Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System and Wireless Emergency Alerts

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 11

[PS Docket No. 15-94, PS Docket No. 15-91; FCC 16-5

Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System and Wireless Emergency Alerts

AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

This document proposes taking the next step towards strengthening the nation's public alert and warning systems, the Emergency Alert System (EAS) and Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA), as community-driven public safety tools capable of ensuring that the public is able to receive and properly respond to alerts issued by alerting authorities in emergency situations. This document seeks comment on proposed rule changes in four areas: Improving alerting organization at the state and local levels; building effective community-based public safety exercises; ensuring that alerting mechanisms are able to leverage advancements in technology, including IP-based technologies; and securing the EAS against accidental misuse and malicious intrusion. By this action, the Commission affords interested parties an opportunity to submit comments on these proposed rule changes. Through this action, the Commission hopes to empower state and local alert originators to participate more fully in WEA, and to enhance the utility of EAS and WEA as an alerting tool.

DATES:

Comments are due on or before May 9, 2016 and reply comments are due on or before June 7, 2016. Written Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments on the proposed information collection requirements contained herein must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before May 23, 2016.

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 eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

•

Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.

Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

•

People with Disabilities:

Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email:

FCC504@fcc.gov

or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any PRA comments on the proposed information collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal Communications Commission via email to

PRA@fcc.gov

and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, via email to

Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov

or via fax at 202-395-5167.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lisa Fowlkes, Deputy Bureau Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 418-7452, or by email at

Lisa.Fowlkes@fcc.gov.

For additional information concerning the information collection requirements contained in this document, send an email to

PRA@fcc.gov

or contact Nicole Ongele, Office of Managing Director, Performance Evaluation and Records Management, 202-418-2991, or by email at

Nicole.Ongele@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in PS Docket Nos. 15-94 and 15-91, FCC 16-5, released on January 29, 2015. The documents are available for download at

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0129/FCC-16-5A1.pdf.

The complete text of this document is also available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to

FCC504@fcc.gov

or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

This document contains proposed information collection requirements. 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 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments on the PRA proposed information collection requirements are due May 23, 2016. 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) ways 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, Public Law 107-198,

see

44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

To view or obtain a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to this OMB/GSA Web page:

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain,

(2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, and (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the Title of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

OMB Control Number:

3060-0207.

Title:

Part 11—Emergency Alert System (EAS), NPRM, FCC 16-5.

Form Number:

Not applicable.

Type of Review:

Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents:

Business or other for-profit entities, not-for-profit institutions, and state, local, or tribal government.

Number of Respondents and Responses:

63,080 respondents; 3,597,086 responses.

Estimated Time per Response:

51 hours.

Frequency of Response:

On occasion reporting requirement and recordkeeping requirement.

Obligation to Respond:

Obligatory for all entities required to participate in EAS. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and 606 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

Total Annual Burden:

116,933 hours.

Total Annual Cost:

None.

Privacy Impact Assessment:

No impact(s).

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:

The Commission seeks comment on whether any aspects of State EAS Plans submitted via the State EAS Plan Filing Interface (SEPFI) should be made confidential and, further, whether it would be sufficient to provide such data with the same level of confidentiality as test data submitted to the Commission via the Electronic Test Reporting System (ETRS). The Commission has stated that it will allow such data to be shared on a confidential basis with other Federal agencies and state government emergency management agencies that have confidentiality protection at least equal to that provided by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552 (2006), amended by OPEN Government Act of 2007, Pub. L. 110-175, 121 Stat. 2524). The Commission also seeks comment on the degree of confidentiality that should be provided for the security certifications and false alert and lockout notifications submitted to the Commission via ETRS. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on its tentative conclusion that the act of filing an annual certification and the responses on the face of such certification forms should not be treated as presumptively confidential but that the act of filing addenda to the certification describing alternative approaches or corrective action with respect to performance of required security measures, as well as the contents of such addenda, should be treated as presumptively confidential. The Commission also seeks comment on its tentative conclusion that the mere fact of filing or not filing a false alert report or lockout notification should not be treated as presumptively confidential, while the information submitted in the report should be treated as presumptively confidential.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM provided in section III of the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).

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

2. With this NPRM, the Commission takes another step towards strengthening the Emergency Alert System (EAS) and Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) as community-driven public safety tools by proposing revisions to the EAS and WEA rules to ensure the public is able to receive and properly respond to alerts issued by alerting authorities in emergency situations. The Commission's proposals fall into four categories, improving alerting organization at the state and local levels, building effective community-based public safety exercises, ensuring that alerting mechanisms are able to leverage advancements in technology (including IP-based technologies), and securing the EAS against accidental misuse and malicious intrusion. With respect to improving alerting organization at the state and local levels, the Commission proposes to adopt EAS designations that more accurately reflect the current roles and responsibilities of key EAS Participants; streamline and update the State EAS Plan filing process by requiring State Emergency Communications Committees (SECCs) to file their plans electronically in an online State EAS Plan filing system; and adopt a standard online template for State EAS Plan content to allow the SECCs to file plans that fully detail their strategy for delivering Presidential and other life-saving alerts in an evolving technological landscape. With respect to building effective community-based alerting exercise programs, the Commission proposes to expand the EAS testing regime to include “live” code tests as community public safety exercises and to allow the use of EAS header codes and emergency alerting Attention Signal in Public Service Announcements (PSAs) by entities aiming to raise public awareness of, and alert initiator proficiency with EAS. The Commission seeks comment on how to best ensure that community based exercises address the needs of individuals with limited English proficiency and individuals with disabilities. The Commission seeks comment on several issues that reflect the extent to which evolving technologies are changing the alerting landscape. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on whether to retain the current forced tuning and selective override provisions in light of stakeholder feedback and advances in technology. Further, the Commission seeks comment on whether an EAS Participant cable or Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) provider should be required to deliver EAS alerts and tests over any channel, whether “programmed” or not, if it is controlled by the EAS Participant and viewable by the consumer. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on potential technological advancements to improve alert accessibility.

3. This NPRM represents another step towards achieving one of the Commission's highest priorities—“to ensure that all Americans have the capability to receive timely and accurate alerts, warnings and critical information regarding disasters and other emergencies.” This NPRM also is consistent with the Commission's obligation under Executive Order 13407 to “adopt rules to ensure that communications systems have the capacity to transmit alerts and warnings to the public as part of the public alert and warning system,” and the Commission's mandate under the Communications Act to promote the safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication. The Commission takes these steps as part of an overarching strategy to advance the nation's alerting capability, which includes both WEA and EAS, to keep pace with evolving technologies and to empower communities to initiate life-saving alerts.

B. Legal Basis

4. Authority for the actions proposed in the NPRM may be found in 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(o), 301, 303(b), (g) and (r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 544(g), 606, 613, 615 and 1302; Sections 602(a), (b), (c), (d), (f), 603, 604, and 606 of the Warning, Alert and Response Network (WARN) Act, Title VI of the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006, Public Law 109-347, 120 Stat. 1884 (2006); Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Public Law 111-260 and Public Law 111-265.

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 small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business

concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. Below, the Commission describes and estimates the number of small entity licensees that may be affected by the proposed rules.

6.

Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental Jurisdictions.

Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 28.2 million small businesses, according to the SBA. In addition, a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,315 small organizations. Finally, the term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” Census Bureau data for 2007 indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. The Commission estimates that, of this total, as many as 88,761 entities may qualify as “small governmental jurisdictions.” Thus, the Commission estimates that most governmental jurisdictions are small.

7.

Radio Stations.

This Economic Census category comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. Programming may originate in the station's own studio, from an affiliated network, or from an external source. The SBA defines a radio broadcasting entity that has $38.5 million or less in annual receipts as a small business. According to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Radio Analyzer Database as of June 5, 2013, about 90 percent of the 11,340 of commercial radio stations in the United States have revenues of $38.5 million or less. Therefore, the majority of such entities are small entities. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial radio stations to be 3,917. The Commission does not have revenue data or revenue estimates for these stations. These stations rely primarily on grants and contributions for their operations, so the Commission will assume that all of these entities qualify as small businesses. The Commission notes that in assessing whether a business entity qualifies as small under the above definition, business control affiliations must be included. In addition, to be determined to be a “small business,” the entity may not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission notes that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, and the Commission's estimate of small businesses may therefore be over-inclusive.

8.

Low-Power FM Stations.

The same SBA definition that applies to radio broadcast licensees would apply to low-power FM (“LPFM”) stations. The SBA defines a radio broadcast station as a small business if such station has no more than $38.5 million in annual receipts. Currently, there are approximately 864 licensed LPFM stations. Given the nature of these services, the Commission will presume that all of these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.

9.

Television Broadcasting.

The SBA defines a television broadcasting station as a small business if such station has no more than $38.5 million in annual receipts. Business concerns included in this industry are those “primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.” These establishments operate television broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public. These establishments also produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in the station's own studio, from an affiliated network, or from an external source.

10. According to Commission staff review of the BIA Financial Network, Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database as of March 31, 2013, about 90 percent of an estimated 1,385 commercial television stations in the United States have revenues of $38.5 million or less. Based on this data and the associated size standard, the Commission concludes that the majority of such establishments are small. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (“NCE”) stations to be 396. The Commission does not have revenue estimates for NCE stations. These stations rely primarily on grants and contributions for their operations, so the Commission will assume that all of these entities qualify as small businesses. In addition, there are approximately 567 licensed Class A stations, 2,227 licensed low-power television (“LPTV”) stations, and 4,518 licensed TV translators. Given the nature of these services, the Commission will presume that all LPTV licensees qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.

11. The Commission notes that in assessing whether a business entity qualifies as small under the above definition, business control affiliations must be included. The Commission's estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities affected by the proposed rules, because the revenue figures on which this estimate is based do not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.

12. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission is unable at this time and in this context to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its market of operation. Accordingly, the foregoing estimate of small businesses to which the rules may apply does not exclude any television stations from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore over-inclusive to that extent. An additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. It is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, and the Commission's estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.

13.

Wired Telecommunications Carriers.

This industry comprises establishments “primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks.” Transmission facilities “may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies.” Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution; and wired broadband Internet services. By exception, “establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.” In this category, the SBA deems a wired telecommunications carrier to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows 3,188 firms in this category. Of these, 3,144 had fewer than 1,000 employees. On this basis, the Commission estimates that a substantial majority of the providers of

wired telecommunications carriers are small.

14.

Cable and Other Subscription Programming.

This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating studios and facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a subscription or fee basis. The broadcast programming is typically narrowcast in nature (

e.g.,

limited format, such as news, sports, education, or youth-oriented). These establishments produce programming in their own facilities or acquire programming from external sources. The programming material is usually delivered to a third party, such as cable systems or direct-to-home satellite systems, for transmission to viewers. The SBA size standard for this industry establishes as small any company in this category which receives annual receipts of $38.5 million or less. U.S. Census data for 2007 show that 396 firms operated for the entire year. Of these, 349 operated with annual receipts of less than $25 million a year. Based on this data, the Commission estimates that the majority of firms operating in this industry is small.

15.

Cable System Operators (Rate Regulation Standard).

The Commission has developed its own small business size standard for cable system operators, for purposes of rate regulation. Under the Commission's Rules, a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide. Industry data indicate that there are currently 4,600 active cable systems in the United States. Of this total, all but nine cable operators nationwide are small under the 400,000-subscriber size standard. In addition, under the Commission's rate regulation rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Current Commission records show 4,600 cable systems nationwide. Of this total, 3,900 cable systems have fewer than 15,000 subscribers, and 700 systems have 15,000 or more subscribers, based on the same records. Thus, under this standard, the Commission estimates that most cable systems are small.

16.

Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard).

The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” There are approximately 52,403,705 cable video subscribers in the United States today. Accordingly, an operator serving fewer than 524,037 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Based on available data, the Commission finds that all but nine incumbent cable operators are small entities under this size standard. The Commission notes that it neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Although it seems certain that some of these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, the Commission is 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.

17.

Satellite Telecommunications.

This category comprises firms “primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.” This category has a small business size standard of $32.5 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. For this category, Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 512 satellite communications firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 482 firms had annual receipts of less than $25 million. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by the Commission's action.

18.

Other Telecommunications.

This category includes “establishments primarily engaged in . . . providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities operationally connected with one or more terrestrial communications systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to or receiving telecommunications from satellite systems.” The SBA definition of Other Telecommunications entities comprises those that have $32.5 million or less in average annual receipts. For this category, Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 2,383 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,346 firms had annual receipts of under $25 million and 37 firms had annual receipts of $25 million to $49,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of

Other Telecommunications

firms are small entities that might be affected by the Commission's action.

19.

The Educational Broadcasting Services.

In addition, the SBA's placement of Cable Television Distribution Services in the category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is applicable to cable-based Educational Broadcasting Services. Since 2007, these services have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which was developed for small wireline businesses. This category is defined as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution; and wired broadband Internet services.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: All such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows that there were 31,996 establishments that operated that year. Of this total, 30,178 establishments had fewer than 100 employees, and 1,818 establishments had 100 or more employees. Therefore, under this size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of businesses can be considered small entities. In addition to Census data, the Commission's internal records indicate that as of September 2014, there are 2,207 active EBS licenses. The Commission estimates that of these 2,207 licenses, the majority are held by non-profit educational institutions and school districts, which are by statute defined as small businesses.

20.

Direct Broadcast Satellite (“DBS”) Service.

DBS service is a nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic “dish” antenna at the subscriber's location. DBS is now included in SBA's economic census category “Wired Telecommunications Carriers.” This category is defined as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they

own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution; and wired broadband Internet services. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: All such businesses having 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows 3,188 firms in this category. Of these, 3,144 had fewer than 1,000 employees. Based on that data, the Commission concludes that the majority of wireline firms are small under the applicable standard. However, based on more recent data developed internally by the Commission, currently only two entities provide DBS service, which requires a great deal of capital for operation: DIRECTV and DISH Network. Accordingly, the Commission must conclude that internally developed Commission data are persuasive that in general DBS service is provided only by large firms.

21.

Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite).

This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular phone services, paging services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules for the category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite) is that a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 show that there were 1,383 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,368 firms had employment of fewer than 1000 employees. Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small.

22.

Broadband Personal Communications Service.

The broadband personal communications services (PCS) spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission initially defined a “small business” for C- and F-Block licenses as an entity that has average gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar years. For F-Block licenses, an additional small business size standard for “very small business” was added and is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. These small business size standards, in the context of broadband PCS auctions, have been approved by the SBA. No small businesses within the SBA-approved small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that claimed small business status in the first two C-Block auctions. A total of 93 bidders that claimed small business status won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses in the first auction for the D, E, and F Blocks. On April 15, 1999, the Commission completed the reauction of 347 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 22. Of the 57 winning bidders in that auction, 48 claimed small business status and won 277 licenses.

23. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Block Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in that auction, 29 claimed small business status. Subsequent events concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for grant. On February 15, 2005, the Commission completed an auction of 242 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 58. Of the 24 winning bidders in that auction, 16 claimed small business status and won 156 licenses. On May 21, 2007, the Commission completed an auction of 33 licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks in Auction No. 71. Of the 12 winning bidders in that auction, five claimed small business status and won 18 licenses. On August 20, 2008, the Commission completed the auction of 20 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 78. Of the eight winning bidders for Broadband PCS licenses in that auction, six claimed small business status and won 14 licenses.

24.

Narrowband Personal Communications Service.

To date, two auctions of narrowband personal communications services (PCS) licenses have been conducted. For purposes of the two auctions that have already been held, “small businesses” were entities with average gross revenues for the prior three calendar years of $40 million or less. Through these auctions, the Commission has awarded a total of 41 licenses, out of which 11 were obtained by small businesses. To ensure meaningful participation of small business entities in future auctions, the Commission has adopted a two-tiered small business size standard in the Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order. A “small business” is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $40 million. A “very small business” is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $15 million. The SBA has approved these small business size standards.

25.

Wireless Communications Services.

This service can be used for fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses. The Commission defined “small business” for the wireless communications services (WCS) auction as an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a “very small business” as an entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved these definitions.

26.

700 MHz Guard Band Licensees.

In 2000, in the 700 MHz Guard Band Order, the Commission adopted size standards for “small businesses” and “very small businesses” for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. A small business in this service is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years. Additionally, a very small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years. SBA approval of these definitions is not required. An auction of 52 Major Economic Area licenses commenced on September 6, 2000, and closed on September 21, 2000. Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were sold to nine bidders. Five of these bidders were small businesses that won a total of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz Guard Band licenses commenced on February 13, 2001, and closed on February 21, 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to three bidders. One of these bidders was a small business that won a total of two licenses.

27.

Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses.

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

28. In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700 MHz band in the

700 MHz Second Report and Order.

An auction of 700 MHz licenses commenced January 24, 2008 and closed on March 18, 2008, which included, 176 Economic Area licenses in the A Block, 734 Cellular Market Area licenses in the B Block, and 176 EA licenses in the E Block. Twenty winning bidders, claiming small business status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years) won 49 licenses. Thirty three winning bidders claiming very small business status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) won 325 licenses.

29.

Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses.

In the

700 MHz Second Report and Order,

the Commission revised its rules regarding Upper 700 MHz licenses. On January 24, 2008, the Commission commenced Auction 73 in which several licenses in the Upper 700 MHz band were available for licensing: 12 Regional Economic Area Grouping licenses in the C Block, and one nationwide license in the D Block. The auction concluded on March 18, 2008, with 3 winning bidders claiming very small business status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) and winning five licenses.

30.

Advanced Wireless Services. AWS Services (1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands (AWS-1); 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands (AWS-2); 2155-2175 MHz band (AWS-3)).

For the AWS-1 bands, the Commission has defined a “small business” as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million, and a “very small business” as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. For AWS-2 and AWS-3, although the Commission does not know for certain which entities are likely to apply for these frequencies, the Commission notes that the AWS-1 bands are comparable to those used for cellular service and personal communications service. The Commission has not yet adopted size standards for the AWS-2 or AWS-3 bands but proposes to treat both AWS-2 and AWS-3 similarly to broadband PCS service and AWS-1 service due to the comparable capital requirements and other factors, such as issues involved in relocating incumbents and developing markets, technologies, and services.

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 Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)). In connection with the 1996 BRS auction, the Commission established a small business size standard as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of no more than $40 million in the previous three calendar years. The BRS auctions resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the definition of a small business. BRS also includes licensees of stations authorized prior to the auction. At this time, the Commission estimates that of the 61 small business BRS auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small entities. After adding the number of small business auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees not already counted, the Commission finds that there are currently approximately 440 BRS licensees that are defined as small businesses under either the SBA or the Commission's rules.

32. In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78 licenses in the BRS areas. The Commission offered three levels of bidding credits: (i) A bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years (small business) received a 15 percent discount on its winning bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $3 million and do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years (very small business) received a 25 percent discount on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years (entrepreneur) received a 35 percent discount on its winning bid. Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses. Of the ten winning bidders, two bidders that claimed small business status won 4 licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business status won three licenses; and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses.

33.

Wireless Communications Service.

This service can be used for fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses. The Commission established small business size standards for the wireless communications services (WCS) auction. A “small business” is an entity with average gross revenues of $40

million for each of the three preceding years, and a “very small business” is an entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. The Commission auctioned geographic area licenses in the WCS service. In the auction, there were seven winning bidders that qualified as “very small business” entities, and one that qualified as a “small business” entity.

34.

Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing.

The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “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 has developed a small business size standard for firms in this category, which is: All such firms having 750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2010, there were a total of 810 establishments in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 787 had employment of fewer than 500, and an additional 23 had employment of 500 to 999. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

35.

Software Publishers.

Since 2007 these services have been defined within the broad economic census category of Custom Computer Programming Services; that category is defined as establishments primarily engaged in writing, modifying, testing, and supporting software to meet the needs of a particular customer. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is annual gross receipts of $25 million or less. According to data from the 2007 U.S. Census, there were 41,571 establishments engaged in this business in 2007. Of these, 40,149 had annual gross receipts of less than $10,000,000. Another 1,422 establishments had gross receipts of $10,000,000 or more. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that the majority of the businesses engaged in this industry are small.

36.

NCE and Public Broadcast Stations.

The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound. These establishments operate television broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public.” The SBA has created a small business size standard for Television Broadcasting entities, which is: Such firms having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts. According to Commission staff review of the BIA Publications, Inc., Master Access Television Analyzer Database as of May 16, 2003, about 814 of the 1,220 commercial television stations in the United States had revenues of $12 (twelve) million or less. The Commission notes, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included. The Commission's estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by the Commission's action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.

37. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission is unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply do not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and are therefore over-inclusive to that extent. Also as noted, an additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and the Commission's estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent. There are also 2,117 low power television stations (LPTV). Given the nature of this service, the Commission will presume that all LPTV licensees qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.

38. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed NCE television stations to be 380. The Commission notes, however, that, in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included. The Commission's estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by the Commission's action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. The Commission does not compile and otherwise does not have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many such stations would qualify as small entities.

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

39. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposes to expand the scope of State EAS Plans to include additional information necessary to reflect advances in technology, and to ensure the successful transmission of a Presidential Alert, such as uniform EAS designations, a description of SECC governance structure, expanded descriptions of emergency alerting procedures, a more accurate statement of monitoring requirements, a statement of the extent to which states leverage one-to-many/many-to-one communications, expanded testing procedures and security elements. It proposes that such Plans be submitted via an online State EAS Plan Filing Interface (SEPFI) designed to minimize filing burdens attendant to the Commission's State EAS Plan requirements, and to offset any additional burden that the Commission's expanded requirements may impose.

40. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking also proposes adding an annual certification to the existing Form 1 of the mandatory electronic reporting system, Electronic Test Reporting System (ETRS), that EAS Participants have done the following: (1) Kept their systems updated with the latest firmware and software patches, (2) put a program in place to control access to EAS devices that includes changing default passwords, requiring password complexity, and removing or disabling expired accounts, (3) ensured that all EAS devices are not directly accessible from the Internet, and that, if required, any remote access is properly secured and logged, and (4) configured EAS devices to validate digital signatures on CAP messages if the source of the CAP message requires this feature. Depending on whether the employee checking for performance of required security measures is also the certifying official, including a certification on Form 1 could take between five minutes and an hour for the many EAS Participants that already have performed all required security measures. The Commission estimates that additional time, and legal and managerial resources may be needed for some EAS Participants to complete this certification in the first instance only. For those who are not using best

practices, the Commission estimates it should take no more than four hours per device to perform the necessary changes. Given the importance of maintaining basic security hygiene, the Commission proposes that the impact on small entities of this annual certification would not impose an undue burden.

41. The Commission also proposes extending ETRS to include a false alert and lockout reporting requirement. An initial report including only the EAS header codes and time discovered of the false message may be required within fifteen to thirty minutes of identification of a false EAS message transmission, and a final report may be required within seventy-two hours including the root cause of the improper transmission. Because EAS security incidents have occurred at a rate of one or two per year and EAS Participants must already investigate unauthorized EAS alert matters as they occur, a reporting requirement for false alerts and lockouts would likely have a very minimal impact on small entities.

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

42. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business alternatives that it has considered in reaching its conclusions, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).

43. With respect to the State EAS Plan filing process, converting the paper-based filing process into an online process is intended to reduce reporting costs and associated burdens for SECCs. With respect to State EAS Plan contents, the Commission seeks comment on whether the same EAS designations and plan components can be applied universally to all states, and have taken steps to allow states flexibility to stipulate EAS Plans that fit their individual needs. With respect to live code tests, the Commission seeks comment on whether removing the need for SECCs to request a waiver of the Commission's rules to conduct live code tests will reduce costs and remove regulatory burdens. With respect to forced tuning and selective override provisions, the Commission seeks comment on whether small entities should be subject to different requirements than their larger counterparts.

44. With respect to security, smaller entities often face particular challenges in maintaining awareness of current security measures, due to limited human, financial or technical resources; however, the Commission is merely proposing performance of required security measures to which many EAS Participants, including smaller entities, already adhere. Because proper patching and updating and basic account management are common best practices accepted across the sector, the assumption is that there would be no additional impact on small entities to keep EAS systems current. An annual certification allows small entities to comply even if they choose to update patches semi-annually rather than quarterly, and small entities may alternatively explain why they are unable to certify. Digital signature authentication has more of an impact on states, which must modify EAS plans, and smaller entities often have the advantage of simpler setups than those of large entities.

45. The Commission seeks comment on whether the Presidential Alert warrants additional/heightened security measures whose costs may exceed the benefits when applied to alerts that are issued more commonly, and that have a less immediate impact on national security. The Commission seeks comment on whether to except EAS Participants currently designated as PN stations from some or all of the security requirements the Commission proposes. The Commission also seeks comment on whether and how it should consider excepting EAS Participants that qualify as “small businesses” under the Small Business Association (SBA) standard their respective industries from some or all of the security requirements it proposes. Finally, the Commission proposes implementation timeframes for each of its rules that are intended to allow EAS Participants to come into compliance with its rules in a manner that balances the need for improving EAS organization and effectiveness as soon as possible, with any potential burdens that may be imposed by adoption of its proposals.

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

46. None.

Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

47. Technological advancements continue to change the landscape of alerting for emergency managers. Alerting tools such as EAS and WEA that had previously occupied fundamentally different infrastructures now share common platforms and a common language. Social media such as Google and Twitter provide emergency managers with entirely new ways of informing the public of dangers to life and property, and new ways of assessing the public's response. The interactivity enabled by IP-based systems may provide emergency managers with the opportunity to receive rapid feedback from the public on the effectiveness of alerts and warnings.

48. The Commission is obligated to ensure that the President can reach the public in times of national emergency. In light of continuous technological advancements, the Commission has taken significant steps to ensure that the nation's public alert and warning systems perform this function in an effective and accessible manner. At the same time, the Commission must continue to review its rules to ensure that the EAS and WEA perform this important function in a manner that minimizes burdens for stakeholders and safeguards these alerting systems against inherent vulnerabilities and attacks. Accordingly, this NPRM proposes rules and seeks comment on alerting issues in an evolving technological climate in order to continue to provide emergency managers with effective tools to assess and coordinate available alerting systems to securely deliver an alert from the President during a national crisis, and to improve the ability of emergency managers to alert and train those communities to take protective action in response to national, regional and local emergencies.

49. As discussed in greater detail below, the Commission estimates that the cost of the proposed changes would be more than offset by the public benefit of lives saved, together with the reduction in human suffering and property loss. One measure against which the Commission can balance costs associated with complying with its proposed rules is the Department of Transportation (DOT) model, which estimates the value of risk reduction, measured in terms of an expected life saved, to be $9.1 million. Using the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) as a benchmark, even one life saved could more than offset the one-time costs potentially imposed by the

Commission's proposals. The Commission anticipates that its proposed rules represent an incremental improvement to the nation's alerting capability that could readily save multiple lives per year in the foreseeable future. The Commission seeks comment on this analysis, and on whether the DOT statistic is the most appropriate yardstick to measure the benefits our proposals. The Commission seeks comment on whether there is a better measure for quantifying the benefits of establishing a new alerting paradigm. If so, commenters should specify what specific measure should be used. The Commission encourages commenters to include with their comments any data relevant to its analysis of the costs and timing involved with the implementation of today's proposals.

II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Improving Alert Organization at the State and Local Levels

1. EAS Designations

50. The Commission created EAS designations to “use succinct terminology to more clearly define EAS functions.” The current EAS designations are:

• Primary Entry Point (PEP) System. Defined in Section 11.2, 47 CFR 11.2, as “a nationwide network of broadcast stations and other entities connected with government activation points . . . used to distribute EAS messages . . . formatted in the EAS Protocol . . . , including the [Emergency Action Notification (EAN)] and EAS national test messages” that includes “some of the nation's largest radio broadcast stations,” as approved by FEMA, and is “designated to receive the Presidential alert from FEMA and distribute it to local stations.”

• National Primary (NP) stations. Defined in Section 11.2 as “the primary entry point for Presidential messages delivered by FEMA . . . responsible for broadcasting a Presidential alert to the public and to State Primary stations within their broadcast range,” and by Section 11.18 simply as “a source of EAS Presidential messages.”

• State Primary (SP) stations. Defined in Section 11.2 as “the entry point for State messages, which can originate from the Governor or a designated representative.” Section 11.18 defines SP stations as “a source of EAS State messages” and adds that such messages originate from the “State Emergency Operating Center (EOC) or State Capital,” and that such messages “are sent via the State Relay Network.”

• State Relay Network. Defined in Section 11.20 as a network composed of “State Relay (SR) sources, leased common carrier communications facilities or any other available communication facilities. The network distributes State EAS messages originated by the Governor or designated official.”

• State Relay (SR). Defined in Section 11.18 as “a source of EAS State messages” that is “part of the State Relay Network and relays National and State common emergency messages into Local Areas.”

• Local Primary (LP) stations. Defined in Section 11.2 as radio or TV stations that act as key EAS monitoring sources, stating that each LP station “must monitor its regional PEP station and a back-up source for Presidential messages.” LPs are further defined in Section 11.18 as “a source of EAS Local Area messages . . . responsible for coordinating the carriage of common emergency messages from sources such as the National Weather Service or local emergency management offices as specified in its EAS Local Area Plan.” According to Section 11.18, if an LP “is unable to carry out this function, other LP sources in the Local Area may be assigned the responsibility as indicated in State and Local Area Plans” and “LP sources are assigned numbers (LP-1, 2, 3,

etc.

) in the sequence they are to be monitored by other broadcast stations in the Local Area.”

• Participating National (PN) sources. Defined in Section 11.18 as sources that “transmit EAS National, State or Local Area messages . . . for direct public reception,” as defined in Section 11.18.

• NP, SP, LP and SR stations are defined collectively in Section 11.21 as “key EAS sources.”

51. Since the Commission defined these EAS designations, SECCs have taken disparate approaches to their implementation, leading to the inconsistent use of these terms among State EAS Plans. For example, not all State EAS Plans contain an NP-designated station, and it is unclear whether, in some states, the designations PEP and NP are used interchangeably. Further, while some State EAS Plans refer to primary sources of state and local alerts as SPs, others identify primary sources as SRs. A number of State EAS Plans term the system of transmitting state alerts from SR to LP stations and from LP stations to PN stations and the public as the State Relay Network, but many State EAS Plans do not include SR or State Relay Network designations at all. As the

Nationwide EAS Test Report

indicated, such disparate use of what should be common terminology makes it difficult for Commission staff to determine how the distribution systems described in various state plans can be aggregated into a single comprehensive nationwide alerting architecture.

52. In order to ensure that the Commission can meaningfully review and confirm states' preparedness to deliver Presidential Alerts the Commission proposes to revise its EAS designation scheme to more accurately and consistently describes key EAS sources. Specifically, the Commission proposes to continue to designate the primary entry point for a Presidential Alert as a PEP, as that is a designation determined by FEMA. For each State EAS Plan, however, the Commission proposes that the entity tasked with primary responsibility for delivering the Presidential Alert to that state's EAS Participants will be designated as the National Primary (NP). Thus, for a state that has a FEMA-designated PEP, that station would also be designated as that state's NP. For a state that does not have a PEP, another station would have to be identified to act as the state's NP. The Commission further proposes that an entity tasked with initiating the delivery of a state EAS alert will be designated as a State Primary (SP). An SP may be a broadcaster, a state emergency management office, or other authorized entity capable of initiating a state-based EAS alert. The Commission proposes that the same entity may be designated as an SP and as an NP. In that case, each designation for that station would have to be separately listed in the State EAS Plan. The Commission would retain the current definition of Participating National (PN) and Local Primary (LP). In cases where geography or other reasons necessitate another layer of monitoring and retransmission between the LP and PN levels, the Commission proposes that such stations be designated in State EAS Plans as “Relay Stations.” The Commission anticipates that this proposed terminology scheme would more clearly define key EAS functions in a manner that could be used consistently across all State EAS Plans. As discussed in further detail below, the standard SEPFI template provides an opportunity to ensure that, going forward, these terms are used pursuant to a common understanding of their meaning.

53. The Commission seeks comment on the designations it has identified, based on its analysis of State EAS Plans, as necessary for the successful distribution of Presidential, state and local EAS alerts. The Commission also seeks comment on whether additional EAS designations may be needed, for

example to encompass new roles EAS Participants may play in an evolving technological environment, non-traditional monitoring sources, CAP-formatted alerts, and a more accurate way to account for the significant number of viewers served by cable service providers. The Commission seeks comment on whether its proposed designations could be used as a uniform vernacular to clarify the roles of EAS Participants, including key EAS sources, in each state and territory.

54.

Roles and Designations.

Do the current EAS designations limit SECCs ability to adequately assign roles and responsibilities to EAS Participants in their respective states? Or, on the other hand, does the Commission currently maintain more EAS designations than are necessary for this task? The Commission seeks comment on how SECCs currently distinguish between PEPs and NP stations. Can one station have both designations? Do the meanings of these terms overlap, as they are used in State EAS Plans? If not every state contains a PEP station, do states designate as NP the station or stations in their state responsible for monitoring the nearest PEP? If so, how does this designation differ from that of an SP station? Are some SPs also denominated as NPs where they act as the primary entry point for both the presidential and some or all state and local alerts? If the definitions of the terms PEP, NP, and SP significantly overlap, is it appropriate that the Commission simplifies its EAS denominations by eliminating extraneous terms?

55. Do all state and local alerts originate at the same source? If not, should the Commission provide SECCs with terms that allow them to distinguish among the primary initiation points for the various types of state and local alerts that are initiated in their respective states? What would be an appropriate title for such designations? For example, would it be appropriate to designate the source responsible for originating an AMBER Alert as a State AMBER Alert Primary? Conversely, are some state or local alerts likely to initiate from more than one source, frustrating the use of a single designation? Is it appropriate that the Commission continues to use LP as the denomination for those stations that are monitored by PN stations? Is it appropriate that the Commission continues to use the term PN for stations that are not monitored, in light of the fact that the Non-Participating National (NN) designation was deleted from the rules when the Commission required all EAS Participants to carry the Presidential Alert? If not, what designation would be preferable?

56.

Uniform Vernacular.

Can the designations the Commission proposes be used as a uniform vernacular for referring to the roles of EAS Participants in State EAS Plans? CSRIC IV notes that there is “no one-size-fits-all framework” that can be applied to every SECC because SECCs have limited resources to write State EAS Plans. Although each SECC must create a State EAS Plan that addresses the needs of their respective states, fundamental components of EAS are uniformly implemented nationwide. In the Commission's analysis, these commonalities are sufficient to support successful implementation of a uniform set of EAS designations, and the uniform designations that the Commission proposes to adopt are sufficient to describe states' varied approaches to EAS. The Commission seeks comment on this analysis, and on any idiosyncrasies in states' approaches to EAS that may merit special consideration. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the same EAS designations can be used both for EAS Participants' role in transmitting the Presidential Alert, as well as for state and local EAS alerts. Finally, the Commission also seeks comment on CSRIC IV's conclusion that limitations on state resources frustrate the use of uniform designations. What additional resources, if any, would be necessary to utilize the EAS designations that the Commission proposes to adopt?

57.

Additional Designations.

Are additional EAS designations necessary to reflect changes in the alerting landscape? Should EAS designations reflect the service provided by the designated entity in light of the fact that EAS Participants are no longer only broadcasters, and that many EAS Participants monitor non-broadcast sources, such as satellite? For example, would it be appropriate for State EAS Plans to designate a “satellite NP?” Are EAS designations useful for CAP monitoring, or does the fact that most EAS Participants receive an EAS alert by monitoring a CAP feed preclude the need for designations? Further, the Commission seeks comment on whether any EAS Participants other than broadcasters (

e.g.,

analog and digital cable systems, wireline video systems, wireless cable systems and direct broadcast satellite) are currently designated as key EAS sources. Should they be? The Commission notes, for example, that an individual cable headend can be responsible for delivering an EAS alert to as many as 803,000 subscribers. In light of these facts, the Commission believes that the ability of cable providers, DBS providers and wireline video providers to effectively transmit an EAS alert would be crucial to the American public's ability to receive a Presidential Alert. Should the Commission update EAS designations to add a category for cable and other Multichannel Video Programming Distributors (MVPDs) that monitor LPs but serve a significant number of people? What about any other EAS Participant that serves a significant portion of the public? Should the EAS Participants with the most extensive coverage or subscribership in a state be given a specific EAS designation? Should they be considered key EAS sources, notwithstanding the fact that they are not monitored by other EAS Participants? Should entities other than broadcasters be monitored by EAS Participants? The Commission also seeks comment on the extent to which non-broadcaster EAS Participants are members of or otherwise involved in the operations of their SECCs. What steps can the Commission take to facilitate increased participation by representatives of these entities in the SECC and State EAS Plan process?

2. State EAS Plan Filing Interface (SEPFI)

58. The Commission adopted rules requiring states to file State EAS Plans that “contain guidelines which must be followed by EAS Participants' personnel, emergency officials, and National Weather Service (NWS) personnel to activate the EAS.” These rules maintain the role of state and local committees in strategically organizing state and local EAS Participants into a network capable of ensuring the proper dissemination of,

inter alia,

the Presidential Alert. State EAS Plans are required to be submitted for review and approval by the Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) prior to their implementation “to ensure that they are consistent with national plans, FCC regulations, and EAS operation.” This requirement was adopted in light of commenters' assertions that the Commission must adopt safeguards to ensure that EAS is not abused, and that alerts are used only for genuine emergencies.

59. Following the first nationwide EAS test in 2011, the Bureau recommended that the Commission “consider whether to make the State EAS Plan filing process into an online, rather than a paper-based process” in light of inconsistencies identified in the structure of State EAS Plans. Subsequently, in the

Sixth Report and Order,

the Commission adopted the Electronic Test Reporting System

(ETRS), which provides a standardized, online reporting mechanism for the submission and analysis of monitoring assignment data that can be cross-referenced with the EAS Participant designations and monitoring assignments contained in the State EAS Plans. Further, the Commission tasked CSRIC IV with recommending actions to improve the State EAS Plan filing process, and received a recommendation that State EAS Plans should be filed online. CSRIC IV also adopted recommendations regarding access to the recommended online platform, State EAS Plan template design, and identification mechanisms for facilities and geographic areas contained within State EAS Plans. The Commission seeks comment on these recommendations below.

60. The Commission proposes to convert the paper-based filing process for State EAS Plans into a secure, online process using a State EAS Plan Filing Interface (SEPFI) that would be designed to interoperate with the ETRS. The data collected in SEPFI would complement the monitoring assignment data already collected by ETRS. The data collected via ETRS and SEPFI would provide an end-to-end picture of the EAS distribution architecture for each state that could be used to populate an EAS Mapbook. The Commission proposes that the entry format for State EAS Plan data into SEPFI would be a pre-configured online template to be designed by the Bureau in collaboration with SECCs and other stakeholders, using a similar to process to the one the Commission directed the Bureau to use when designing the templates for ETRS. CSRIC IV observes that State EAS Plans are inconsistent in both structure and content, and that “[t]his lack of consistency makes it difficult for the FCC to determine if a proper distribution network exists for . . . distribution [of the Presidential Alert] in each state.” The Commission seeks comment on this proposed online filing process below.

61.

Costs.

The Commission seeks comment on the cost savings likely to result from adopting SEPFI. The EAS collection approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates that each State EAS Plan takes twenty hours to complete, and that the average hourly wage of an individual who completes a State EAS Plan is $25 per/hour. Accordingly, OMB approves of the Commission's estimate that the production of State EAS Plans, nationwide, costs $25,000. How much reporting time and cost would be saved by bringing this process online if certain aspects of State EAS Plans could be automatically updated and populated by cross-referencing data already collected by the FCC, as recommended by CSRIC IV? For example, could SEPFI be pre-populated with data contained in the Consolidated Database System (CDBS), Licensing and Management System (LMS), or other relevant databases? The Commission seeks comment on CSRIC IV's recommendation. Would additional time and cost be saved by offering users drop-down menus for each EAS designation that could include every licensed EAS Participant in the state? The Commission also seeks cost on any legal fees that SECCs may incur in order to ensure compliance with its proposed State EAS Plan requirements. In light of these potential improvements, the Commission seeks comment on whether any cost associated with requiring SECCs to reenter State EAS Plan data online would be significantly lower than those required to draft a new paper-based plan, and would be outweighed over time by the efficiency and/or other benefits (such as standardization of the information offered by the State EAS Plans, as described below) of an online, template-based process.

62. With respect to the potential administrative cost savings, the Commission anticipates that the proposed use of a template will facilitate the agency's review of the Plans. Because the State Plans currently are submitted in differing formats, with different levels of detail and using inconsistent terminology, it can be time-consuming and difficult to conduct a review that ensures that each Plan contains the elements required by the rules, or that the Plans, in concert, will function efficiently and effectively as a nationwide daisy chain that can pass along alerts in a seamless manner. The Commission believes that with the use of an on-line template, the Commission's ability to review the Plans for compliance with the required elements and to identify potential problems that might hinder achieving the basic goals of the EAS will be improved by enabling us to conduct such reviews in a quicker and more accurate fashion. Facilitating the review process in this manner may not only improve the effectiveness of the EAS, but it could yield significant administrative cost savings to the extent that FCC review and approval of the Plans could be automated, at least in part. The Commission seeks comment on the likelihood and weight of such potential benefits.

63.

Standardization.

Would adopting a standardized online template dramatically increase the consistency and thoroughness of State EAS Plans? According to CSRIC IV, “SECCs need the resource of a federal government database to assure EAN dissemination.” The Commission seeks comment on CSRIC IV's conclusion. On the other hand, CSRIC IV notes that there is “no one-size-fits-all framework” that can be applied to every SECC, because SECCs have limited resources to write State EAS Plans. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which a standardized template for State EAS Plans would contribute to improving the efficacy and standardization of EAS, as well as streamline the development of State EAS Plans by identifying the appropriate informational parameters for State EAS Plans. What resource limitations do SECCs encounter that potentially challenge their ability to produce standardized State EAS Plans, and what measures could the Commission take to help address these constraints?

64.

Structure.

What is the optimal structure for the SEPFI template? CSRIC IV recommends that the Commission should follow the matrix-based model exemplified by the Washington State EAS Plan to quickly, clearly, and efficiently identify the dissemination path of the Presidential Alert through each state. The Commission seeks comment on whether the SEPFI template should be based on the matrix used by the Washington State EAS Plan. Could this matrix be adapted to also illustrate the dissemination path for alerts formatted in CAP, including state and local alerts? The Commission seeks comment on how the SEPFI template should identify EAS Participants. CSRIC IV recommends that EAS Participants be identified by FCC Facility ID as well as by a station's call letters in order “to reduce the need for frequent changes and updates to the database, and state plans due only to changes in call letters.” The Commission seeks comment on CSRIC IV's recommendation, as well as on the optimal implementation of other structural elements of SEPFI.

65.

Security.

The Commission seeks comment on whether access to State EAS Plan data should be limited and secured, as CSRIC IV recommends, and on the steps the Commission should take to safeguard against unauthorized access to SEPFI. Specifically, CSRIC IV recommends that the Commission should follow the Disaster Information Reporting System (DIRS) access model. The Commission observes that DIRS utilizes a two-layer access model and provides a secure methodology for multiple company employees to access the DIRS database, causing the

Commission to believe that the model could be easily adaptable to the State EAS Plan context. The Commission seeks comment on whether access to SEPFI should be based on access provisions for DIRS. Similar to DIRS, should SEPFI utilize a two-layer security system, requiring both a SECC ID and an individual User ID to prevent any unauthorized person from establishing a fraudulent User ID under the company's name? The Commission seeks comment on the identifying information that SECCs should be required to provide for the individuals authorized to access the SEPFI. Should such information include a contact name, affiliated company name, office and cell phone numbers, and an email address? Should additional information be required?

66. What is the most cost-effective way to protect potentially sensitive data contained in State EAS Plans? The Commission seeks comment on specific aspects of State EAS Plan data that may implicate national security or that otherwise could present security concerns when aggregated into a single database. Are there any particular aspects of State EAS Plans that should be made confidential in light of this sensitivity? Would it be sufficient to provide such data with the same level of confidentiality as test data submitted to the Commission via ETRS? If not, how should sensitive SEPFI data be protected? Even if data contained in an individual State EAS Plan may not be sensitive or present national security concerns, would State EAS Plan data become more sensitive when aggregated via SEPFI? If so, what additional protections should be afforded to aggregated data versus individual state data, and how could this be implemented? What costs, if any, would those additional protections impose on reporting entities?

67.

National Advisory Committee (NAC).

The NAC succeeded the Emergency Broadcast System Advisory Committee (EBSAC) as the Federal Advisory Committee responsible for assisting the Commission with administration of the EAS. CSRIC IV recommends that the Commission should reestablish a NAC to facilitate communication with SECCs. The Commission seeks comment on CSRIC IV's recommendation. Is there a need for additional and routine communication with another organization that is not already taking place today between the Commission and the SECCs? Could a reestablished NAC be charged with initial approval of State EAS Plans? Could they be charged with performing outreach to SECCs to answer any questions about the Commission's new State EAS Plan filing process, and encouraging the timely completion of up-to-date State EAS Plans? With what other responsibilities should the NAC be charged? Should membership in the NAC continue to consist of SECCs Chairs, and representatives from the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), the Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE) and the NWS? If not, then how should the membership of the NAC be modified?

3. State EAS Plan Contents

68. The Commission's EAS rules currently state that State EAS Plans must contain the following elements:

(1) A list of the EAS header codes and messages that will be transmitted by key EAS sources;

(2) Procedures for state emergency management and other state officials, NWS, and EAS Participant personnel to transmit emergency information to the public during an emergency using EAS;

(3) A data table, in computer-readable form, clearly showing monitoring assignments and the specific primary and backup path for the EAN formatted in the EAS Protocol from the PEP to each station in the plan;

(4) A description of how CAP-formatted messages will be aggregated and distributed to EAS Participants within the state, including the monitoring requirements associated with distributing such messages;

(5) A statement of any unique methods of EAS message distribution;

(6) Instructions for state and local activations of EAS, including a list of all authorized entities participating in State or Local Area EAS; and

(7) Procedures for conducting special EAS tests.

The EAS rules require that EAS operations must be conducted as specified in State EAS Plans in order to ensure that the Presidential Alert can be effectively delivered. The Commission adopted these requirements in the

EAS Deployment Order,

communicating expectations for the structure and administration of State EAS Plans and for the SECCs that create them. SECCs and State EAS Plans have fallen short of these expectations in some respects, including a lack of active cable service provider participation in SECCs, and the failure of some states to file State EAS Plans.

69. In 2013, the Commission evaluated the state of SECCs and State EAS Plans in the

EAS Nationwide Test Report,

summarizing the successes of the first nationwide EAS test, but observing specific shortcomings in EAS operations, including a lack of clarity in State EAS Plans. Specifically, the

EAS Nationwide Test Report

observed that the Commission's rules do not require SECCs Participants to provide monitoring assignment data below the LP level. The

EAS Nationwide Test Report

further observed that many State EAS Plans did not identify the alternative monitoring sources that EAS Participants relied upon to receive the EAN during the first nationwide EAS test, or define SECCs' administration and governance practices. Accordingly, the Bureau recommended that the Commission “consider reviewing its State EAS Plan rules.” CSRIC IV further recommends that the role of the SECC should be strengthened, and that “SECCs must be free to design and maintain their respective state's own robust and redundant EAS relay networks in the best and most practical ways possible.” The Commission seeks to address the substantive shortcomings in State EAS Plans identified by CSRIC IV and the

EAS Nationwide Test Report.

70. Since the adoption of State EAS Plan rules in 1994, the alerting landscape has dramatically changed. Local alerts now originate from a wider array of sources, such as Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) and nuclear power plants. Local weather alerts continue to increase in frequency, and new alerting platforms such as WEA, SMS- and social media-based alerts are being rapidly added to the toolbox available to each community's alerting authority. For many alert initiators, WEA acts in concert with the EAS and other systems to transmit alerts to the public. Further, alert initiators may offer both EAS and WEA through IPAWS-OPEN, which serves as an interconnected CAP alert aggregator for previously siloed alerting platforms. In the

EAS Nationwide Test Report,

the Commission observed that many EAS Participants utilized the satellite-based National Public Radio (NPR) News Advisory Channel (Squawk Channel) to receive the Presidential Alert, as opposed to their regular monitoring assignment in the daisy chain. Even for state and local alerts, many EAS Participants use satellite-based distribution systems to supplement or replace the traditional alert distribution architecture. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which these developments, as discussed in greater detail below, need to be included in State EAS Plans to provide the FCC with the information necessary for it to ensure that the EAS can allow the President to reach the entire American public in time of national emergency.

71. The Commission proposes to amend Section 11.21 to integrate State EAS Plan requirements contained in other portions of Part 11, and to include new elements designed to enhance the value of State EAS Plans as community alerting tools, as well as to inform the Commission that the EAS remains an efficient and effective method to deliver a Presidential Alerts in an evolving technological landscape. The Commission proposes that State EAS Plans should include organizational, operational, testing/outreach, and security elements, as set forth below, and seeks comment on these proposals. While the Commission proposes to afford states considerable flexibility within these categories, to provide information they deem relevant to designing and maintaining their respective states' own robust and redundant EAS relay networks, the Commission believes these general categories will help establish a baseline level of information across states nationwide.

a. Organizational Elements

72. State EAS Plans and the SECCs that create them are designed to organize EAS Participants representing a variety of industries and regions into a cohesive whole capable of efficiently and reliably distributing emergency information to the public, including the Presidential Alert. In order to fulfill this purpose, SECCs and EAS Participants must be well organized. Accordingly, the Commission proposes that State EAS Plans filed with the Commission via SEPFI template include uniform designations for the roles of EAS Participants, a list of entities authorized to activate EAS, a description of SECC governance structure, and a clear role for Local Area EAS Plans, should they continue to be necessary.

73.

Uniform Designations.

The Commission proposes that SECCs input State EAS Plan monitoring assignment data into an online template using the uniform designations for key EAS sources that it proposes above. The Commission notes that in Section III(A)(1) it seeks comment on whether additional roles within the alert distribution hierarchy should be defined and given designations in order to reflect their importance to the success of EAS. The Commission also seeks comment on whether any of these additional designations should be included in State EAS Plans.

74.

A List of Entities Authorized to Activate EAS.

The Commission proposes that State EAS Plans should contain a list of all entities authorized to activate EAS for state and local emergency messages (

e.g.,

Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs)) whose transmissions might be interrupted by a Presidential Alert. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission notes that the Presidential Alert is required to take priority over all other alerts, and as such, might interrupt alerts initiated by any state-based entities. The Commission seeks comment on whether state and local alert originators would have reason to activate the EAS during a national crisis concurrent with a Presidential Alert. If so, is it reasonable to require that all entities authorized to activate the EAS should be included in State EAS Plans? Would such an inclusion ensure that SECCs are able to conduct outreach to these entities in order to organize and coordinate emergency managers' alert messaging should a Presidential Alert become likely, and to mitigate the potentially chaotic alerting situation that could result from a national crisis?

75.

A Description of SECC Governance Structure.

The Commission proposes that State EAS Plans should specify the SECC governance structure used to organize state and local resources to ensure the efficient and effective delivery of a Presidential Alert, including the duties of SECCs, the membership selection process utilized by the SECC, and the administrative structure of the SECCs. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal in light of the expectations expressed by the Commission in the

EAS Deployment Order

for the administration and governance of SECCs, and subsequent observations by the Bureau, CSRIC IV and EAS stakeholders that the Commission should provide further guidance on the issue. The Commission seeks comment on whether by soliciting information on SECC administration in State EAS Plans, both in the form of comments in this docket and via the SEPFI, the Commission can develop a basis for analysis of SECC administration that it may leverage to produce best practices for SECC governance or otherwise offer guidance to these volunteer committees, as requested by CSRIC IV. Is there a need for a consistent, uniform governance structure for SECCs nationwide to ensure effective functioning of EAS? If so, what specific elements should such structure contain? Should the Bureau coordinate with SECCs to determine an optimal, uniform governance structure? The Commission acknowledges that CSRIC IV did not find that a “one size fits all” approach would work for SECC governance. Given the disparity of size and resources from state to state, is there guidance the Commission can issue that could clarify the roles and responsibilities of SECCs in a manner that would be useful in each state?

76.

LECCs and Local Area EAS Plans.

Finally, the Commission seeks comment on the role that LECCs continue to perform, and whether they serve a vital role in the delivery of EAS messages to local areas. The Commission seeks comment on whether LECCs perform a function that requires a separate Local Area EAS Plan to be filed with the Commission, or whether Local Area EAS Plans could be subsumed within State EAS Plans. CSRIC IV observes that “[a]ll federal emergency alert systems, of which EAS is an essential component, depend on local distribution” and recommends that policies be developed “that will encourage local communications distribution systems to participate in the emergency warning process.” Consistent with that observation, the Commission seeks comment on whether SECCs currently have the expertise to describe and plan local alerting responsibilities. Do LECCs and Local Area EAS Plans provide an additional value not captured by SECCs and State EAS Plans? Does the size of some large states or the lack of SECC resources present challenges for comprehensive local planning? With SEPFI, information relevant to state and local plans will be filed in a single system. Will there be a continued need for local plans, assuming the Commission moves forward with implementing SEPFI?

b. Operational Elements

77. The primary purpose of EAS is to transmit a message from the President to the public during an emergency of national significance. In order to achieve that purpose, SECCs must maintain a detailed understanding of how multiple alerting platforms operate in concert with one another to create a seamless information distribution system within their respective states. Accordingly, the Commission proposes that State EAS Plans should include emergency alerting procedures for EAS alerts transmitted via all available alert distribution mechanisms that the state utilizes (

e.g.,

EAS and WEA, as well as any alternative mechanisms the state may use, such as the NPR Squawk Channel, highway signs, and social media), up-to-date monitoring assignments for each key EAS source that reflect how those entities actually receive alerts, and a description of whether and to what extent these elements work in concert to create a cycle of information sharing through a

“many-to-one/one-to-many” alerting dynamic.

78.

Expanded Emergency Alerting Procedures.

The Commission proposes that State EAS Plans should contain a comprehensive listing of procedures by which state emergency management officials, local NWS forecasting stations, and EAS Participant personnel transmit emergency information to the public during an emergency using regulated alerting tools (

e.g.,

EAS and WEA) as well as any alternative alerting mechanisms (

e.g.,

the NPR Squawk Channel, highway signs, and social media). The Commission proposes that this revised language would subsume the Section 11.21 language that State EAS Plans include a “statement of any unique methods of EAS message distribution such as the use of the Radio Broadcast Data System (RBDS).” The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Would this proposed rule change allow SECCs to adequately capture the different alerting methods that EAS Participants may leverage? Would it accurately reflect how emergency managers utilize the suite of alerting tools available to them?

79. In light of the monitoring assignments that EAS Participants used successfully during the first nationwide EAS test, and for the reasons provided below, the Commission proposes to encourage SECCs to specify a satellite-based source, such as the NPR Squawk Channel, in State EAS Plans as an alternate monitoring assignment for the Presidential Alert where it presents a reliable source of EAS messages. The Commission seeks comment on this approach. In the

Second Report and Order,

the Commission observed that “the vast coverage area of satellite signal footprints would allow immediate alerting of substantial portions of the country with appropriate equipment” and that satellite systems are “generally immune from natural disasters and therefore may provide critical redundancy in the event that terrestrial wireline or wireless infrastructure is compromised.” CSRIC IV notes that many EAS Participants are currently unable to meet their requirement to monitor two sources for the Presidential Alert without recourse to such satellite-based communications technologies because of incomplete PEP coverage. NPR states that in instances where EAS Participants monitored both the Squawk Channel and their regular monitoring assignment, the Squawk Channel actually triggered EAS equipment ahead of the terrestrial relay network by 10-20 seconds in most cases. Does the NPR Squawk Channel provide a faster and equally reliable alternative to the daisy chain process? Do other satellite-based monitoring sources, such as EMnet? Are such technologies sufficiently reliable to serve as a primary or secondary EAS monitoring assignment for the Presidential Alert? If so, how should use of the Squawk Channel and other satellite-based communications resources approved by FEMA be codified in the Commission's EAS rules?

80. The Commission also seeks comment on whether and how alert originators use alternative alert distribution platforms, such as social media and highway signs, to supplement their traditional alerting channels. What is the extent to which emergency managers at the federal, state, and local levels currently leverage targeted feedback during emergency situations to disseminate and gather information? The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which social media has served as a reliable and effective source of crowdsourced data about developing situations. To what extent have alert originators begun taking advantage of social media's crowdsourced communications functionality in order to establish a real-time conversation with individuals and communities in crisis? Is the information generated by social media platforms reliable enough to be trusted by emergency managers, and if not, what challenges are involved? The Commission seeks comment on the steps that emergency managers currently take to confirm the accuracy of crowdsourced reports of emergency situations in order to act on, correct or clarify, or otherwise respond to such reports. Are the platforms secure enough to be used in emergency situations? To what extent has the use of social media platforms supplemented alert accessibility, either by providing translations of alerts in languages other than English or by providing alerts in multiple formats? To what extent has the personalization of alerts facilitated and encouraged public engagement and participation with alerting platforms, and, in turn, instigated more rapid protective action taking? The Commission seeks comment on whether state and local use of social media alerting tools should be included in State EAS Plans. Further, the Commission seeks comment on the extent to which highway signs are used to retransmit EAS alerts formatted in CAP. If IPAWS-OPEN is capable of distributing CAP-formatted alerts to highway signs, do any barriers currently exist to such use? The Commission seeks comment on what, if any, other alternative alerting systems alert originators are relying upon to supplement their use of EAS and WEA, and seeks comment on its proposal that this information be specified in State EAS Plans.

81. Are there examples of best practices from the Commission's federal, state and local government partners for using crowdsourced information in an emergency situation? The Commission observes that the Peta Jakarta initiative in Indonesia may provide an example of how a government alert initiator can leverage crowdsourced data to increase the overall effectiveness of alerts. The Peta Jakarta project piloted a program that monitored Twitter for posts mentioning the word for “flood” during flooding season. The system would automatically respond to such messages, asking whether the user saw flooding, at which point the user could confirm their report either by turning geo-location on in their device settings, or by responding, in turn, with the word for “flood.” Peta Jakarta then incorporated the results of this information-gathering process into a live, public crisis map that depicted in real time areas in the city that were affected by flooding. To what extent would it be possible to leverage this model as a best practice for automated crowdsourcing of reliable emergency response data, using regulated alerting platforms in the United States? To what extent is a similar model to the one utilized by Peta Jakarta feasible using EAS and/or WEA, in order to provide an authoritative source of information? The Commission observes that emergency managers used Twitter in a 2013 flood in Boulder, Colorado to prioritize deployment of satellite- and drone-based imaging platforms to the most severely impacted areas. To what extent could community feedback via EAS or WEA be similarly used to prioritize emergency managers' information gathering efforts?

82.

Monitoring Assignments.

In this section, the Commission proposes rules and seeks comment on issues designed to optimize monitoring assignments in State EAS Plans. First, the Commission seeks comment on methods of improving and clarifying monitoring assignments as currently implemented in State EAS Plans. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on how to define operational areas, on whether to include CAP-based monitoring assignments in State EAS Plans, and on how to remove single points of failure from EAS monitoring assignments. Next, the Commission proposes to expand the monitoring assignments section of State EAS Plans to reflect

more accurately the various methods that EAS Participants use to monitor sources for EAS. Specifically, the Commission proposes that State EAS Plans should include the extent to which monitoring assignments for state and local alerts differ from monitoring assignments for the Presidential Alert. Finally, the Commission proposes to clarify that EAS operations must be implemented in a manner consistent with guidelines established in a State EAS Plan submitted to the Commission.

83. The Commission proposes that State EAS Plans should continue to divide their respective states into geographically-based operational areas, specifying primary and backup monitoring assignments for EAS Participants to receive the Presidential Alert in each operational area. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission seeks comment on whether dividing states into operational areas facilitates EAS administration by more clearly defining responsibilities for EAS alert distribution by geographic area for key EAS sources. CSRIC IV notes a lack of uniformity among State EAS Plan definitions of “operational areas,” and recommends that such service areas should be uniformly identified. The Commission seeks comment on CSRIC IV's conclusion. Is it possible to standardize the definition of an operational area nationwide? If so, how should SEPFI define operational areas? Could the definition of an operational area have implications for President's ability to transmit a regional Presidential Alert?

84. The Commission proposes to remove the current restriction that State EAS Plans include monitoring assignments for Presidential Alerts formatted in the EAS Protocol only. The Commission seeks comment on this proposed change. As technologies evolve, the Presidential Alert may not necessarily be issued using the EAS Protocol, and the Commission seeks to remain technologically neutral so that its rules may evolve correspondingly. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which EAS Participants are prepared to receive a Presidential Alert formatted in CAP. The Commission observes that new alerting protocols may be developed in the future, and the Commission seeks comment on whether removing this technology-specific limitation from its rules better prepares the nation for receiving the Presidential Alert.

85. CSRIC IV observes that, as currently written, State EAS Plans reflect the requirement in the EAS rules that each EAS Participant monitor at least two sources for the Presidential Alert by including two monitoring assignments for the Presidential Alert, but also observes that merely listing two monitoring sources may not serve to remove single points of failure from EAS alert distribution where, for example, both monitored EAS sources, in turn, monitor the same source. The Commission agrees with CSRIC IV's observation and seeks comment on whether it should require that the two sources that EAS Participants are required to monitor for the Presidential Alert as specified in their State EAS Plan, cannot, in turn, monitor the same key EAS source. Are there further steps that the Commission can take to remove single points of failure within the EAS Protocol-based alert distribution architecture, and from EAS in general, and if so, what are they?

86. The Commission further proposes that State EAS Plans should include the extent to which monitoring assignments for state and local alerts differ from monitoring assignments for the Presidential Alert. To what extent do states' Presidential and local alerting strategies differ? The Commission seeks comment on whether the importance of transmitting state and local alerts to communities has had any impact on the ability of the community to deliver a Presidential Alert. Has the use of alternative alerting structures led to innovations that augment the ability of EAS Participants to efficiently and effectively receive and retransmit a Presidential Alert during a national crisis? Alternatively, has the use of such alternatives resulted in lack of use of the EAS and lack of proficiency in its use by local emergency managers and EAS Participants? In either case, would including in State EAS Plans a description of the extent to which a state's alerting strategy for the Presidential Alert differs from their state and local alerting strategy serve to facilitate dialogue at the state and local level about the extent to which new and emerging technologies could be used to improve the ability of EAS Participants to receive and retransmit the Presidential Alert?

87. In order to address all State EAS Plan monitoring requirements in the same Section of Part 11, the Commission proposes to relocate State EAS Plan requirements currently contained in Sections 11.52 and 11.55 to Section 11.21. The Commission proposes to merge those requirements into one Section by amending Section 11.21 to state that EAS Participant monitoring assignments and EAS operations must be implemented in a manner consistent with guidelines established in a State EAS Plan submitted to the Commission, and by removing that language from Sections 11.52 and 11.55. The Commission seeks comment on whether this proposal is consistent with CSRIC IV's recommendation that the Commission amend Section 11.21 to state that “[s]tates that want to use the EAS shall submit a State EAS Plan.” The Commission seeks comment on whether the data submitted in State EAS Plans must accurately reflect actual monitoring assignments for the EAS Mapbook to be a useful tool to analyze and address issues with EAS functionality. Would State EAS Plans be more up-to-date, inclusive, and effective given the improvements the Commission proposes in this NPRM? If so, does this militate for the use of State EAS Plan provisions other than monitoring assignments (

e.g.,

expanded emergency alerting and testing procedures) as mandatory instructions for participation in EAS? The Commission seeks comment on whether, contrarily, failing to require EAS Participant monitoring assignments to be implemented pursuant to State EAS Plans would risk making the state EAS planning process a hollow exercise without bearing on the actual organization of EAS.

88.

A Description of “One-to-Many, Many-to-One” Alerting Implementation.

The Commission proposes that State EAS Plans should describe the extent to which alert originators coordinate alerts with community feedback mechanisms, such as 9-1-1, to make full use of public safety resources. The Commission seeks comment whether 9-1-1 call takers are well positioned as a nexus of communications between first responders and communities in crisis. The Commission seeks further comment on whether, notwithstanding that this has been true in the context of state and local emergencies, it would also be the case during a national crisis giving rise to a Presidential Alert. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which alert originators are prepared to gather, analyze and act upon community feedback in crafting and initiating alert content. Relatedly, the Commission seeks comment on the extent to which first responder entities, such as PSAPs, are currently authorized as alert originators, and, if desirable, on the steps that the Commission can take to facilitate increased participation. Can PSAPs play an important role in ensuring that alerts are accessible or available in languages other than English if the 9-1-1 call(s) giving rise to the alert suggest that such measures

could facilitate alert interpretation and impact? Finally, the Commission seeks comment on the impact that any potential next generation television capabilities may have on the ability to support two-way communications.

c. Testing/Outreach Elements

89. In order to properly utilize EAS to fulfill its purpose to transmit a Presidential Alert, emergency managers must be assured that the alerting platforms available to them will function as intended when needed, and the public must be assured that those alerts will be made accessible to them, irrespective of disability or language preference. To this end, the Commission proposes that State EAS Plans include testing procedures and security elements.

90.

Testing Procedures.

The Commission proposes that State EAS Plans should continue to contain procedures for special EAS tests, as required by Section 11.61, including the new “live code” tests that the Commission proposes to include as part of its Part 11 testing regime below. The Commission also proposes that State EAS Plans should be required to include procedures for Required Monthly Tests (RMTs), Required Weekly Tests (RWTs) and national tests designed to ensure that the system will function as designed when needed for a Presidential Alert. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. The Commission seeks comment on whether specifying the schedule, origination source, and script are necessary components of the successful operation of RMTs, RWTs, and national tests, and on whether SECCs already communicate this information to EAS Participants in their state even where it is not included in State EAS Plans. Further, the Commission proposes that this section of State EAS Plans should include a description of the extent to which State/Local WEA Tests are utilized by alert originators as a complement to the Presidential Alert distribution system to verify that WEA is both capable of disseminating a Presidential Alert, and informing the public that a Presidential Alert is presently being delivered over EAS. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.

91. The Commission seeks comment on whether State EAS Plans should include a listing of the manners in which a state or community conducts such live code tests. Should the Plan include the language of the notification to be provided during the test (

e.g.,

audio voiceovers, video crawls) to make sure the public understands that the test is not, in fact, a warning about an actual emergency? The Commission also seeks comment on whether the notification requirement should incorporate the new accessibility component of Section 11.51 of the Commission's EAS rules, which establishes requirements for the visual message portion of an alert. Should the Plan contain pre-test outreach procedures to coordinate with EAS Participants, state and local emergency authorities, and first responder organizations and the public?

92. The Commission seeks comment on whether each of these testing procedures continues to play an important role in ensuring system readiness for a Presidential Alert. In particular, with respect to State/Local WEA Testing, the Commission seeks comment on whether the ubiquity of smartphone technology makes it likely that, in the event of a Presidential Alert, members of the public would likely have their smartphone closer at hand than any traditional EAS source. If so, the Commission seeks comment on whether it is likely that the first medium through which members of the public would receive notice that a Presidential Alert is occurring is through their smartphone, notwithstanding the fact that the actual alert may be aired over EAS. The Commission seeks comment on whether this makes State/Local WEA Testing procedures a necessary component of state-level preparedness to receive a Presidential Alert. If so, should the manner in which a state or community uses smartphone technology, through WEA or otherwise, to augment an EAS alert be included in State EAS Plans?

d. Security Elements

93. Security and reliability are critical components of an alerting system, especially one that may be used by the President. A public safety communications system that is vulnerable to mistaken use or malicious intrusion poses as much of a threat to public safety as an efficient, secure system offers a benefit. A compromised alerting system could be used to misdirect public safety resources, or lead members of the public into harm's way. Accordingly, the Commission proposes to require certification of performance of required security measures, as discussed in greater detail below. Should State EAS Plans also describe the measures EAS Participants have taken to comply with the Commission's proposed security requirements? Should State EAS Plans include any additional information regarding their approach to cyber risk management, including if and how they use tools like the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework (NSF), or other risk management construct, and how this has been extended to their emergency alerting system? In the alternative, do the certifications proposed below provide adequate disclosures regarding EAS Participants' security efforts, obviating the need for the separate inclusion of such information in State EAS Plans?

B. Building Effective Community-Based Alerting Exercise Programs

1. Live Code Tests

94. Section 11.45 of the Commission's EAS rules provides in pertinent part that “[n]o person may transmit or cause to transmit the EAS codes or Attention Signal, or a recording or simulation thereof, in any circumstance other than in an actual National, State or Local Area emergency or authorized test of the EAS.” The Commission adopted this restriction because it found that a specific prohibition against the misuse of the EAS audio Attention Signal and codes was necessary in light of the “enormous detriment to the system” that might result from improper use. As a general matter, the EAS audio Attention Signal is used exclusively to alert the public that an emergency message is about to be distributed. Section 11.31(e) lists the “live” event header codes that are used for alerts in specific emergency situations,

e.g.,

tornadoes, tsunamis, and other natural and weather-related emergencies, as well as the specific test codes that are to be used for national periodic, required monthly and required weekly tests, as well as for practice/demonstration warnings. In the

Live Code Testing Public Notice,

the Bureau noted that EAS Participants have expressed a desire to use live EAS header codes and the EAS audio Attention Signal to conduct local public awareness and proficiency training EAS exercises, and stated that engaging in such activity would require a waiver of Section 11.31(c) of the Commission's EAS rules. The Bureau also provided the following guidance to SECCs on the recommended contents of their waiver requests:

(1) A description of the test and test participants, including when the test is scheduled to occur, when it will conclude, and what notification is being provided during the test (

e.g.,

audio voiceovers, video crawls) to make sure the public understands that the test is not, in fact, warning about an actual emergency, plus a statement whether the proposed test is designed to substitute for a “RWT” (required weekly

test) or a “RMT” (required monthly test) or would constitute a “special test,” pursuant to 47 CFR 11.61;

(2) An explanation why the EAS Participant or the state authority conducting such tests has concluded that use of live codes is necessary;

e.g.,

what live code testing is expected to achieve that could not be achieved by using standard test codes;

(3) A statement about how the test has been coordinated among EAS Participants and with state and local emergency authorities, as well as first responder organizations such as police and fire agencies; and

(4) A description of those public information steps that have been taken before the test occurs to notify the public about the test (specifically, that live event codes will be used, but that no emergency is in fact occurring). This should include a statement about all media that have participated in the public awareness/information campaign (

e.g.,

broadcasters, cable, print media,

etc.

).

Live code tests are currently performed as “special” tests under Section 11.61. A “special” test may fulfill an EAS Participant's weekly testing obligation provided that the test includes transmission of the EAS header codes and End of Message (EOM) codes, and may fulfill an EAS Participant's monthly testing obligation provided that the test also includes the emergency alerting Attention Signal and emergency message. In either case, the test message must meet a minimum standard of accessibility, as discussed in further detail below.

95. The Commission proposes to amend its EAS rules to authorize EAS Participants to conduct periodic EAS exercises using live event header codes, provided that they are used in a non-misleading manner, and that steps are taken to prevent public confusion prior to and during the test. Specifically, the Commission proposes to amend Section 11.61 to include “Live Code Tests” as a separate category of alerting exercise that may be undertaken periodically provided that:

(1) The state or local entity provides accessible notification during the test (

e.g.,

audio voiceovers, video crawls) to make sure the public understands that the test is not, in fact, warning about an actual emergency;

(2) Coordinates the test among EAS Participants and with state and local emergency authorities, as well as first responder organizations such as Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs), police and fire agencies; and

(3) Notifies the public before the test (specifically, that live event codes will be used, but that no emergency is in fact occurring).

The Commission further proposes to amend Section 11.45 to exempt state-designed EAS live code exercises from the Commission's prohibition against false or misleading use of the EAS Attention Signal. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals.

96.

Benefits.

Would expanding the Commission's Part 11 rules to permit live code testing facilitate opportunities for system verification, proficiency building, and raising public awareness about EAS? The Commission seeks comment on whether, as certain SECCs claim, using a live code enables more realistic system verification because use of a live code is the only way to determine how EAS equipment will react to certain live event header codes that are not activated by default in EAS equipment. Further, the Commission seeks comment on whether live code testing promotes alert originator proficiency by providing an opportunity for alert originators to practice selecting an appropriate event code for simulated emergency events, and practice crafting a message that informs the public of the occurrence of that specific event that would effectively motivate the public to take protective action. The Commission also seeks comment on whether live code testing facilitates opportunities for EAS stakeholders to raise public awareness about EAS. Some SECCs requesting a live code waiver state that their live code testing will coincide with “Severe Weather Preparedness Week” scheduled in their state, and the live code presents a visual crawl that is distinct from the visual crawl associated with test messages that better facilitates schools' businesses' and homeowners' own emergency preparedness drills. The Commission seeks comment on this claim. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on the extent to which live code testing offers superior public awareness and proficiency training opportunities than RMT and RWTs because they present testing conditions that more accurately reflect actual emergency conditions.

97.

Notification and Outreach.

The Commission seeks comment regarding the steps that EAS stakeholders could take to minimize any public confusion that may result from live code testing. The Commission seeks comment on the methods used by EAS Participants to inform the public that the Attention Signal they hear does not indicate an actual emergency. Is it necessary to codify specific notification procedures, or are available best practices sufficient? The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which outreach to first responder agencies has mitigated public confusion about the use of live codes. How can first responder organizations, such as PSAPs, be utilized as an integral part of an alerting exercise in a manner that harnesses their potential as a nexus for emergency information? The Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission's proposed rule adequately circumscribes the use of the emergency alerting attention signal in a manner that maximizes its utility while minimizing over-alerting and public confusion.

98.

Frequency of Live Code Testing.

How often should live code testing occur? The Commission observes that some EAS stakeholders have requested a waiver of the Commission's EAS rules to conduct live code tests as often as annually. The Commission seeks comment on whether the removal of this regulatory burden would lead EAS stakeholders to engage in more frequent live code testing. If so, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should limit how often live code tests may occur in a particular geographic area, and, if so, on what that limit should be. The Commission observes that its EAS rules currently allow special tests to be conducted as often as daily. Are there steps that the Commission should take to prevent over-alerting and alert fatigue? On the other hand, should SECCs be required to conduct live code EAS tests at certain predetermined intervals in order to ensure that emergency managers in each state have opportunities for system verification, proficiency training, and public awareness outreach?

99.

Cost Savings.

Would this action remove regulatory burdens for EAS stakeholders and reduce costs? The Commission seeks comment on the anticipated extent of these cost savings. The Commission also seeks comment on any operational concerns that EAS stakeholders believe to be implicated by this proposal.

2. EAS PSAs

100. EAS Participants may use Public Service Announcements or obtain commercial sponsors for announcements, infomercials, or programs explaining the EAS to the public to increase awareness of the EAS. The Commission's rules state that “[s]uch announcements and programs may not be a part of alerts or tests, and may not simulate or attempt to copy alert tones or codes.” Since that time, the Commission has granted requests for waiver to use the emergency alerting Attention Signal in PSAs to entities other than EAS Participants in order to raise public awareness about EAS. The

Commission has also granted similar requests from FEMA to use the emergency alerting Attention Signal in WEA PSAs provided that the PSA presents the tones in a non-misleading manner. In light of the value of the success of these PSAs, in the

WEA Fourth NPRM,

the Commission proposed to allow the use of the WEA Attention Signal in WEA PSAs, subject to the same limitation.

101. Consistent with the Commission's approach to the use of the emergency alerting attention signal in PSAs in the

WEA Fourth NPRM,

the Commission proposes to amend Section 11.46, which currently prohibits the use of the EAS alert tones or codes in otherwise permitted PSAs, to allow federal, state and local government entities to issue PSAs that use the EAS header codes and Attention Signal, provided that they are presented in a non-misleading and technically harmless manner. In so doing, the Commission allows entities other than EAS Participants to conduct EAS PSAs, and allow such PSAs to be used in connection with testing exercises that may include use of live event codes and the emergency alerting Attention Signal. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals. The Commission seeks comment on whether limiting the use of PSAs to EAS Participants and federal, state, and local government entities offer an optimal balance between ensuring that the emergency alerting Attention Signal is not over-used, on the one hand, and ensuring that the public is familiar with the EAS and understands its public benefits on the other hand? The Commission seeks comment on whether this is the appropriate subset of entities who should be able to use the emergency alerting Attention Signal in PSAs.

102. How can the Commission ensure that PSAs designed to raise public awareness about EAS do not have the unintended consequence of causing public confusion about whether the use of the EAS header codes and Attention Signal signify that an actual emergency is occurring? The Commission seeks comment on whether it should require entities that wish to use PSAs to coordinate with other EAS Participants and state and local authorities and the public to minimize any confusion. As with the use of the EAS header codes and Attention Signal for live code EAS tests, should entities seeking to use the EAS header codes and Attention Signal for EAS PSAs provide notification during the PSA to make sure the public understands that the use of the EAS header codes and Attention Signal does not, in fact, signify the occurrence of an actual emergency? Should entities seeking to use the EAS header codes and Attention Signal for use in EAS PSAs be required to coordinate the test among EAS Participants and with state and local emergency authorities, as well as first responder organizations such as PSAPs, police and fire agencies?

103. The Commission seeks comment on whether there is a negative public perception of EAS that deserves to be redressed, and on whether the public has a clear understanding of what EAS is. In its requests for waiver, FEMA stated that “many people are startled or annoyed when hearing the WEA Attention Signal for the first time.” The Commission notes that the WEA Attention Signal is a loud, attention-grabbing, two-tone audio signal that uses frequencies and sounds identical to the distinctive and familiar Attention Signal used by the EAS. The Commission seeks comment on whether alerts become more annoying when multiple alerts are received at the same time on a variety of platforms. The Commission also notes that it has received a number of complaints from individuals stating that the EAS Attention Signal is intrusive, and annoying. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on the public perception of EAS, and the EAS Attention Signal. To this point, the Commission also seeks comment on whether PSAs would be a useful tool for changing public perceptions about EAS for the better by, for example, providing them with information on how EAS saves lives and helps people to protect their property. As a testament to the success of the WEA PSA in this regard, FEMA offers that it has earned over $30 million in free media, and that the WEA PSA is currently the most played FEMA PSA. The Commission seeks comment on the success of any EAS PSAs that EAS Participants have issued pursuant to Section 11.46. Further, the Commission seeks comment on additional steps that EAS stakeholders could take to improve the efficacy of EAS PSAs at raising public awareness about, and shifting public perceptions of EAS. What effect on public perception would likely result were EAS PSAs allowed to be conducted in connection with EAS tests, including live code tests?

3. Accessible Alerting Exercise

104. Accessibility is a crucial aspect of alerting exercises because members of communities with disabilities or with limited English proficiency are particularly vulnerable to being excluded from community preparedness initiatives. Accordingly, in order to substitute for an RMT, a live code test must “comply with the visual message requirements in Section 11.51,” and in order to substitute for an RWT, it must comply with both the aural and visual requirements contained therein. Recently, the Bureau granted a request from Emergency and Community Health Outreach (ECHO), in partnership with Twin Cities Public Television (tpt) and FEMA, for a waiver of the Commission's rules to allow use of the WEA and EAS attention signal, as well as an audible portion of the EAS tones in PSAs, in conjunction with providing EAS PSAs in languages other than English, including Spanish, Hmong and Somali. The Bureau reasoned that including the EAS Attention Signal in educational media materials is essential to ensure that members of the public, including individuals with limited English proficiency, are familiar with EAS as an alert and warning methods.

105. The Commission seeks comment on how to best ensure that community-based alerting exercises address the accessibility needs of individuals with limited English proficiency and individuals with disabilities. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the extent to which live code testing may be used by local emergency managers to target the particular needs of communities with accessibility needs, such as individuals with sensory disabilities and individuals with limited English proficiency, and on how to better prepare such communities for emergencies through PSAs.

106.

Accessible Live Code Testing.

Is an accessible video crawl or full-screen replacement slide sufficient to overcome the public's preconception of the meaning of the Attention Signal? Are there additional steps that the Commission should take to ensure that the public is not misled or confused by state use of live codes for testing purposes? For example, might persons with cognitive or intellectual disabilities benefit from color-coding a border around different categories of warning, such as weather, terrorism, or earthquake? What technical and operational issues might be implicated by such an approach? The Commission observes that many entities requesting waiver of the Commission's Part 11 rules in order to conduct a live code test do so because of their concern that a “test” code might not be relayed through law enforcement communication, thus weakening the designation of a “statewide exercise.” In this way, does live code testing facilitate the transmission of EAS tests over a larger variety of media, and therefore improve their accessibility?

107. Further, the Commission observes that live code testing often does not occur in a vacuum, and is requested to supplement larger efforts to raise public awareness of emergency response resources, such as during a “Severe Weather Preparedness Week.” Does live code testing promote and facilitate such community engagement? Do such events provide opportunities for those that might not normally be able to access the emergency alerting attention signal to create community response mechanisms that ensure that some community members, such as those who do not speak English or those with disabilities, are not left behind during an emergency? What role should community stakeholders, including those who deliver alerts as well as those who benefit from the receipt of alerts, play in the design, execution, and subsequent evaluation of live code tests and subsequent alerts? How can the Commission work with public safety officials, SECCs, EAS Participants and other stakeholders to facilitate the inclusion of the entire community, including non-English speakers and those with disabilities, in such planning, execution and evaluation? Would the Commission's proposed testing rules provide transparency and allow collection of best practices results that would enhance this facilitation role? How should broadcasters and other EAS Participants, as well as PSAPs and emergency managers that coordinate live code tests, be equipped with the tools necessary to serve multilingual communities and communities of individuals with disabilities? Could tests be designed to allow broadcasters and other EAS Participants to share resources during an emergency, such as non-English speaking personnel and air time, to ensure that non-English speakers maintain access to EAS and emergency information?

108. How, if at all, should the Commission conduct outreach and gather feedback on the ability of public safety officials, SECCs, EAS Participants and other stakeholders to plan and execute community tests and exercises to reach populations with limited English proficiency and individuals with disabilities? How should the Commission evaluate the results? What steps, if any, should the Commission take in response to any such information it may collect? For example, should the Bureau conduct outreach to EAS Participants and other stakeholders in particular regions that have non-English speaking communities to gather information about best practices for ensuring alerts reach non-English speaking communities? What accountability measures should be instituted or encouraged if the tests fail to reach citizens due to their lack of English proficiency or disability?

109.

Accessible PSAs.

The Commission seeks comment on whether EAS PSAs in languages other than English are particularly effective at informing individuals who would otherwise not be able to understand the contents of an English-language EAS message about how to respond should they hear the common alerting Attention Signal. The Commission notes that notwithstanding the ubiquity of the EAS and its familiar audible signal, the tpt/ECHO waiver request indicates that at least one population,

i.e.,

recently arrived individuals with limited English proficiency, was not familiar with the EAS Attention Signal, and needed the PSAs to become familiar with these sounds and their meaning. Are there other groups or individuals for which EAS PSAs would provide this value? Would it be helpful if EAS PSAs were made available in American Sign Language (ASL) in order to better meet the needs of certain individuals with hearing loss? To what extent can PSAs transmitted over the Internet, including via OTT services, offer enhanced utility and accessibility to the public, as well as to individuals with disabilities?

C. Leveraging Technological Advancements in Alerting

110. In this section, the Commission seeks comment on the extent to which the communications infrastructure underlying the nation's alerting capability should be—and already is—taking steps to leverage technological advancements to improve the content, accessibility and security of emergency alerts. In addressing these issues, the Commission intends to initiate a dialogue about creating a voluntary industry roadmap for further enhancing the capability of the nation's alerting infrastructure to carry a Presidential Alert in a manner consistent with consumer expectations of IP-based communications technologies.

1. Cable Force Tuning and Selective Override

111. The EAS “force tuning” provisions allow wireless and digital cable service providers and wireline video service providers to satisfy the general requirement that they transmit EAS audio and visual information over all channels by automatically tuning the subscribers' set top boxes (STB) to a designated channel (usually an otherwise empty control channel) that carries the required audio and video EAS message. The Commission's “selective override” provisions allow cable service providers to elect not to deliver EAS audio and visual information over channels that are carrying news or weather related emergency information with state and local EAS message. Such elections are made pursuant to a written agreement between the cable service provider and broadcaster. Use of selective override by the cable service provider is voluntary.

112. The Commission has received requests that it reexamine the selective override policy. Most recently, for example, the NAB requested that the Commission “permit local television stations to opt out of cable system-wide overrides, provided such stations participate in the EAS system.” NAB contends that cable overrides “disrupt viewers' access to the critical, often life-saving emergency information provided by local television broadcasters, including shelter-in-place or evacuation directions, storm pathways, and the status of power outages . . . [and] frequently cause confusion and distress among viewers.” NAB proposes that cable operators be required to “implement `selective override,' so that certain [broadcast] channels can be selectively omitted during a cable system's EAS interruption,” thus providing local broadcast television stations with the ability to opt out of the cable system's universal forced-tuning of all cable channels, enabling the station to offer uninterrupted emergency information.

113. The Commission is also aware of reported instances where force tuning STBs has caused the subscriber's picture and audio to freeze, sometimes requiring a reboot of the STBs to restore normal access to channels. Viewers have claimed that during the period when the force tuned alert was active, they were unable to change channels and were stuck on the force-tuned EAS channel for extended periods of time. For example, on March 30, 2015, an in-house test conducted by a cable service provider was inadvertently distributed beyond the cable provider's test environment equipment to cable subscribers across several states, force-tuning most, if not all of them to a control channel where they were denied access to programming for approximately ten minutes. Commission staff has learned that over two million STBs likely were affected in that one example alone.

114. The Commission seeks comment on the propriety of its selective override and forced tuning rules in an evolving alerting landscape. Specifically, the

Commission seeks comment on whether its existing cable force tuning and selective override provisions continue to serve the public interest, and whether technological advancements should impact that analysis. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which alerting functions incorporate (or are being modified to incorporate) advanced technology, in order to improve functionality and better support the conveyance of emergency information. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on technical issues that may suggest that forced tuning has an unacceptably negative impact on consumers viewing force tuned broadcast and cable channels.

115.

Impact of Technological Advancements.

In light of technological advancements or other factors that may impact cable operators' capacity to implement selective override, should selective override remain an acceptable voluntary EAS alternative for cable systems, or should all cable system providers refrain from interrupting local broadcast programming where the broadcast provider is participating in the EAS system and thus transmitting state and local EAS alerts? Alternatively, are there reasons why smaller cable systems (

e.g.,

those serving fewer than 5,000 subscribers), would need the selective override option, in contrast to the larger systems, and would a regime that maintained the option for smaller cable systems only—while larger systems uniformly delivered broadcast-originated state and local EAS alerts, news or weather-related emergency information—make sense? If smaller cable providers need this exception, should it be permanent? If not, for how much time should smaller cable systems fit into an excepted category?

116. Have technological advancements enabled cable operators' ability to selectively override broadcast signals? For example, cable services now benefit from the introduction of digital technologies, including “smart” STBs. How do these and related technologies affect the use of selective override? Have STB and headend technologies advanced to the point where selective override on a channel-by-channel basis can be readily programmed into cable equipment, without imposing undue burdens on cable providers? Is it reasonable to assume that all content delivered by STB shall be interruptible, such that EAS warnings could be delivered in banner form or otherwise for all content (without directing the subscriber to another channel through force tuning or by other means)? Have technological advances in EAS equipment made it easier and more affordable to engage in selective override? The Commission notes in this regard that some parties maintain that force tuning via the STB is not the only way that MVPD EAS Participants can display EAS information.

117. Does the widespread and growing availability of programming distributed by IP-based networks, including STBs and “smart” TVs capable of “on-screen” graphical user interface (GUI) user input, suggest that greater user control with respect to EAS acknowledgement and/or feedback should be supported or encouraged? Do the Commission's current cable force tuning and selective override requirements affect emergency operators' ability to leverage these technological advancements to rapidly and efficiently obtain feedback from consumers, in response to EAS messages? What regulatory obstacles exist that might unnecessarily impede greater consumer interaction with received alerting messages? Would facilitating this interaction introduce the capability for crowdsourced citizen feedback during emergencies and disasters that would improve community, state and national response? What possible consequences or potential for abuse, if any, would need to be addressed in harnessing this capability?

118.

Delivery of EAS Messages through Different Platforms.

Looking only at the content of the EAS messages transmitted through the EAS system, are there or can there be any differences between the EAS messages that consumers see when viewing the alert on their local broadcast channel as compared to the EAS alert transmitted by a cable system provider? Are those EAS messages always identical in a given geographic area regardless of whether it is transmitted over the air or through a cable provider's system? Should they be identical? Specifically, has the implementation of Common Alert Protocol (CAP)-based alerting made it more likely that cable providers can relay more detailed EAS alert information (

e.g.,

based upon the enhanced text in a CAP message) than what has been possible in the past or via the traditional broadcast-based EAS architecture? If so, have cable providers been originating EAS messages that have a greater emergency response value when using the force tuning option? Is there a significant difference in the accessibility of alerts offered by broadcasters and cable providers? To what extent, if at all, do cable franchise agreement provisions govern whether cable operators may participate in selective override where local broadcast providers are delivering state and local EAS alerts, news or weather-related emergency information? How should any differences in the actual EAS messages impact the Commission's analysis of the force tuning and selective override issues? Does the variation stemming from selective override complicate response from community emergency managers?

119.

Technical Issues.

Can STB technology advancements significantly reduce the risk that force tuning will cause the picture and/or audio to freeze, or lock out consumers from changing back to the channels they were watching? Are there any changes to the manner in which force tuning is implemented that could ensure that subscribers are not locked on the designated EAS channel? More broadly, are there steps or precautions cable service providers could take to prevent such events in the future? In light of technological advancements, does any public interest benefit remain by allowing cable service providers to satisfy their requirements to transmit EAS audio and visual information by force tuning? If not, would the immediate (“flash cut”) elimination of the force tuning option create any avoidable or unnecessary hardships, and, if so, would a sunset period for force tuning provide any relief?

2. EAS on Programmed Channels

120. As discussed above, the Part 11 EAS rules allow wireless and digital cable provider EAS Participants to comply with their obligations to deliver EAS messages by force tuning viewers to a channel that carries the alert or test. The rules limit the obligation of a cable EAS Participant to deliver EAS to “programmed channels,” which, under the current rules do not include “channels used for the transmission of data such as interactive games,” “channels used for the transmission of data services such as Internet,” or “channels used for the transmission of data services such as Internet access.”

121. The Commission initially seeks comment on what basis exists today, when technical advances have expanded the scope of programming and other services delivered by cable and other MVPD EAS Participants, to distinguish channels as “programmed channels” for purposes of receiving EAS messages. Is there a technical basis to continuing the distinction among channels? If so, is there some other basis that would be more suitable for making this distinction? For example, should the distinction be based on channels

that are made available for consumer use versus channels not for consumer use and/or not part of the services that EAS Participants offer their customers? Channels not for consumer use would include diagnostic channels used to monitor the health and quality of the system, those used to transfer and manipulate metadata necessary to create the user interface (

e.g.,

the program guide), or those used to deliver broadband access. Would it serve the public interest to require EAS Participants to support EAS alerts on all channels over which they offer services to the consumer? Is there a reason to exempt any such channels from the Commission's EAS rules?

122. The Commission also seeks comment on the public safety benefits that could be derived from requiring that EAS Participants support EAS alerts over all channels that are part of the service package offered to the consumer. To what extent would requiring support for EAS alerts on all such channels increase the likelihood that the public will receive potentially life-saving alerts? To what extent might such channels offer opportunities to improve alert quality or accessibility? Further, what additional costs, if any, would EAS Participants expect to result from requiring EAS alerts to be supported on all channels that are part of the service package offered to the consumer by the EAS Participant? Would this approach fully address National Security and community alerting needs in the evolved technology landscape for typical residential consumers? Would this approach require hardware and/or software replacement? What standards, if any, would be affected by these proposed changes? How long should the Commission expect that it would take industry to comply with this alternative approach?

3. EAS Alerting and Emerging Video Technology

123. The Commission has consistently striven to ensure that, as technologies evolve, EAS continues to meet consumer expectations for basic emergency communications. For example, in preparation for the transition to digital television, Commission staff held a series of

ex parte

meetings with affected industry segments to ensure that the EAS would continue uninterrupted throughout the HD transition. As a result, when the Commission ultimately adopted the rules that included wireline video providers among EAS Participants, the record reflected almost unanimous support for the new rules. Now, emerging technologies are changing the EAS landscape again. A wealth of video content is now available to consumers online. For instance, Multichannel Video Programming Distributors (MVPDs) are beginning to offer IP-based versions of their programming, including providing consumers with apps to view content. Broadcast television is exploring IP-based offerings as well. A number of other entities are also entering the video space. Accordingly, in this section the Commission seeks to initiate a conversation regarding how the EAS may remain durable as the ways in which consumers view content evolves.

124. In order to implement the Commission's statutory obligations in a manner consistent with the public interest, the Commission seeks to understand whether and how the way in which consumers view content has changed consumer expectations for how they will receive EAS messages. In this regard, the Commission seeks to ensure that EAS alerts endure and remain reliable as technology advances. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which entities offering content outside of traditional broadcast or pay TV modes of architecture are making EAS alerts available to consumers. From a technical perspective, what hardware, software, and standards updates would need to be addressed before alerts could be delivered via alternative means, such as via IP-based platforms? Are the potential issues with offering alerts outside traditional broadcast or pay TV delivery mechanisms? What kind of strategies could be employed to standardize the availability of alerts across technologies, applications, and platforms? To what extent are these efforts already underway?

125. The Commission further seeks comment on whether consumers have an expectation that alerts will be durable across different technology platforms. Do consumers expect that the alerts provided with programming offered via traditional technologies would still be provided when programming is offered through some other means, such as through an online offering? To the extent that commenters believe the Commission should take action to address consumer expectations with respect to receiving EAS alerts through new technologies, on what statutory basis would the Commission take such action? Commenters should also address any possible unintended consequences of Commission action.

126. The Commission seeks comment on whether EAS alerts offered through different technologies may have a greater potential to meet the emergency information needs of the public than do alerts offered via traditional media. What, if any, potential do these services have to improve EAS geo-targeting, for example, by using a devices' geolocation technology when the consumer is viewing content over the Internet? The Commission seeks comment on this assertion. Could alerts via non-traditional platforms offer consumers greater personalization options? For example, could consumers elect to receive alerts for geographic areas other than the location in which their device is located, in order to remain vigilant of prospective threats to loved ones living in other parts of the country? Further, the Commission seeks comment on how new technologies could facilitate consumer feedback on, and interaction with alert content. Could the text crawl of such alerts potentially contain clickable URLs and phone numbers directing the recipient to additional resources and information about developing emergency situations? The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which the advancements in technology may allow for customer feedback on alerts, such as confirming that an individual is threatened by a certain emergency condition, or enabling that individual to request specific emergency assistance by interacting with an alert. The Commission seeks comment on whether these technologies could give rise to a cycle of information sharing consistent with a “many-to-one/one-to-many” alerting dynamic.

4. WEA Alerts to Tablets

127. Section 10.10 of the Commission's WEA rules defines a “mobile device” as “the subscriber equipment generally offered by CMS providers that supports the distribution of WEA Alert Messages.” Pursuant to Section 10.500, support for the distribution of WEA Alert messages entails “(a) Authentication of interactions with CMS Provider infrastructure; (b) Monitoring for Alert Messages; (c) Maintaining subscriber alert opt-out selections, if any; (d) Maintaining subscriber alert language preferences, if any; (e) Extraction of alert content in English or the subscriber's preferred language, if applicable; (f) Presentation of alert content to the device, consistent with subscriber opt-out selections . . . ; and (g) Detection and suppression of presentation of duplicate alerts.” Electing to participate in WEA entails a commitment by the Participating CMS Provider “to support the development and deployment of technology for . . . mobile devices with WEA functionality.” Pursuant to the

Commission's CMS Provider election procedures, Participating CMS Providers must support WEA on at least one device. The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) report on WEA penetration strategy states that “[t]he most significant WEA penetration gap over the long term regarding mobile wireless devices is the lack of WEA capability in the tablet computers.” DHS recommends that the Commission should find a way to encourage Participating CMS Providers and tablet computer manufacturers to add WEA capability to their tablet offerings that have wireless cellular data connectivity.

128. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should consider tablets that consumers use to access mobile services as “mobile devices” under the Commission's Part 10 WEA rules. Do 4G LTE-enabled tablets currently support the distribution of WEA messages? If not, the Commission seeks comment on what, if any, standards, software, or hardware modifications would be required to enable 4G-LTE-enabled tablets to support the distribution of WEA messages? Would 4G-LTE tablets be able to receive WEA alerts when they are connected to a Wi-Fi network or other unlicensed spectrum, based on the user's preference (such as when the user is at home and connected to their own Wi-Fi network), but while the tablet still remains within range of the Participating CMS Providers' 4G-LTE network? The Commission seeks comment on any costs commenters believe would likely be attendant to providing WEA alerts to 4G LTE-enabled tablets. The Commission also seeks comments on any benefits likely to result from the delivery of WEA alerts to 4G LTE-enabled tablets. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on whether modernizing alerting platforms in this manner would increase the likelihood that individuals would receive potentially life-saving alerts by requiring that they be transmitted to the devices and services they use most. Are Participating CMS Providers prepared to develop a voluntary roadmap for providing WEA alerts to 4G LTE-enabled tablets?

5. Technological Potential for Improvements in Accessibility

129. The Commission seeks comment on the potential of new and emerging technologies to improve alert accessibility. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on the state of technology for machine-generated translation (

i.e.,

the use of software to translate text or speech from one language to another), to provide emergency alerts in non-English languages, and whether and how such technology could be leveraged by both the EAS and WEA systems. Are languages such as Spanish, that share a character set with English, more easily machine translatable than languages that use other character sets? How advanced are machine translation technologies for English to ideographic languages, such as Chinese? Could such translators be incorporated into EAS equipment? The Commission also seeks comment on the potential utility of platform-based video relay service capabilities to enhance the understanding of alerts and warnings for individuals with hearing and vision disabilities. The Commission seeks comment on these questions in order to gain a better understanding of achievable alert accessibility technologies.

130. Further, the Commission seeks comment on the ability of OTT alerting to improve EAS alert personalization. Could OTT EAS alerting be leveraged to improve alert accessibility for all Americans, including those with sensory disabilities those with limited English proficiency? For example, could the availability of URLs make it possible for alert content to be presented in languages other than English and in American Sign Language (ASL)? Could consumers personalize alert preferences with respect to text size, crawl speed, and contrast based on their unique needs? Could alerting via OTT services facilitate the use of symbols as accessible replacements or supplements to ale

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.