treated confidentially when information about WEA's performance is 
already publicly available.
    69. Emergency management agency access. Section 10.450(b) of the 
Commission's rules provides that ``[u]pon request from an emergency 
management agency, a Participating CMS Provider will disclose 
information regarding their capabilities for geo-targeting alert 
messages. A Participating CMS Provider is only required to disclose 
this information to an emergency management agency insofar as it would 
pertain to alert messages initiated by that emergency management 
agency, and only so long as the emergency management agency offers 
confidentiality protection at least equal to that provided by the 
Federal FOIA.'' Notwithstanding the fact that nationwide Participating 
CMS Providers have established contact information purposefully 
identified for WEA geo-targeting inquiries, alerting authorities have 
had difficulty obtaining this information. Accordingly, if the WEA 
performance reporting proposal we offer today is adopted, we propose to 
have it replace the existing requirement that Participating CMS 
Providers share information about WEA's reliability and accuracy upon 
request from emergency management agencies. We seek comment on this 
approach. What, if any, harms could arise from granting alerting 
authorities access to WEA data outside of their local area, alert and 
warning jurisdictions, or territory? Would public safety be better 
served if alerting authorities had visibility into the WEA system's 
availability and performance beyond their jurisdictional boundaries? 
For example, would it be beneficial for a state agency to have access 
to data showing the alert messages that its neighboring state transmits 
would likely overshoot into their state? Would access to additional WEA 
data beyond an alerting authority's jurisdiction provide a more 
complete picture of WEA system availability and performance, 
particularly for alerting authorities that have not yet used the WEA 
system, or have used it infrequently?
    70. If any information in the WEA Database is determined to require 
confidential treatment, we seek comment on how to protect it. Should we 
adopt procedures for alerting authority eligibility, user account 
access, certification requirements, data security, and information 
sharing similar to those that we adopted for providing federal, state, 
Tribal, and territorial agencies with direct access to NORS and DIRS? 
Should any aspects of those procedures differ for the WEA database?
    71. If we require credentialed access to the WEA Database, we 
propose that the WEA Database also include a public-facing portal that 
would allow the public to query if WEA is available on the mobile 
wireless network to which they may subscribe, at a specified address 
where they may live or work, and on specific mobile devices that they 
may have. If the query indicates WEA is not available, we propose that 
the WEA Database present the consumer with a description of 
Participating CMS Providers that offer WEA at their specified location 
and mobile device. We seek comment on this proposal.

D. Promoting Digital Equality

    72. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance 
digital equity for all, including people of color, persons with 
disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and others who 
are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely 
affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any 
equity-related considerations and benefits (if any) that may be 
associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein. 
Specifically, we seek comment on how our proposals may promote or 
inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as 
well the scope of the Commission's relevant legal authority.

E. Compliance Timeframes

    73. In this Section, we propose compliance timeframes for the 
proposals in this Further Notice that aim to strike an appropriate 
balance between the urgent public safety need for the contemplated 
improvements to WEA and wireless industry's need to develop standards, 
software, practices, and procedures to effectively comply. We note 
that, similar to the geotargeting rule, because the new capabilities 
would be dependent on device-level software, firmware, or hardware 
changes, they necessarily would not be available to alerting 
authorities and consumers on a ``flash cut'' basis. For each of these 
proposals, we seek comment on whether it would be appropriate to allow 
CMS Providers that are small- or medium-sized businesses additional 
time to comply. We seek comment on how we should define small- and 
medium-sized businesses in this context and whether we should make a 
distinction between nationwide and non-nationwide CMS Providers in this 
regard. We also seek comment on how much additional time, if any, 
small- or medium-sized businesses would reasonably need for compliance

[[Page 40621]]

with the proposals in this Further Notice.
    74. Enhancing WEA's Language Support. For the rules we propose 
today requiring Participating CMS Providers' WEA-capable mobile devices 
to translate English-language alert messages that they receive into the 
subscriber's default language preference, we propose to set a 
compliance date of 30 months after the publication of final rules in 
the Federal Register. Depending on the approach used by Participating 
CMS Providers to satisfy this requirement, compliance with this 
proposal would necessitate updates to standards and firmware. We also 
note that CSRIC VIII directed ATIS to conduct a study to determine a 
feasible, accurate, and effective method for enhancing language 
support. The Commission has previously reasoned that it takes industry 
30 months to comply with rules that implicate the need for updates to 
WEA standards and firmware--i.e., 12 months to work through appropriate 
industry bodies to publish relevant standards; another 12 months for 
Participating CMS Providers and mobile device manufacturers to develop, 
test, and integrate firmware upgrades consistent with those standards; 
and 6 more months to deploy the new technology to the field during 
normal technology refresh cycles. We seek comment on the applicability 
of this approach and timeframe to these proposals. We believe that a 
machine-based translation approach to increasing WEA's language 
support, as contemplated by this Further Notice, is likely to only 
require updates to mobile devices, not to the CMS network, which 
potentially means less standards and firmware development would be 
needed. If the record supports the feasibility of that approach to 
compliance, should we require a shorter compliance deadline, and if so, 
what should that deadline be?
    75. Improving WEA's Effectiveness with Multimedia Content. Our 
proposals to make WEA more accessible by requiring Participating CMS 
Providers to support sending thumbnail-sized images in WEA alerts and 
the integration of location-aware maps would implicate updates to 
standards and firmware in both the CMS network and at mobile devices. 
To give Participating CMS Providers sufficient time to complete the 
updates to standard and software necessary, we propose to set a 
compliance date for these requirements of 36 months from the 
publication of the rules in the Federal Register. We seek comment on 
this proposal. Would 36 months be sufficient time for all mobile 
devices that are still technically incompatible with the receipt of 
360-character-maximum alerts to churn out of use by subscribers?
    76. Integrate WEA More Seamlessly into People's Lives. For the 
rules we propose today that require Participating CMS Providers to be 
able to send WEA messages without triggering the audio attention signal 
and the vibration cadence and provide their subscribers with the option 
to turn off attention signal and vibration cadence, we propose to 
require Participating CMS Providers and mobile device manufacturers to 
comply within 30 months of the rules' publication in the Federal 
Register. We believe this compliance deadline is consistent with 
deadlines for past requirements that have necessitated updates to 
standards and firmware, as discussed above. We seek comment on this 
proposal. Can compliance with our proposal to allow subscribers to turn 
off the attention signal and vibration cadence be achievable only with 
updates to WEA standards and software at the mobile device? If so, can 
compliance be achieved in less time than 30 months?
    77. Facilitate More Effective WEA Public Awareness Exercises. We 
propose that Participating CMS Providers would be authorized to support 
up to two annual end-to-end WEA tests per alerting authority 30 days 
after the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issues a Public 
Notice announcing OMB approval of any new information collection 
requirements associated with this rule change. We do not believe that 
Participating CMS Providers would need to make any changes to support 
such public awareness testing because such tests would present to a 
Participating CMS Provider in a manner indistinguishable from any other 
WEA message. We seek comment on this proposals and our views.
    78. Establishing a WEA Database to Promote Transparency About WEA 
Availability and Benchmark WEA Performance. We propose to set a 
compliance date of 30 months after the publication of final rules in 
the Federal Register or within 30 days of the Public Safety and 
Homeland Security Bureau's publication of a public notice announcing 
that the WEA Database is ready to accept filings, whichever is later, 
for the proposed rules requiring Participating CMS Providers to satisfy 
WEA performance minimums and submit reports measuring WEA's 
performance. We believe 30 months is appropriate because Participating 
CMS Providers will have to update standards and firmware to comply with 
the performance reporting requirements, and we believe that it is 
sensible for the performance minimums to go into effect at the same 
time that the Commission receives the performance measurement data that 
can assist with enforcing them. We seek comment on this approach. We 
also seek specific comment on whether to offer an extended compliance 
timeframe for Participating CMS Providers that are small- and medium-
sized businesses, which may have different network resource constraints 
than the nationwide CMS Providers.
    79. We propose to require CMS Providers to refresh their elections 
to participate in WEA using the WEA Database within 30 days of the 
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau's publication of a public 
notice announcing (1) OMB approval of any new information collection 
requirements and (2) that the WEA Database is ready to accept filings. 
We seek comment on this proposal. We note that the Commission gave 
wireless industry 30 days within to comply with the Commission's 
initial requirement to elect whether to participate in WEA. We 
anticipate that CMS providers would need to undertake the same measures 
as they did in their first WEA election to refresh their WEA election 
in compliance with this proposal, if adopted: assessing the extent to 
which they can agree to offer WEA in the entirety of their geographic 
service area, assessing the extent to which all mobile devices that 
they offer at the point of sale are WEA capable, and assessing their 
ability to comply with the Commission's technical and procedural WEA 
rules. To the extent that the requirements we propose to adopt would 
require additional data entry than was required in CMS Providers' first 
WEA elections, we believe that using the WEA Database's electronic 
interface would make the entry of that data achievable within 30 days. 
We seek comment on these views. We also seek comment on the extent to 
which pre-populating relevant information that the Commission already 
has available to it in the WEA Database can further ease the burden of 
compliance and make it easier for CMS Providers to comply with this 
requirement within 30 days. We seek comment on any other measures that 
we can take to facilitate timely compliance with this proposal by all 
CMS Providers. We do not believe that compliance with this proposal 
would present unique or heightened burdens to CMS Providers that are 
small- or medium-sized businesses. We seek comment on this view.

[[Page 40622]]

F. Benefit-Cost Analysis

    80. In this section, we seek comment on whether we can reasonably 
expect the minimum benefit resulting from the improvements to WEA we 
propose today to exceed their maximum cost. We estimate that the 
proposed rules, both separately and jointly, would improve the 
effectiveness of WEA and bring benefits through improved public safety 
outcomes. We estimate the maximum, aggregated cost of compliance with 
the proposals in this Further Notice would be $39.9 million as a one-
time cost and $422,500 as an annually recurring cost. Although most of 
the benefits are difficult to quantify, we believe they outweigh the 
overall costs of the proposed rules.
1. Benefits
    81. We seek comment on the benefits of the proposals in this 
Further Notice taken together. We are cognizant of the fact that, as a 
general matter, it is impossible to assign precise dollar values to 
changes to WEA that improve the public's safety, life, and health. We 
also believe that these proposals will result in benefits measurable in 
terms of lives saved and injuries and property damage prevented. We 
seek comment on developments in social science that add support to or 
refute the premise that effective alerts and warnings help to move 
people more effectively to take protective actions during emergencies. 
We seek comment on how to quantify the value of the improvements to 
public safety outcomes that result from faster and more effective 
protective actions during disasters. Are there situations where, had 
the Commission implemented the improvements to WEA on which we seek 
comment today, deaths and injuries could have been prevented or 
mitigated? We seek comment on the extent to which the improved alert 
message accessibility and personalization features that we propose in 
this Further Notice would improve the effectiveness of WEA alert 
messages and reduce ``milling'' behavior. We seek comment on whether 
our proposals to integrate WEA more seamlessly into people's lives will 
increase the rate of consumer opt-in to WEA or otherwise result in more 
people receiving and effectively responding to potentially life-saving 
instructions from alerting authorities during emergencies. We also seek 
comment on any enhancements to our proposals that would make WEA more 
likely to save lives, prevent injuries, and protect properties. Would 
the adoption of our proposed rules, such as WEA alert tests and 
accessible WEA Database, also provide additional benefits to alerting 
authorities, for instance, reducing costs of analyzing alerts' 
performance? We seek further comment on the benefits of our proposals 
taken individually and jointly.
    82. Enhancing WEA's Language Support. We tentatively conclude that 
the benefit of the proposed WEA language support is likely to be 
significant. Currently, the 76 CMS Providers participating in WEA send 
alerts to 75% of mobile phones in the country. Among the 26 million 
people who do not primarily speak English or Spanish, nearly 15.4 
million speak primarily one of the 12 languages that we propose to 
integrate into the WEA system in addition to English and Spanish. 
Assuming 75% of these individuals are covered by the WEA system, 
approximately 10 million people who have been receiving WEA alerts in 
languages they cannot comprehend would understand the content of WEA 
alerts under the proposed WEA language support. Even if alerts reach 
just 1% of this population per year (i.e., nearly 100,000 people) the 
potential of WEA to prevent property damage, injuries, and deaths could 
be enormous.
    83. Improving WEA's Effectiveness with Multimedia Content. We 
tentatively conclude that the proposed requirement of support for 
multimedia content in WEA messages, including ``location-aware maps'' 
and thumbnail-sized images, will result in enhanced effectiveness of 
the messages. Images can strengthen communications by stimulating 
attention, conveying large amount of information in a short amount of 
time, and promoting information retention. Therefore, requiring support 
for multimedia content is likely to raise receivers' attention and 
situational awareness and lead to improved public safety. Although the 
benefit is difficult to quantify, it is likely to dwarf the small costs 
associated with the inclusion of multimedia content in WEA messages. 
Given the small size of such content (e.g., thumbnail-sized image using 
0.013 megabytes of data), we anticipate the additional cost to transmit 
it to be negligible. We seek comment and data on this assessment. We 
also anticipate that transmitting location-aware maps and thumbnail-
sized images in WEA alert messages would not cause significant delays 
in alert transmission. We seek comment on this assessment.
    84. Allow Alerting Authorities More Flexibility in how WEA Messages 
are Presented. We believe that allowing alerting authorities more 
flexibility in deciding how WEA messages are presented, such as 
suppressing the audio attention signal and vibration cadence in an 
active shooter scenario, could help reduce casualties. According to the 
FBI, there were 61 active shooter incidents in 2021, resulting in 243 
casualties--including 103 deaths and 140 injuries, excluding to the 
shooters. It is reasonable to assume that suppressing the audio 
attention signal and vibration cadence during an active-shooting 
scenario could reduce casualties by discretely warning the public, 
yielding substantial benefits to public safety. We seek comment on 
statistics and data related to the benefits through the reduction of 
casualties resulting from the messaging flexibility. Although 
suppressing the audio attention signal and vibration cadence may not be 
warranted in all situations, we believe that alerting authorities would 
be in the best position in determining whether a specific situation 
warrants the adjustment in how messages are presented so the adverse 
impact of inattention would be minimized. We also believe allowing 
alerting authorities this flexibility would be technically feasible at 
a minimal expense, and hence the proposed rule would likely result in 
net benefits. We seek comment on our assessment.
    85. Prevent Unnecessary Consumer Opt-out. We believe that offering 
an alternative in addition to the binary choices between opt-out and 
opt-in may help retain consumers on the WEA system. The Commission's 
rules already allow for consumers to mute the audio attention signal 
and vibration cadence when users set their devices to ``do not 
disturb'' mode. Outside of these ``do not disturb'' windows, consumers 
would find ``opt-out'' to be the only option to avoid the distraction 
of WEA alerts. Without the third option that allows consumers to 
silently receive all WEA alerts, consumers are likely to opt out from 
WEA if they still find the audio attention signal and vibration cadence 
interrupting. For those who already opted out from WEA, adding this 
muting option does not make them any worse off and may even cause some 
of them to opt in again. Therefore, we believe this proposed rule can 
prevent unnecessary consumer opt-out and result in improvement in 
public safety outcomes. Although this proposal would require 
collaboration between wireless providers and device manufacturers, we 
believe the technical difficulties and costs should be small. As a 
result, we tentatively conclude that the proposed rule would enhance 
public safety at a minimal cost. We seek

[[Page 40623]]

comment on this assessment and any believe that CMS Providers would 
incur any cost to comply with our proposal to allow evidence and data 
to support or correct our assessment.
    86. Facilitate More Effective WEA Public Awareness Exercises. We 
propose to authorize Participating CMS Providers to support up to two 
annual end-to-end WEA tests per alerting authority, consistent with EAS 
test rules. We believe harmonizing WEA and EAS test rules would improve 
the effectiveness of public awareness exercises and reduce consumer 
alert fatigue when such tests are better coordinated than tested 
separately. We do not alerting authorities to conduct two public 
awareness tests per year. Therefore, we believe this proposal will 
bring net benefits to the public. We seek comment on these assessments.
    87. Establishing a WEA Database to Promote Transparency about WEA 
Availability and Benchmark WEA Performance. We believe that 
establishing measurable goals and performance measures for WEA will 
improve the speed, accuracy and reliability of WEA messages. The public 
will benefit from improved and targeted usage of WEA alert messages. 
Greater accuracy in sending alert messages will result in less 
overshoot, which in turn will mean that fewer people will receive alert 
messages not intended for them and will be less likely to take 
unnecessary action or opt out of receiving alert messages. We seek 
comment on the benefits of establishing benchmarks that will make WEA 
faster, more accurate, and more reliable. We seek comment on whether 
improving WEA performance would encourage greater and more effective 
usage of WEA. Would alerting authorities be more likely to issue an 
alert message if they knew it would be received by the people for whom 
it was intended while not being received by people for whom it was not 
intended? Will improving WEA also result in more emergency management 
agencies investing the time, effort, and resources necessary to become 
authorized as alerting authorities? We seek comment on the benefit of 
emergency management agencies using alert messages both more often and 
more effectively. Will improved performance cause current alerting 
authorities to use WEA in circumstances they might have hesitated to 
use them previously? We seek comment on these benefits.
    88. The proposed WEA Database would provide a nationwide WEA 
availability and performance dataset. We believe that giving the 
Commission, FEMA, alerting authorities, and consumers access to this 
dataset through a graphical user interface and data visualization tool 
will significantly improve their understanding of how WEA works in 
practice. We believe that understanding how WEA works in practice will 
help alerting authorities to use WEA more effectively, enable consumers 
to use their mobile devices as preparedness tools, and enable the 
Commission and FEMA to more effectively discharge their 
responsibilities as stewards of the nation's alert and warning 
capability. We seek comment on this view. As discussed above, emergency 
management agencies may be declining to use the WEA system in 
situations where it could save lives because they lack information 
about, and confidence in, how WEA works in practice. We seek comment on 
our tentative conclusion that implementing a WEA Database will increase 
alerting authorities' confidence in and use of the WEA system by 
providing visibility and assurances. We seek comment on whether the WEA 
Database would also promote the public interest by providing alerting 
authorities with information as to where their alerts will not reach 
intended recipients and their need to employ alternate methods of 
notifying the public of emergency situations. We also seek comment on 
whether WEA availability and performance information would promote 
public confidence in WEA and influence consumer choice when deciding 
from which CMS provider to purchase service. As a result, would market 
forces be more likely to incentivize additional CMS Providers to elect 
to transmit emergency alerts or to improve the availability of the WEA 
service that they offer? How would Participating CMS Providers, 
emergency managers, and the public benefit if some among the over 450 
CMS Providers that have elected not to participate in WEA started 
transmitting WEA alert messages? We seek comment on whether greater 
knowledge of WEA's coverage, in terms of geographic areas and network 
technologies, would encourage providers to increase their support for 
WEA. We seek additional comment on other benefits that can be gleaned 
from WEA availability and performance reporting.
2. Costs
    89. We seek comment on the costs that Participating CMS Providers 
would expect to incur as a result of their compliance with the rule 
changes we propose in this Further Notice. We anticipate that these 
rules will lead Participating CMS Providers to incur costs associated 
with modifying standards and software, and recordkeeping and reporting 
costs. We seek comment on whether adopting all these proposals as a 
package may result in a cost savings as opposed to having to modify 
standards and software in response to several, incremental policy 
changes.
    90. We estimate that Participating CMS Providers would incur a 
$39.9 million one-time cost to update the WEA standards and software 
necessary to comply the proposals in this Further Notice. This figure 
consists of approximately a $814,000 cost to update applicable WEA 
standards and approximately a $39.1 million cost to update applicable 
software. We quantify the cost of modifying standards as the annual 
compensation for 30 network engineers compensated at the national 
average for their field ($120,650/year; $58/hour), plus annual benefits 
($60,325/year; 29/hour) working for the amount of time that it takes to 
develop a standard (one hour every other week for one year, 26 hours) 
for 12 distinct standards. We quantify the cost of modifying software 
as the annual compensation for a software developer compensated at the 
national average for their field ($120,990/year), plus annual benefits 
($60,495/year) working for the amount of time that it takes to develop 
software (ten months) at each of the 76 CMS Providers that participate 
in WEA. We quantify the cost of testing these modifications (including 
integration testing, unit testing and failure testing) to require 12 
software developer compensated at the national average for their field 
working for two months at each of the 76 CMS Providers that participate 
in WEA. In quantifying costs for software development, we have used the 
same framework since 2016 for changes to software ranging from 
developing new standards to enhanced geo-targeting. Does this remain an 
appropriate framework to describe the costs of software or firmware 
updates needed to comply with the proposals in this Further Notice? We 
seek comment on these cost estimates and the underlying cost 
methodology we are using.
    91. We also seek comment on specific costs of reporting and 
recordkeeping related to reporting information about WEA's availability 
and performance in the WEA Database. We expect costs associated with 
our proposals related to WEA availability reporting to be negligible 
for Participating CMS Providers that participate in WEA in whole or 
that otherwise offer WEA in the entirety of their geographic service 
area because such Participating CMS

[[Page 40624]]

Providers have already provided the Commission with the shapefile data 
needed to fulfill a significant aspect of their reporting obligation in 
furtherance of their obligations to support the Commission's Broadband 
Data Collection. We seek comment on this view. For CMS Providers 
participating in WEA in part that may need to tailor shapefiles to 
reflect the extent of its WEA coverage, what, if any, costs would they 
incur to recreate or reformat shapefiles to depict the extent of its 
WEA coverage? In the Supporting Document of Study Area Boundary Data 
Reporting in Esri Shapefile Format, the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs estimates that it takes an average of 26 hours for a 
data scientist to modify a shapefile. We believe submitting WEA 
availability information in shapefile format should require less time 
than modifying a shapefile. Therefore, we believe 26 hours would be an 
upper bound of the time required for a Participating CMS Provider to 
report its WEA availability in shapefile format. Given that the median 
wage rate is $48.52/hour for data scientists, with a 45% markup for 
benefits, we arrive at $70.40 as the hourly compensation rate for a 
data scientist. We estimate an aggregate cost of WEA availability 
reporting to be approximately $139,000 ([ap] $70.40 per hour x 26 hours 
x 76 providers), which may be recurring on an annual basis since 
availability may change and need to be updated over time. We seek 
comment on our estimates of the time and costs Participating CMS 
Providers have to spend on gathering and submitting WEA's availability 
information in GIS shapefile format in the WEA Database?
    92. We acknowledge that our proposed rules on collecting the data 
necessary to measure WEA's reliability, accuracy, and speed for each 
alert in a WEA Database would incur some operating costs for 
Participating CMS Providers. However, we believe that once 
Participating CMS Providers upgrade the standards and software 
necessary to automate WEA performance reporting, we expect that the 
process of data collection and data submission would require minimal 
human intervention. Although we anticipate such performance reporting 
would be largely automated once it is set up, we estimate a routine 
administrative monitoring cost that Participating CMS Providers may 
still incur when they file the performance report for each alert 
incident. We estimate that, for each alert, a provider will need an 
office administrator, who is compensated at $27 hour, to spend 0.5 
hours in monitoring each data transmission. At the aggregate level, we 
believe there will be 21,000 performance reports transmitted to the WEA 
database, resulting in a $283,500 annual recurring cost at the 
aggregate level. We seek comment on our estimates and alternative 
approaches to assess recordkeeping and reporting costs for WEA 
performance reporting.
    93. Because CMS Providers' participation in WEA is voluntary, 
Participating CMS Providers may opt out of participating in WEA if they 
decide the costs of the proposed rules are too burdensome. Despite the 
voluntary nature of the program and potential Participating CMS 
Providers' opt-out, it is our belief that they have incurred 
significant good will from their voluntary Participation in WEA over 
the last decade that justifies their continued participation. 
Therefore, we anticipate that existing Participating CMS Providers are 
very unlikely to withdraw their participation in the WEA system if the 
performance standards and reporting requirements are adopted. We seek 
comment on this assessment and any forecast and data to support or 
refute our assessment. We seek comment on whether there are any other 
types of costs that we should consider as relevant to our analysis. Are 
there alternative methods of achieving our goals in these areas that 
would present Participating CMS Providers with lesser burdens? If so, 
we seek comment on costs associated with these alternative methods. We 
also seek costs on any modifications that we could implement to our 
proposed rules to limit the burden of compliance on entities considered 
to be small- or medium-sized businesses.

Procedural Matters

    94. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document contains proposed new 
and modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as 
part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the 
general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment 
on the information collection requirements contained in this document, 
as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. 
In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 
2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific 
comment on how we might further reduce the information collection 
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
    95. Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose. This proceeding this 
Notice initiates shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. 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.
    96. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 
1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the 
agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible impact 
of the rule and policy changes contained in this Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix B.
    97. Filing Requirements--Comments and Replies. Pursuant to sections 
1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47

[[Page 40625]]

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).
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
     Filings can be sent 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.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
     Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
     Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19.
     During the time the Commission's building is closed to the 
general public and until further notice, if more than one docket or 
rulemaking number appears in the caption of a proceeding, paper filers 
need not submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number; an original and one copy are sufficient.
    98. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice).
    99. Additional Information. For further information regarding 
Notice, please contact [email protected], or Michael Antonino, Cybersecurity 
and Communications Reliability Division, Public Safety and Homeland 
Security Bureau, (202) 418-0695, or by email to 
[email protected].

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). The Commission, as part of its 
continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general 
public and OMB to comment on the information collection requirements 
contained in this document, as required by the PRA. Public and agency 
comments on the PRA proposed information collection requirements are 
due August 21, 2023. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information 
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's 
burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 
of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the 
collection of information on the respondents, including the use of 
automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology; and (e) way to further reduce the information collection 
burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In 
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 
Pubic Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment 
on how we 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), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules 
proposed in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice). 
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 Further Notice. The Commission will send a copy of 
the Further Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the 
Further Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the 
Federal Register.

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

    2. In the Further Notice, the Commission acts to (1) develop 
measurable goals and performance measures for WEA by proposing the 
adoption of WEA performance metrics and establishing the WEA Database 
and performance requirements, (2) make WEA more accessible by enhancing 
WEA's language support and effectiveness with multimedia content, and 
(3) integrate WEA more seamlessly into people's lives by improving 
active shooter and public health alerts, preventing unnecessary 
consumer opt-out, and facilitating more effective WEA public awareness 
exercises
    3. The Further Notice contains specific proposals upon which the 
Commission seeks comment including: proposing definitions for 
reliability, accuracy, and speed, and setting benchmarks based on these 
definitions that Participating CMS Providers would be required to meet; 
requiring Participating CMS Providers to submit data regarding WEA 
availability and performance into a WEA Database to be shared with FEMA 
and authorized alerting authorities; translating alerts into the 
thirteen most commonly spoken languages in the United States and 
storing them at the mobile device to be displayed when an alerting 
authority deems relevant; sending thumbnail-sized images in alerts over 
the air; incorporating location-aware maps into WEA by utilizing an 
API; allowing alerting authorities to send alerts without the 
associated attention signal and vibration cadence; allowing consumers 
to cache their receipt of WEA; and proposing to authorize two annual 
end-to-end WEA tests per alerting authority.

B. Legal Basis

    4. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 
4(i), 4(n), 301, 303(b), 303(e), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 307, 309, 316, 
403, and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 
151, 152, 154(i), 154(n), 301, 303(b), 303(e), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 
307, 309, 316, 403, 544(g), and 606; The Warning, Alert and Response 
Network (WARN) Act, WARN Act Sec. Sec.  602(a), (b), (c), (f), 603, 
604, and 606, 47 U.S.C. 1201(a),(b),(c), (f), 1203, 1204 and 1206.

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

    5. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of, the number of

[[Page 40626]]

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 ``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).
    6. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at 
the outset, three broad groups of small entities 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 32.5 
million businesses.
    7. 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.'' 
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for 
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there were 
approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting 
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data 
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
    8. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census 
Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate that there 
were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general 
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United 
States. Of this number there were 36,931 general purpose governments 
(county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than 
50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments--independent school 
districts with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, 
based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at 
least 48,971 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.''
    9. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This 
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining 
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the 
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and 
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging 
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The 
SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if 
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show 
that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the 
entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal 
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 797 
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 715 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
    10. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband 
personal communications services (PCS) spectrum encompasses services in 
the 1850-1910 and 1930-1990 MHz bands. The closest industry with a SBA 
small business size standard applicable to these services is Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). The SBA small business 
size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it 
has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show 
that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the 
entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees. Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates 
that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
    11. Based on Commission data as of November 2021, there were 
approximately 5,060 active licenses in the Broadband PCS service. The 
Commission's small business size standards with respect to Broadband 
PCS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in 
the auction of licenses for these services. In auctions for these 
licenses, the Commission defined ``small business'' as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average 
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, 
and a ``very small business'' as an entity that, together with its 
affiliates and controlling interests, has had average annual gross 
revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. 
Winning bidders claiming small business credits won Broadband PCS 
licenses in C, D, E, and F Blocks.
    12. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning 
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently 
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these, at this time we are not able to estimate the 
number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small 
under the SBA's small business size standard.
    13. Narrowband Personal Communications Services. Narrowband 
Personal Communications Services (Narrowband PCS) are PCS services 
operating in the 901-902 MHz, 930-931 MHz, and 940-941 MHz bands. PCS 
services are radio communications that encompass mobile and ancillary 
fixed communication that provide services to individuals and businesses 
and can be integrated with a variety of competing networks. Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry 
with a SBA small business size standard applicable to these services. 
The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a 
business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in 
this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed 
fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the SBA size standard, the 
Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can 
be considered small.
    14. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were 
approximately 4,211 active Narrowband PCS licenses. The Commission's 
small business size standards with respect to Narrowband PCS involve 
eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction 
of licenses for these services. For the auction of these licenses, the 
Commission defined a

[[Page 40627]]

``small business'' as 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 defined as an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling 
interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of 
not more than $15 million. Pursuant to these definitions, 7 winning 
bidders claiming small and very small bidding credits won approximately 
359 licenses. One of the winning bidders claiming a small business 
status classification in these Narrowband PCS license auctions had an 
active license as of December 2021.
    15. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning 
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently 
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    16. Wireless Communications Services. Wireless Communications 
Services (WCS) can be used for a variety of fixed, mobile, 
radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite services. 
Wireless spectrum is made available and licensed for the provision of 
wireless communications services in several frequency bands subject to 
Part 27 of the Commission's rules. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 
(except satellite) is the closest industry with a SBA small business 
size standard applicable to these services. The SBA small business size 
standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 
there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire 
year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. 
Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a 
majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
    17. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to 
WCS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in 
the auction of licenses for the various frequency bands included in 
WCS. When bidding credits are adopted for the auction of licenses in 
WCS frequency bands, such credits may be available to several types of 
small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very small and 
entrepreneur) pursuant to the competitive bidding rules adopted in 
conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as identified 
in the designated entities section in part 27 of the Commission's rules 
for the specific WCS frequency bands.
    18. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning 
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently 
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    19. 700 MHz Guard Band Licensees. The 700 MHz Guard Band 
encompasses spectrum in 746-747/776-777 MHz and 762-764/792-794 MHz 
frequency bands. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite) is the closest industry with a SBA small business size 
standard applicable to licenses providing services in these bands. The 
SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a 
business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in 
this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed 
fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the SBA size standard, the 
Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can 
be considered small.
    20. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were 
approximately 224 active 700 MHz Guard Band licenses. The Commission's 
small business size standards with respect to 700 MHz Guard Band 
licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment 
payments in the auction of licenses. For the auction of these licenses, 
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, and a 
``very small business'' 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. Pursuant to these 
definitions, five winning bidders claiming one of the small business 
status classifications won 26 licenses, and one winning bidder claiming 
small business won two licenses. None of the winning bidders claiming a 
small business status classification in these 700 MHz Guard Band 
license auctions had an active license as of December 2021.
    21. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning 
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently 
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    22. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The lower 700 MHz band encompasses 
spectrum in the 698-746 MHz frequency bands. Permissible operations in 
these bands include flexible fixed, mobile, and broadcast uses, 
including mobile and other digital new broadcast operation; fixed and 
mobile wireless commercial services (including FDD- and TDD-based 
services); as well as fixed and mobile wireless uses for private, 
internal radio needs, two-way interactive, cellular, and mobile 
television broadcasting services. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 
(except Satellite) is the closest industry with a SBA small business 
size standard applicable to licenses providing services in these bands. 
The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a 
business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in 
this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed 
fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the SBA size standard, the 
Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can 
be considered small.
    23. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were 
approximately 2,824 active Lower 700 MHz Band licenses. The 
Commission's small business size standards with respect to Lower 700 
MHz Band licensees involve eligibility for bidding

[[Page 40628]]

credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses. For 
auctions of Lower 700 MHz Band licenses the Commission adopted criteria 
for three groups of small businesses. A very small business was defined 
as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling 
interests, has average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million 
for the preceding three years, a small business was defined as an 
entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, 
has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding 
three years, and an entrepreneur was defined as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average 
gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years. 
In auctions for Lower 700 MHz Band licenses seventy-two winning bidders 
claiming a small business classification won 329 licenses, twenty-six 
winning bidders claiming a small business classification won 214 
licenses, and three winning bidders claiming a small business 
classification won all five auctioned licenses.
    24. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning 
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently 
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    25. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. The upper 700 MHz band encompasses 
spectrum in the 746-806 MHz bands. Upper 700 MHz D Block licenses are 
nationwide licenses associated with the 758-763 MHz and 788-793 MHz 
bands. Permissible operations in these bands include flexible fixed, 
mobile, and broadcast uses, including mobile and other digital new 
broadcast operation; fixed and mobile wireless commercial services 
(including FDD- and TDD-based services); as well as fixed and mobile 
wireless uses for private, internal radio needs, two-way interactive, 
cellular, and mobile television broadcasting services. Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry 
with a SBA small business size standard applicable to licenses 
providing services in these bands. The SBA small business size standard 
for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or 
fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 
2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of that 
number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the 
SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of 
licensees in this industry can be considered small.
    26. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were 
approximately 152 active Upper 700 MHz Band licenses. The Commission's 
small business size standards with respect to Upper 700 MHz Band 
licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment 
payments in the auction of licenses. For the auction of these licenses, 
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, and a 
``very small business'' 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. Pursuant to these 
definitions, three winning bidders claiming very small business status 
won five of the twelve available licenses.
    27. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning 
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently 
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    28. Advanced Wireless Services (AWS)--(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); 2000-2020 MHz 
and 2180-2200 MHz (AWS-4). Spectrum is made available and licensed in 
these bands for the provision of various wireless communications 
services. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is 
the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable 
to these services. The SBA small business size standard for this 
industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 
firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this 
number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the 
SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of 
licensees in this industry can be considered small.
    29. According to Commission data as December 2021, there were 
approximately 4,472 active AWS licenses. The Commission's small 
business size standards with respect to AWS involve eligibility for 
bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for 
these services. For the auction of AWS licenses, the Commission 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. Pursuant to these 
definitions, 57 winning bidders claiming status as small or very small 
businesses won 215 of 1,087 licenses. In the most recent auction of AWS 
licenses 15 of 37 bidders qualifying for status as small or very small 
businesses won licenses.
    30. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning 
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently 
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    31. 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

[[Page 40629]]

Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)). Wireless cable 
operators that use spectrum in the BRS often supplemented with leased 
channels from the EBS, provide a competitive alternative to wired cable 
and other multichannel video programming distributors. Wireless cable 
programming to subscribers resembles cable television, but instead of 
coaxial cable, wireless cable uses microwave channels.
    32. In light of the use of wireless frequencies by BRS and EBS 
services, the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard 
applicable to these services is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 
(except Satellite). The SBA small business size standard for this 
industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 
firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this 
number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the 
SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of 
licensees in this industry can be considered small.
    33. According to Commission data as December 2021, there were 
approximately 5,869 active BRS and EBS licenses. The Commission's small 
business size standards with respect to BRS involves eligibility for 
bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for 
these services. For the auction of BRS licenses, the Commission adopted 
criteria for three groups of small businesses. A very small business is 
an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, 
has average annual gross revenues exceed $3 million and did not exceed 
$15 million for the preceding three years, a small business is an 
entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, 
has average gross revenues exceed $15 million and did not exceed $40 
million for the preceding three years, and an entrepreneur is an entity 
that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has 
average gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three 
years. Of the ten winning bidders for BRS licenses, two bidders 
claiming the small business status won 4 licenses, one bidder claiming 
the very small business status won three licenses and two bidders 
claiming entrepreneur status won six licenses. One of the winning 
bidders claiming a small business status classification in the BRS 
license auction has an active licenses as of December 2021.
    34. The Commission's small business size standards for EBS define a 
small business as an entity that, together with its affiliates, its 
controlling interests and the affiliates of its controlling interests, 
has average gross revenues that are not more than $55 million for the 
preceding five (5) years, and a very small business is an entity that, 
together with its affiliates, its controlling interests and the 
affiliates of its controlling interests, has average gross revenues 
that are not more than $20 million for the preceding five (5) years. In 
frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission 
notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that 
qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not 
necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in 
service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    35. The Educational Broadcasting Services. Cable-based educational 
broadcasting services fall under the broad category of the Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers industry. The Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in 
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and 
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of 
voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications 
networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology 
or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use 
the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to 
provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, 
including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and video programming 
distribution; and wired broadband internet services.
    36. The SBA small business size standard for this industry 
classifies businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this 
industry that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,964 firms 
operated with fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under this size standard, 
the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small. 
Additionally, according to Commission data as of December 2021, there 
were 4,477 active EBS licenses. The Commission estimates that the 
majority of these licenses are held by non-profit educational 
institutions and school districts and are likely small entities.
    37. 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 SBA small business size standard for this 
industry classifies businesses having 1,250 employees or less as small. 
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 656 firms in this 
industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 624 firms 
had fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the 
majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.
    38. 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 small 
business size standard for this industry classifies businesses having 
annual receipts of $41.5 million or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau 
data for 2017 indicate that 7,842 firms in this industry operated for 
the entire year. Of this number 7,226 firms had revenue of less than 
$25 million. Based on this data, we conclude that a majority of firms 
in this industry are small.
    39. Noncommercial Educational (NCE) and Public Broadcast Stations. 
Noncommercial educational broadcast stations and public broadcast 
stations are television or radio broadcast stations which under the 
Commission's rules are eligible to be licensed by the Commission as a 
noncommercial educational radio or television broadcast station and are 
owned and operated by a public agency or nonprofit private foundation, 
corporation, or association; or are owned and operated by a 
municipality which transmits only noncommercial programs for education 
purposes.

[[Page 40630]]

    40. The SBA small business size standards and U.S. Census Bureau 
data classify radio stations and television broadcasting separately and 
both categories may include both noncommercial and commercial stations. 
The SBA small business size standard for both radio stations and 
television broadcasting classify firms having $41.5 million or less in 
annual receipts as small. For Radio Stations, U.S. Census Bureau data 
for 2017 show that 1,879 of the 2,963 firms that operated during that 
year had revenue of less than $25 million per year. For Television 
Broadcasting, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 657 of the 744 
firms that operated for the entire year had revenue of less than 
$25,000,000. While the U.S. Census Bureau data does not indicate the 
number of non-commercial stations, we estimate that under the 
applicable SBA size standard the majority of noncommercial educational 
broadcast stations and public broadcast stations are small entities.
    41. According to Commission data as of December 31, 2022, there 
were 4,590 licensed noncommercial educational radio and television 
stations. In addition, the Commission estimates as of December 31, 
2022, there were 383 licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) 
television stations, 383 Class A TV stations, 1,912 LPTV stations and 
3,122 TV translator stations. The Commission does not compile and 
otherwise does not have access to financial information for these 
stations that permit it to determine how many stations qualify as small 
entities under the SBA small business size standards. However, given 
the nature of these services, we will presume that all noncommercial 
educational and public broadcast stations qualify as small entities 
under the above SBA small business size standards.
    42. Radio Stations. This industry is comprised of establishments 
primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the 
public. Programming may originate in their own studio, from an 
affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA small business 
size standard for this industry classifies firms having $41.5 million 
or less in annual receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 
show that 2,963 firms operated in this industry during that year. Of 
this number, 1,879 firms operated with revenue of less than $25 million 
per year. Based on this data and the SBA's small business size 
standard, we estimate a majority of such entities are small entities.
    43. The Commission estimates that as of December 31, 2022, there 
were 4,484 licensed commercial AM radio stations and 6,686 licensed 
commercial FM radio stations, for a combined total of 11,170 commercial 
radio stations. Of this total, 11,168 stations (or 99.98%) had revenues 
of $41.5 million or less in 2021, according to Commission staff review 
of the BIAKelsey Media Access Pro Online Database (MAPro) on January 
13, 2023, and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under 
the SBA definition. In addition, the Commission estimates that as of 
December 31, 2022, there were 4,207 licensed noncommercial (NCE) FM 
radio stations, 2,015 low power FM (LPFM) stations, and 8,950 FM 
translators and boosters. The Commission however does not compile, and 
otherwise does not have access to financial information for these radio 
stations that would permit it to determine how many of these stations 
qualify as small entities under the SBA small business size standard. 
Nevertheless, given the SBA's large annual receipts threshold for this 
industry and the nature of these radio station licensees, we presume 
that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the above 
SBA small business size standard.
    44. 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 radio or television broadcast station is dominant in 
its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses 
to which the rules may apply does not exclude any radio or television 
station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is 
therefore possibly over-inclusive. An additional element of the 
definition of ``small business'' is that the entity must be 
independently owned and operated. Because it is difficult to assess 
these criteria in the context of media entities, the estimate of small 
businesses to which the rules may apply does not exclude any radio or 
television station from the definition of a small business on this 
basis and similarly may be over-inclusive.
    45. FM Translator Stations and Low-Power FM Stations. FM 
translators and Low Power FM Stations are classified in the industry 
for Radio Stations. The Radio Stations industry comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by 
radio to the public. Programming may originate in their own studio, 
from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA small 
business size standard for this industry classifies firms having $41.5 
million or less in annual receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data 
for 2017 show that 2,963 firms operated during that year. Of that 
number, 1,879 firms operated with revenue of less than $25 million per 
year. Therefore, based on the SBA's size standard we conclude that the 
majority of FM Translator stations and Low Power FM Stations are small. 
Additionally, according to Commission data, as of December 31, 2022, 
there were 8,950 FM Translator Stations and 2,015 Low Power FM licensed 
broadcast stations. The Commission however does not compile and 
otherwise does not have access to information on the revenue of these 
stations that would permit it to determine how many of the stations 
would qualify as small entities. For purposes of this regulatory 
flexibility analysis, we presume the majority of these stations are 
small entities.
    46. Television Broadcasting. This industry is comprised of 
``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 their own studio, from an affiliated 
network, or from external sources. The SBA small business size standard 
for this industry classifies businesses having $41.5 million or less in 
annual receipts as small. 2017 U.S. Census Bureau data indicate that 
744 firms in this industry operated for the entire year. Of that 
number, 657 firms had revenue of less than $25,000,000. Based on this 
data we estimate that the majority of television broadcasters are small 
entities under the SBA small business size standard.
    47. As of December 31, 2022, there were 1,375 licensed commercial 
television stations. Of this total, 1,282 stations (or 93.2%) had 
revenues of $41.5 million or less in 2021, according to Commission 
staff review of the BIAKelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Online Television 
Database (MAPro) on January 13, 2023, and therefore these

[[Page 40631]]

licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In 
addition, the Commission estimates as of December 31, 2022, there were 
383 licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations, 383 
Class A TV stations, 1,912 LPTV stations and 3,122 TV translator 
stations. The Commission however does not compile, and otherwise does 
not have access to financial information for these television broadcast 
stations that would permit it to determine how many of these stations 
qualify as small entities under the SBA small business size standard. 
Nevertheless, given the SBA's large annual receipts threshold for this 
industry and the nature of these television station licensees, we 
presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the 
above SBA small business size standard.
    48. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. The U.S. Census 
Bureau defines this industry as 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 small business size standard for this industry 
classifies firms with annual receipts less than $41.5 million as small. 
Based on U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017, 378 firms operated in this 
industry during that year. Of that number, 149 firms operated with 
revenue of less than $25 million a year and 44 firms operated with 
revenue of $25 million or more. Based on this data, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of firms operating in this industry are 
small.
    49. Cable System Operators (Rate Regulation Standard). The 
Commission has developed its own small business size standard 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. Based on industry data, there are about 420 cable companies 
in the U.S. Of these, only seven have more than 400,000 subscribers. In 
addition, under the Commission's rules, a ``small system'' is a cable 
system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Based on industry data, 
there are about 4,139 cable systems (headends) in the U.S. Of these, 
about 639 have more than 15,000 subscribers. Accordingly, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of cable companies and cable 
systems are small.
    50. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, contains a size standard for a 
``small cable operator,'' 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.'' For purposes of the Telecom Act Standard, the 
Commission determined that a cable system operator that serves fewer 
than 677,000 subscribers, either directly or through affiliates, will 
meet the definition of a small cable operator based on the cable 
subscriber count established in a 2001 Public Notice. Based on industry 
data, only six cable system operators have more than 677,000 
subscribers. Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
cable system operators are small under this size standard. We note 
however, that the Commission neither requests nor collects information 
on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose 
gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Therefore, 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.
    51. Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms 
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other 
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by 
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of 
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Satellite 
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth 
station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this 
industry classifies a business with $35 million or less in annual 
receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms 
in this industry operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242 
firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Additionally, based on 
Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of 
December 31, 2020, there were 71 providers that reported they were 
engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of 
these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 48 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently using the SBA's 
small business size standard, a little more than one-half of these 
providers can be considered small entities.
    52. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of 
establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized 
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes 
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal 
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more 
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, 
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of 
internet services (e.g. dial-up ISPs) or voice over internet protocol 
(VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are 
also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard 
for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million 
or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 
1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of 
those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this 
data, the Commission estimates that the majority of ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' firms can be considered small.
    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 included in the Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers industry which 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.
    54. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census

[[Page 40632]]

Bureau data for 2017 show that 3,054 firms operated in this industry 
for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer 
than 250 employees. Based on this data, the majority of firms in this 
industry can be considered small under the SBA small business size 
standard. According to Commission data however, only two entities 
provide DBS service--DIRECTV (owned by AT&T) and DISH Network, which 
require a great deal of capital for operation. DIRECTV and DISH Network 
both exceed the SBA size standard for classification as a small 
business. Therefore, we must conclude based on internally developed 
Commission data, in general DBS service is provided only by large 
firms.

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

    55. We expect the actions proposed in the Further Notice, if 
adopted, will impose additional reporting, recordkeeping and other 
compliance obligations on small as well as other entities who are 
Participating CMS Providers voluntarily participating in WEA.
    56. At this time the Commission cannot quantify the cost of 
compliance for small entities to comply with the proposals and all of 
the matters that we seek comment on in the Further Notice. However, we 
have conducted an analysis estimating the total costs that would be 
incurred by all Participating CMS providers as a group. We anticipate 
that the proposed rules will result in costs associated with modifying 
standards and software, and recordkeeping and reporting costs for 
Participating CMS Providers. In the Further Notice, we seek comment 
whether adopting all these proposals as a package may result in a cost 
savings as opposed to having to modify standards and software in 
response to several, incremental policy changes. Based on our analysis, 
it is likely that small entities will have to hire professionals to 
comply with our proposals, if adopted. Below we discuss some 
anticipated reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance obligations 
and our cost analysis estimating certain costs.
    57. WEA Database. The Commission proposes the creation of a 
Commission-hosted WEA Database that would contain WEA availability and 
performance information. All small and other Participating CMS 
Providers would be required to report their level of WEA participation 
in the WEA Database regardless of whether they elect to transmit WEA 
messages. Participating CMS Providers that elect to transmit WEA alert 
messages will be required to elect to participate and electronically 
file the participation election in the WEA Database. Participating CMS 
Providers' WEA election should state whether they elect to participate 
in WEA in whole, in part, or whether they elect not to participate. 
Their filings would also be required to identify the entities on behalf 
of which they are filing (including the subsidiary companies on behalf 
of which their election is filed, the ``doing business as'' names under 
which the Participating CMS Provider offers WEA, and the Mobile Virtual 
Network Operators (MVNOs) and wireless resellers through which the 
Participating CMS Provider offers WEA), specify the geographic 
locations in which they do and do not offer WEA, and identify the 
mobile devices that the Participating CMS Provider offers that are WEA-
capable. We also propose to require that Participating CMS Providers' 
WEA Database filing include the names of all wireless service providers 
that use their network to deliver WEA messages to the public (or do not 
deliver WEA messages at all, in the case of entities electing not to 
participate in WEA) and identify all mobile devices that the 
Participating CMS Provider offers that are WEA-capable. Additionally, 
we propose to require small and other Participating CMS Providers to 
update the WEA Database within 30 days of any change in their 
participation in WEA.
    58. Performance Measures Reporting. In the Further Notice, we 
propose performance measures for reliability, accuracy, and speed that 
small and other Participating CMS Providers will be required to meet 
for each WEA message it sends and to provide performance data to the 
Commission.
    59. Language and Multimedia Support. To make WEA messages more 
accessible and to expand their reach, in the Further Notice we propose 
to require small and other Participating CMS Providers' WEA-capable 
mobile devices to translate English-language alert messages that they 
receive into the subscriber's default language preference. If adopted, 
compliance with this obligation will require small and other 
Participating CMS providers to support Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, 
Arabic, French, Korean, Russian, Haitian Creole, German, Hindi, 
Portuguese, and Italian, in addition to English and Spanish alerts. Our 
proposed requirements that Participating CMS Providers transmit 
``thumbnail-sized'' images in WEA alert messages could also improve 
accessibility for individuals with disabilities and individuals that do 
not speak English. To comply with our proposed multimedia support 
requirement small and other Participating CMS Providers would also be 
required support mobile devices' presentation of maps that include at 
least the following elements: shape of the target area; user location 
relative to the target area and a graphical representation of the 
geographic area in which both the targeted area and user are located.
    60. Cost Estimates. The Commission estimates a $39.9 million one-
time cost for all Participating CMS Providers to update the WEA 
standards and software necessary to comply with our proposed WEA 
availability reporting, automated WEA performance reporting, support 
for template alerting in the twelve most common languages in addition 
to English and Spanish, support for multimedia infographic alerting, 
support for incorporating location-aware maps into WEA through an API, 
enabling of alerting authorities to send alerts without the associated 
attention signal, allowing of consumers to cache their receipt of WEA, 
and support for additional testing. This figure consists of 
approximately $814,000 to update the applicable WEA standards and 
approximately $39.1 million to update the applicable software. The 
Commission estimates a $422,500 annually recurring cost for all 
Participating CMS Providers to report WEA availability and performance 
information to the WEA Database. This figure consists of approximately 
$139,000 to report information about the availability of WEA and 
$285,500 to report information about WEA's performance.
    61. We derived the one-time $39.9 million cost estimate based on 
several calculations. Our estimate to update the applicable WEA 
standards is based on the cost of modifying standards using annual 
compensation for 30 network engineers compensated at the national 
average for their field ($120,650/year or $58/hour), plus annual 
benefits ($60,325/year or 29/hour) working for the amount of time that 
it takes to develop a standard (one hour every other week for one year, 
26 hours) for 12 distinct standards. This is calculated as follows: 30 
network engineers x ($58 + $29) per hour per network engineer x 26 
hours per standard x 12 standards = $814,320, a figure that we round to 
$814,000 to avoid the false appearance of precision in our estimate. 
Our cost estimate to implement the necessary software changes 
calculated the cost of modifying software as the annual compensation 
for a software developer compensated at the national average for

[[Page 40633]]

their field ($120,990/year), plus annual benefits ($60,495/year) 
working for the amount of time that it takes to develop software (ten 
months) at each of the 76 CMS Providers that participate in WEA.
    62. In the Supporting Document of Study Area Boundary Data 
Reporting in Esri Shapefile Format, the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs estimates that it takes an average of 26 hours for a 
data scientist to modify a shapefile. We believe submitting WEA 
availability information in shapefile format should require less time 
than modifying a shapefile. Therefore, we believe 26 hours would be an 
upper bound of the time required for a Participating CMS Provider to 
report its WEA availability in shapefile format. Given that the median 
wage rate is $48.52/hour for data scientists, with a 45% markup for 
benefits, we arrive at $70.40 as the hourly compensation rate for a 
data scientist. We estimate an aggregate cost of WEA availability 
reporting to be approximately $139,000 ([ap] $70.40 per hour x 26 hours 
x 76 providers), which may be recurring on an annual basis since 
availability may change and need to be updated over time.
    63. We expect that the process of data collection and data 
submission would require minimal human intervention. Although we 
anticipate such performance reporting would be largely automated once 
it is set up, we estimate a routine administrative monitoring cost that 
Participating CMS Providers may still incur when they file the 
performance report for each alert incident. We estimate that, for each 
alert, a provider will need an office administrator, who is compensated 
at $27 hour, to spend 0.5 hours in monitoring each data transmission. 
At the aggregate level, we believe there will be 21,000 performance 
reports transmitted to the WEA database, resulting in a $283,500 annual 
recurring cost at the aggregate level. Given that WEA was used 70,000 
times over the last decade, we estimate that 7,000 alerts (= 70,000/10 
years) were issued per year. According to 2022 Communications 
Marketplace Report, nearly 95% of consumers have at least three 
wireless provider options in their areas. Therefore, we estimate that 
the total number of performance reports that need to be filed would be 
21,000 (= 7,000 alerts x 3 providers per alert). Assuming each alert 
take an additional 0.5 hours for an office administrator to process for 
Participating CMS Provider at a compensation rate of $27 per hour, the 
total additional recurring cost is $283,500 (= $27/hour x 0.5 hours x 
21,000 reports) per year.
    64. To help the Commission more fully evaluate the cost of 
compliance for small entities should our proposals be adopted, in the 
Further Notice, we request comments on the cost implications of our 
proposals and ask whether there are more efficient and less burdensome 
alternatives (including cost estimates) for the Commission to consider. 
We expect the information we received in comments including cost and 
benefit analyses, to help the Commission identify and evaluate relevant 
matters for small entities, including compliance costs and other 
burdens that may result from the proposals and inquiries we make in the 
Further Notice.

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

    65. 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 such 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 such 
small entities.
    66. The Commission has taken steps to minimize the impact of the 
proposals in the Further Notice as a general matter, and specifically 
targeting small entities, has sought comment on the extent to which we 
can limit the overall economic impact of these proposed requirements if 
we provide increased flexibility for small entities. We believe that 
the proposals to improve and enhance WEA in the Further Notice, are the 
most efficient and least burdensome approach. Below we discuss some 
specific actions taken and alternatives considered by the Commission in 
the Further Notice.
    67. Making WEA More Accessible. Our proposals to make WEA more 
accessible considered feedback and information from industry 
participants and the Communications Security, Reliability and 
Interoperability Council VIII (CSRIC VIII) which provided real-world 
insight to better inform the Commission on currently available 
technologies that could be leveraged to accomplish our objectives in a 
cost-effective manner. Requiring small and other Participating CMS 
providers to support the most common languages spoken in the U.S. is 
based on our belief that machine language translation technologies have 
matured sufficient to support such a requirement. Industry information 
supports our belief and CSRIC VIII reports Participating CMS Providers 
may be able to leverage machine translation technologies such as Google 
Cloud Translation and Apple Translate that is pre-installed on many 
WEA-capable mobile devices using an application programming interface 
(API) to make WEA messages accessible to every major language group in 
the U.S. Our proposal of the expanded language support requirement with 
an approach that gives small Participating CMS Providers the potential 
to leverage existing technologies that are already pre-installed in 
many of their WEA capable handsets should reduce the economic impact 
for small Participating CMS Providers.
    68. To support multilingual WEA, we also considered template-based 
alerts which are being utilized by the New York City Emergency 
Management Department through its Notify NYC application to support 
multilingual alerting in 14 different languages. This application 
presents an English-language message, along with a link to 13 other 
pre-scripted translations. The alert message translations have been 
written by people fluent in the languages and vetted with native 
speakers from language communities. In the Further Notice we seek 
comment on our proposed requirement and on alternative approaches to 
promoting multilingual WEA.
    69. More Seamless Integration of WEA. To integrate WEA more 
seamlessly into people's lives we took actions to facilitate more 
effective WEA public awareness exercises. We propose allowing small and 
other Participating CMS Providers to support up to two annual end-to-
end WEA tests per alerting authority that the consumers receive by 
default, provided that the alerting authority: (1) conducts outreach 
and notifies the public in advance of the planned WEA test and that no 
emergency is, in fact, occurring; (2) include in its test message that 
the alert is only a test; (3) coordinates the test among Participating 
CMS Providers, state and local emergency authorities, relevant State 
Emergency Communications Committees (SECCs), and first responder 
organizations, and (4) provides notification to the public in widely 
accessible formats that the test is only a test. If adopted, this 
proposal would remove the requirement for small and other alerting 
authorities to request

[[Page 40634]]

waiver for up to two annual end-to-end WEA tests and the associated 
costs of making such a request. Moreover, the proposed conditions are 
the same conditions applicable for alerting authorities to conduct EAS 
Live Code Tests.
    70. Establishing a WEA Database to Promote Transparency about WEA 
Availability and Benchmark WEA Performance. In the Further Notice we 
propose to adopt reliability, accuracy and speed benchmarks for WEA, 
and performance minimums that small and other Participating CMS 
Providers must satisfy to improve the effectiveness of WEA, and that 
are consistent with the recommendations in the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) Report. We also propose to require small 
and other Participating CMS Providers to submit performance 
reliability, accuracy, and speed data for all WEA alert messages and 
for State/Local WEA Tests.
    71. Further, as an alternative, or in addition to, the requirements 
proposed above to ensure WEA's minimum performance, we considered and 
seek comment on whether to require small and other Participating CMS 
Providers to take measures to improve WEA's reliability and accuracy, 
and on what other potential technical measures we could require to 
optimize the reliability, accuracy, or speed of the WEA system.
    72. We also considered in the alternative, and in the Further 
Notice seek comment on, the feasibility of measuring WEA's performance 
using staged devices as proposed by CSRIC VIII. Regarding this 
alternative we inquire, (1) whether small and other Participating CMS 
Providers could capture actionable information about WEA's performance 
by conducting regular testing using devices positioned in and around 
the target area of a Required Monthly Test (RMT); (2) could such a 
testing and performance measurement requirement also leverage State/
Local WEA Tests or leverage alerting authority volunteers to supplement 
their own; (3) whether small and other Participating CMS Providers 
could use staged devices to annually measure WEA's performance on a 
representative sample of handsets and in representative environments, 
including dense urban, urban, suburban, and rural areas; (4) whether, 
and if so, how the resulting data collected would differ in quality 
from the data that we propose to collect today and (5) whether there 
would be any limitations to the public safety benefits of measuring 
performance using staged devices. We seek comment these inquiries, and 
on whether there would be any cost or time savings associated with this 
approach if small and other Participating CMS Providers had to update 
network and mobile device firmware to measure WEA's performance using 
staged devices.
    73. WEA Database. In the preceding section we discussed our 
proposal in the Further Notice to create a Commission-hosted WEA 
database containing information filed by small and other Participating 
CMS Providers that would allow alerting authorities to access and 
review information about WEA's availability and performance in their 
jurisdictions. We anticipate that the WEA Database would be an 
interactive portal where small and other Participating CMS Providers 
submit information about the availability and performance of WEA on 
their networks, and where such information could be readily accessible 
to Participating CMS Providers, alerting authorities, and the public. 
Our decision to propose the creation of a WEA Database contemplated 
what would be the most cost-effective mechanism for small and other 
Participating CMS Providers to submit WEA elections and performance 
information into the WEA Database. Consistent with this objective, in 
the Further Notice we propose to support electronic filings for WEA 
elections that leverage GIS shapefiles, drop-down menus, and freeform 
text where appropriate. We envision that WEA performance data that only 
requires entry of specific numbers or times would be simpler and less 
costly to submit. We also recognize however, that our proposal may 
require filings to be made frequently, particularly as updated lists of 
WEA-capable mobile devices or new performance data on new alerts need 
to be submitted. Thus, we considered how to best approach data 
collection for the WEA Database while minimizing costs and other 
burdens for small and other Participating CMS Providers, such as 
whether to utilize an application programming interface (API) that 
would facilitate the automated filing of data. We seek comment on these 
matters in the Further Notice, as well as input on other factors the 
Commission should consider when designing the data submission elements 
of the WEA database.
    74. There may be alternative approaches to our WEA Database for 
performance reporting that might strike a better balance between the 
need that the Commission has identified to provide alerting authorities 
with access to WEA performance information, while limiting the impact 
of countervailing considerations, such as costs, development time, or 
privacy concerns. An alternative recommended by CSRIC VIII proposes a 
requirement that would use an automated email to convey WEA performance 
reporting information from Participating CMS Providers to an alerting 
authority or a centralized reporting location for each sent WEA. CSRIC 
VIII recommends that the details of this approach should be worked out 
between alerting authorities, PBS, and Participating CMS Providers. In 
the Further Notice, we seek comment on the utility of WEA performance 
information communicated by email directly to alerting authorities, 
either in addition or as an alternative to a WEA database, and 
encourage WEA stakeholders to file detailed proposals of how this 
alternative approach could work in practice.
    75. Compliance Timeframe. To minimize any significant impact our 
proposed rules may have on small entities, as an alternative to the 
compliance timeframes we propose in the Further Notice we inquire and 
seek comment on whether it is appropriate to allow Participating CMS 
Providers that are small- or medium-sized businesses additional time to 
comply. The compliance deadline in the Further Notice for the proposed 
rules to enhance WEA's language support and integrate WEA more 
seamlessly into people's lives is 30 months after the publication of 
final rules in the Federal Register. The compliance deadline in the 
Further Notice for the proposed rules to improve WEA's effectiveness 
with multimedia content is 36 months after the publication of final 
rules in the Federal Register. To facilitate more effective WEA public 
awareness exercises, Participating CMS Providers would be authorized to 
support up to two annual end-to-end WEA tests per alerting authority 30 
days after the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau issues a 
Public Notice announcing OMB approval of any new information collection 
requirements associated with this rule change.
    76. The compliance deadline in the Further Notice for the proposed 
rules associated with developing measurable goals and performance 
measures for WEA is 30 months after the publication of final rules in 
the Federal Register or within 30 days of the Public Safety and 
Homeland Security Bureau's publication of a public notice announcing 
that the WEA Database is ready to accept filings, whichever is later. 
This includes the proposed rules requiring small and other 
Participating CMS Providers to satisfy WEA performance minimums and 
submit reports measuring WEA's performance. Further, we seek specific 
comment on

[[Page 40635]]

whether to offer an extended compliance timeframe for Participating CMS 
Providers that are small- and medium-sized businesses, which may have 
different network resource constraints than the nationwide 
Participating CMS Providers. Additionally, we propose to require 
Participating CMS Providers to refresh their elections to participate 
in WEA using the WEA Database within 30 days of the Public Safety and 
Homeland Security Bureau's publication of a public notice announcing, 
(1) OMB approval of any new information collection requirements and (2) 
that the WEA Database is ready to accept filings and seek comment on 
this proposal.
    77. The Commission expects to more fully consider the economic 
impact and alternatives for small entities following the review of 
comments filed in response to the Further Notice, including costs and 
benefits analyses. Having data on the costs and economic impact of 
proposals and approaches will `allow the Commission to better evaluate 
options and alternatives to minimize any significant economic impact on 
small entities that may result from the proposals and approaches raised 
in the Further Notice. The Commission's evaluation of this information 
will shape the final alternatives it considers to minimize any 
significant economic impact that may occur on small entities, the final 
conclusions it reaches and any final rules it promulgates in this 
proceeding.

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

    78. None.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 10

    Communications common carriers.

Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons set forth above, Part 10 of title 47 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 10--WIRELESS EMERGENCY ALERTS

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

    Authority:  47 U.S.C Sec. Sec.  151, 152, 154(i), 154(n), 301, 
303(b), 303(e), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 307, 309, 316, 403, 544(g), 
6061201(a), (b), (c), (f), 1203, 1204, 1206.

0
2. Amend Sec.  10.10 by revising paragraph (j), redesignating 
paragraphs (k) and (l) as paragraphs (l) and (m), and adding paragraph 
(k) to read as follows:


Sec.  10.10  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (j) Mobile Devices. Any customer equipment used to receive 
commercial mobile service.
    (k) WEA-Capable Mobile Devices. Mobile devices, as defined 
paragraph (j) of this section, that support the Subpart E Equipment 
Requirements.
* * * * *
0
3. Revise Sec.  10.210 to read as follows:


Sec.  10.210  WEA participation election procedures.

    (a) A CMS provider that elects to transmit WEA Alert Messages must 
elect to participate in part or in whole, as defined by Sec.  10.10(l) 
and (m), and shall electronically file in the Commission's WEA Database 
attesting that the Provider:
    (1) Agrees to transmit such alerts in a manner consistent with the 
technical standards, protocols, procedures, and other technical 
requirements implemented by the Commission; and
    (2) Commits to 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 and support 
of the CMS provider selected technology.
    (b) A CMS Provider that elects to participate in WEA must disclose 
the following information in their election filed in the Commission's 
WEA Database:
    (1) The entities on behalf of which the Participating CMS Provider 
files its election, including the subsidiary companies on behalf of 
which their election is filed, the ``doing business as'' names under 
which a Participating CMS Provider offers WEA, and the Mobile Virtual 
Network Operators (MVNOs) and wireless resellers through which the 
Participating CMS Provider offers WEA;
    (2) The extent to which the Participating CMS Provider offers WEA 
in the entirety of their geographic service area, as demonstrated by 
the following:
    (i) a map of their wireless coverage area in shapefile format;
    (ii) to the extent that it differs from their wireless coverage 
area specified in response to paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, a 
map of the geographic areas to which they elect to transmit WEA alert 
messages in shapefile format.
    (3) The extent to which all WEA-capable mobile devices that the 
Participating CMS Provider offers at the point of sale are WEA-capable, 
as demonstrated by the following:
    (i) the mobile devices, as defined in Sec.  10.10(j), that the 
Participating CMS Provider offers at their point of sale;
    (ii) the WEA-capable mobile devices, as defined in Sec.  10.10(k), 
that the Participating CMS Provider offers at their point of sale.
    (c) If the terms of a CMS Provider's WEA participation change in 
any manner described by paragraph (b) of this section, it must update 
the information about its WEA participation disclosed pursuant to that 
paragraph within 30 days such that the information in the WEA Database 
accurately reflects the terms of their WEA participation.
    (d) A CMS Provider that elects not to transmit WEA Alert Messages 
shall file electronically in the Commission's WEA Database attesting to 
that fact, and include the subsidiary companies, the CMS Provider's 
``doing business as'' names, MVNOs, and wireless resellers on behalf of 
which the election is filed.
    (e) CMS Providers shall file their elections electronically into 
the WEA Database.
0
4. Revise Sec.  10.280 to read as follows:


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

    (a) CMS providers may provide their subscribers with the option to 
opt out of the ``Child Abduction Emergency/AMBER Alert,'' ``Imminent 
Threat Alert'' and ``Public Safety Message'' classes of Alert Messages.
    (b) CMS providers shall provide their subscribers with a distinct 
option to durably turn off WEA's audio attention signal and vibration 
cadence for all alerts received.
    (c) CMS providers shall provide their subscribers with the option 
to opt out of the collection of WEA performance analytic information 
described by Sec.  10.500(i).
    (d) CMS providers shall provide their subscribers 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.
0
5. Amend Sec.  10.330 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows


Sec.  10.330  Provider infrastructure requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) Collecting the data elements necessary to measure WEA's 
performance, as defined in section 10.360.
0
6. Amend Sec.  10.350 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  10.350  WEA testing and proficiency training requirements.

* * * * *

[[Page 40636]]

    (d) Public Awareness Tests. Participating CMS Providers may 
participate in no more than two (2) WEA System tests per calendar year 
that the public receives by default to raise public awareness, provided 
that the entity conducting the test:
    (i) Conducts outreach and notifies the public before the test that 
live event codes will be used, but that no emergency is, in fact, 
occurring;
    (ii) To the extent technically feasible, states in the test message 
that the event is only a test;
    (iii) Coordinates the test among Participating CMS Providers and 
with state and local emergency authorities, the relevant SECC (or 
SECCs, if the test could affect multiple states), and first responder 
organizations, such as PSAPs, police, and fire agencies); and,
    (iv) Provides in widely accessible formats the notification to the 
public required by this paragraph that the test is only a test and is 
not a warning about an actual emergency.
0
7. Add Sec.  10.360 to subpart C to read as follows:


Sec.  10.360  Performance Reporting.

    Participating CMS Providers are required to transmit performance 
data to the Commission's WEA Database regarding WEA's reliability, 
accuracy and speed.
0
8. Revise Sec.  10.450 to read as follows:


Sec.  10.450  Geographic targeting.

    (a) This section establishes minimum requirements for the 
geographic targeting of Alert Messages. A Participating CMS Provider 
will determine which of its network facilities, elements, and locations 
will be used to geographically target Alert Messages. A Participating 
CMS Provider must deliver any Alert Message that is specified by a 
circle or polygon to an area that matches the specified circle or 
polygon.
    (b) A Participating CMS Provider is considered to have matched the 
target area they meet both of the following conditions:
    (1) Reliability. Deliver an Alert Message to 100 percent of WEA-
capable Mobile Devices that are located within a Participating CMS 
Provider's WEA coverage area and are located within an Alert Message's 
geographic target area during an Alert Message's active period.
    (2) Accuracy. Do not present an Alert Message on mobile devices 
located farther than 0.1 miles outside the Alert Message's target area.
0
9. Revise Sec.  10.460 to read as follows:


Sec.  10.460  WEA Transmission Speed.

    No more than 5 minutes shall elapse for 99% of mobile devices from 
the time that a Participating CMS Provider receives an alert message at 
the CMS Alert Gateway and the time that mobile devices present the 
alert message based on aggregated, annualized data submitted to the WEA 
Database.
0
10. Add Sec.  10.490 to subpart D to read as follows:


Sec.  10.490  Multimedia support.

    (a) Participating CMS Providers are required to transmit 
``thumbnail-sized'' images in WEA alert messages. A thumbnail sized 
image meets or exceeds each of the following parameters: 1.5'' x 1.5'' 
in size with a resolution of 72 dots per inch consisting of 120 x 120 
pixels in 8 bit color scale.
    (b) Participating CMS Providers are required support mobile 
devices' presentation of maps that include at least the following 
elements:
    1. Shape of the target area
    2. User location relative to the target area
    3. A graphical representation of the geographic area in which both 
the targeted area and user are located.
0
11. Amend Sec.  10.500 by revising paragraph (e) and adding paragraphs 
(i) and (j) to read as follows:


Sec.  10.500  General requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) Extraction of alert content in English or translation of alert 
content into the subscriber's preferred language;
* * * * *
    (i) Logging and making available to the CMS network the data 
elements necessary to measure WEA's performance, as defined in Sec.  
10.360;
    (j) Any additional functions necessary to support the Subpart D 
Alert Message Requirements
0
12. Amend Sec.  10.520 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  10.520  Common audio attention signal.

* * * * *
    (f) Participating CMS Providers and mobile device manufacturers 
must provide alerting authorities with the option to send WEA Alert 
Messages without triggering the audio attention signal.
0
13. Amend Sec.  10.530 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  10.530  Common vibration cadence.

* * * * *
    (d) Participating CMS Providers and mobile device manufacturers 
must provide alerting authorities with the option to send WEA Alert 
Messages without triggering the common vibration cadence.

[FR Doc. 2023-12725 Filed 6-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P