Fcc 16-127

FCC-16-127A1(1).pdf

Testing and Logging Requirements for Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA)

FCC 16-127

OMB: 3060-1126

⚠️ Notice: This form may be outdated. More recent filings and information on OMB 3060-1126 can be found here:

Document [pdf]

Download: pdf | pdf

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Wireless Emergency Alerts
Amendments to Part 11 of the Commission’s Rules
Regarding the Emergency Alert System

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

PS Docket No. 15-91
PS Docket No. 15-94

REPORT AND ORDER AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Adopted: September, 29, 2016

Released: September 29, 2016

Comment Date: (30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register)
Reply Comment Date: (60 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register)
By the Commission: Chairman Wheeler and Commissioners Clyburn, Rosenworcel and Pai issuing
separate statements; Commissioner O’Rielly approving in part, dissenting in part and issuing a statement.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading

Paragraph #

I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1
II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 6
III. REPORT AND ORDER ........................................................................................................................ 9
A. Alert Message Content..................................................................................................................... 9
1. Increasing Maximum Alert Message Length from 90 to 360 Characters ................................. 9
2. Establishment of a New Alert Message Classification (Public Safety Messages) .................. 16
3. Supporting Embedded References and Multimedia ................................................................ 26
4. Supporting Spanish-language Alert Messages ........................................................................ 38
B. Alert Message Delivery ................................................................................................................. 45
1. Logging Alert Messages at the Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateway .......................... 45
2. Narrowing Geo-targeting Requirements ................................................................................. 50
3. Presenting Alert Messages Concurrent with Other Device Activity....................................... 58
C. Testing and Outreach ..................................................................................................................... 63
1. Supporting State/Local WEA Testing and Proficiency Training Exercises............................ 63
2. Testing the NCE Public Television C-interface Back-up........................................................ 69
3. Facilitating WEA PSAs........................................................................................................... 73
D. Compliance Timeframes................................................................................................................ 77
E. Benefit-Cost Analysis .................................................................................................................... 87
IV. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING................................................................... 104
A. Ensuring the Provision of Effective WEA Alert Messages ......................................................... 105
1. Defining the Modes of Participation in WEA ....................................................................... 105
2. Infrastructure Functionality................................................................................................... 112
3. Alert Message Preservation................................................................................................... 115
4. Earthquake Alert Prioritization.............................................................................................. 119
5. Disaster Relief Messaging..................................................................................................... 123
B. Incorporating Future Technical Advancements to Improve WEA .............................................. 126

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

1. Multimedia Alerting .............................................................................................................. 126
2. Multilingual Alerting............................................................................................................. 132
3. Matching the Geographic Target Area .................................................................................. 138
4. WEA on 5G Networks .......................................................................................................... 146
C. Developing Consumer Education Tools ...................................................................................... 149
1. Promoting Informed Consumer Choice at the Point of Sale ................................................. 149
2. Promoting Informed Consumer Choice about the Receipt of WEA Alert Messages............ 153
D. Improving WEA Transparency.................................................................................................... 159
1. Annual WEA Performance Reporting................................................................................... 159
2. Alert Logging Standards and Implementation ...................................................................... 173
E. Compliance Timeframes.............................................................................................................. 175
F. Benefit-Cost Analysis .................................................................................................................. 184
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS.............................................................................................................. 194
A. Accessible Formats ...................................................................................................................... 194
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ................................................................................................... 195
C. Paperwork Reduction Analysis.................................................................................................... 196
D. Congressional Review Act........................................................................................................... 198
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES..................................................................................................................... 199
APPENDIX A - Final Rules
APPENDIX B - Proposed Rules
APPENDIX C - Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
APPENDIX D - Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
APPENDIX E - List of Commenters
APPENDIX F - Model Opt-Out Menu
APPENDIX G - New York City Emergency Management (NYCEM) Local WEA Geo-targeting and
Latency Test Reports
APPENDIX H - Sample CMAC Attribute Alert Log
I.

INTRODUCTION

1.
In this Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we take advantage
of the significant technological changes and improvements experienced by the mobile wireless industry
since the passage of the Warning, Alert and Response Network (WARN) Act, and deployment of
Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) to improve the utility of WEA as a life-saving tool.1 In the Report
and Order, we adopt rules informed by WEA’s use during the first four years of its deployment and by
stakeholder feedback to the WEA NPRM.2 Our goal is to promote the utility of WEA for communities as
a life-saving tool. Accordingly, this Report and Order adopts rules focused on improving WEA in three
key areas.

WEA was formerly known as the Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS). In 2013, the Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureau amended its Part 10 rules to change the name “Commercial Mobile Alert System”
(CMAS) to “Wireless Emergency Alert” (WEA). See Commercial Mobile Alert System, PS Docket No. 07-287,
Order, 28 FCC Rcd 1460 (PSHSB 2013); The Commercial Mobile Alert System, PS Docket No. 07-287, First
Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 6144 (2008) (WEA First Report and Order); The Commercial Mobile Alert System,
PS Docket No. 07-287, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 23 FCC Rcd 10765
(2008) (WEA Second Report and Order); The Commercial Mobile Alert System, PS Docket 07-287, Third Report
and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 12561 (2008) revised by Erratum (dated Sept. 5, 2008) (Third Report and Order).
2

Improving Wireless Emergency Alerts and Community-initiated Alerting, PS Docket No. 15-91, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 13781 (2015) (WEA NPRM). In the WEA NPRM, we closed the CMAS docket,
PS Docket No. 07-287, and opened a new docket, PS Docket No. 15-91, for WEA. See id. at n.2.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

2.
First, we adopt rules that will improve Alert Message content in order to help
communities communicate clearly and effectively about imminent threats and local crises.3 Specifically,
we improve Alert Message content with the following actions:


We increase the maximum Alert Message length from 90 to 360 characters for 4G-LTE and
future networks.



We create a new Alert Message classification for “Public Safety Messages,” defined as “an
essential public safety advisory that prescribes one or more actions likely to save lives and/or
safeguard property.”



We require Participating Commercial Mobile Service (CMS) Providers to support embedded
references (i.e., URLs and phone numbers) included in Alert Messages.



We require Participating CMS Providers to support transmission of Spanish-language Alert
Messages.4

3.
Next, we adopt rules to meet alert originators’ needs for the delivery of the Alert
Messages they transmit.5 Specifically, we take the following steps:


We require Participating CMS Providers to log and maintain basic Alert Message attributes, and
to make those logs available upon request to the Commission and FEMA, and to emergency
management agencies that offer confidentiality protection at least equal to that provided by the
federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) insofar as those logs pertain to alerts initiated by that
emergency management agency.



We require Participating CMS Providers to narrow their geographic targeting (geo-targeting) of
Alert Messages to areas that best approximate alert areas specified by the alert originator.6

The term “Alert Message” is defined in the Commission’s WEA rules as “a message that is intended to provide the
recipient information regarding an emergency, and that meets the requirements for transmission by a Participating
Commercial Mobile Service Provider under this part.” 47 CFR § 10.10(a).
4

A “Participating CMS Provider” is a Commercial Mobile Service Provider that has voluntarily elected to transmit
Alert Messages under Part 10 of the Commission’s rules. 47 CFR § 10.10(f). “A Commercial Mobile Service
Provider (or CMS Provider) is an FCC licensee providing commercial mobile service, as defined in section
332(d)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 USC § 332(d)(1)). Section 332(d)(1) defines the term
commercial mobile service as any mobile service (as defined in 47 USC 153) that is provided for profit and makes
interconnected service available to the public or to such classes of eligible users as to be effectively available to a
substantial portion of the public, as specified by regulation by the Commission.” 47 CFR § 10.10(d). “The term
‘Commercial Mobile Service’ (CMS) is co-extensive with the term ‘Commercial Mobile Radio Service’ (CMRS) as
defined in 47 CFR § 20.3.” See WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13783, n.6; see also Protecting and Promoting the
Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 5601, 5778-5778, paras.
388-408 (2015) (including mobile broadband Internet access service providers within the CMRS definition).
5

The term “alert originator” refers to a federal, state, territorial, tribal, or local entity authorized by FEMA to use the
Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) to issue critical public alerts and warnings in emergency
situations. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) recognizes “alerting authorities,” e.g., federal,
state, territorial, tribal, and local authorities that have completed the necessary authentication steps to use IPAWS.
See FEMA, Alerting Authorities, https://www.fema.gov/alerting-authorities (last visited Jun. 3, 2015). For the
purposes of this proceeding the term is used as coextensive with the terms “emergency manager” and “emergency
management agency” unless otherwise specified.
6

“Geo-targeting” alerts refers to the ability of the WEA architecture to direct an alert to a geographic area that
matches that desired by the alert originator. See CSRIC IV, Working Group Two, Wireless Emergency Alerts, Geotargeting, Message Content and Character Limitation Subcommittee, Final Report 8 (2014),
https://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/advisory/csric4/CSRIC_CMAS_Geo-Target_Msg_Content_Msg_Len_Rpt_Final.pdf
(last visited Jun. 9, 2015) (CSRIC IV WEA Messaging Report). The CSRIC IV WEA Messaging Report has been
(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission


FCC 16-127

We require WEA-capable mobile devices present Alert Messages as soon as they are received.

4.
Finally, we create a framework that will allow emergency managers to test, exercise, and
raise public awareness about WEA. The framework for testing, exercises and outreach that we adopt
consists of three components:


We require support for State/Local WEA Tests and encourage emergency managers to engage in
proficiency training exercises using alert-origination software.



We require periodic testing of the public television broadcast-based backup to the C-interface.



We allow federal, state, local, tribal and territorial entities, as well as non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) in coordination with such entities to issue Public Service Announcements
(PSAs) aimed at raising public awareness about WEA.

5.
In addition, we adopt a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice) to
provide a framework for further study where necessary, and to seek comment on new issues and
opportunities to improve WEA that may warrant Commission action. Specifically, and as discussed in
further detail below, we propose to ensure the continued provision of effective WEA Alert Messages
while leveraging advancements in technology to improve WEA’s multimedia, multilingual and geotargeting capabilities. We also seek comment on methods of improving consumer choice about WEA and
increasing the transparency of the WEA system for all WEA stakeholders.
II.

BACKGROUND

6.
In 2008, pursuant to the Warning, Alert and Response Network (WARN) Act,7 the
Commission adopted rules allowing CMS Providers to voluntarily deliver timely and accurate emergency
alerts over subscribers’ mobile devices.8 The WARN Act required that the Commission undertake a
series of actions, including the establishment and convening of an advisory committee to recommend
technical requirements for WEA.9 Accordingly, the Commission formed the Commercial Mobile Service
Alert Advisory Committee (CMSAAC).10 The CMSAAC submitted its report to the Commission on
October 12, 2007, as required by the WARN Act.11 The Commission subsequently promulgated rules
governing WEA, within the timeframes established by the WARN Act.12 The WARN Act gives the
(Continued from previous page)
endorsed by the Disability Advisory Committee (DAC). See Letter from Susan Mazrui, Co-Chair, Disability
Advisory Committee (DAC), to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 15-91 (filed Jun. 25, 2015).
7

On October 13, 2006, the President signed the Security and Accountability for Every Port (SAFE Port) Act into
law. Title VI of the SAFE Port Act, also known as the WARN Act, establishes a process for the creation of a
national mobile alerting system, now known as WEA, whereby Participating CMS Providers transmit emergency
alerts to their subscribers. See Warning, Alert and Response Network (WARN) Act, Title VI of the Security and
Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006, 120 Stat. 1884, codified at 47 USC § 1200, et seq. (2006) (WARN Act).
8

See 47 CFR § 10; see also supra note 1 (listing the rulemakings in which the Commission adopted these rules).

WARN Act §§ 603(a), (d), 47 USC § 1203(a), (d).

See Notice of Appointment of Members to the Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee, Agenda
for December 12, 2006 Meeting, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 14175 (PSHSB 2006).
11

See Federal Communications Commission Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee (CMSAAC),
PMG-0035 Commercial Mobile Alert Service Architecture and Requirements, at 66 (2007) (CMSAAC Report).
12

WARN Act § 602(a), 47 USC § 1202(a) (requiring the Commission to promulgate technical standards for WEA
within 180 days of receipt of the CMSAAC’s recommendations); id. at § 602(c), 47 USC § 1202(c) (requiring the
Commission to promulgate requirements for noncommercial educational broadcast stations or public broadcast
stations to enable the distribution of geographically targeted messages within 90 days of the publication of its
technical standards); id. at § 602(b), 47 USC § 1202(b) (requiring the Commission to promulgate election
procedures for CMS Providers within 120 days of the publication of its technical standards); id. at § 602(f), 47 USC
§ 1202(f) (requiring the Commission to require by regulation technical testing for commercial mobile service
(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

Commission authority to adopt “relevant technical standards, protocols, procedures and other technical
requirements based on the recommendations of such Advisory Committee necessary to enable
commercial mobile service alerting capability for commercial mobile service providers that voluntarily
elect to transmit emergency alerts.”13 The WARN Act also gives the Commission authority to adopt
procedures whereby CMS Providers could specify their intent to the Commission to participate in WEA.14
Many CMS Providers, including the four nationwide wireless carriers, elected to participate in WEA, at
least in part.15 Since it was deployed in April 2012,16 WEA has been used to issue over 21,000 emergency
alerts, including severe weather warnings, evacuate and shelter-in place alerts, and America’s Missing:
Broadcast Emergency Response (AMBER) Alerts.17
7.
The WEA system is a tool for authorized federal, state and local government entities to
geographically target Presidential, Imminent Threat, and AMBER Alerts to the WEA-capable mobile
devices of Participating CMS Providers’ subscribers.18 As depicted in Figure 1 below, a WEA Alert
Message is sent by an authorized federal, state or local government entity using the Common Alerting
Protocol (CAP) to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-operated Alert Aggregator via a
secure, Internet-based interface (the A-Interface) where it is authenticated, validated and subsequently
delivered to FEMA’s Alert Gateway (the B-Interface).19 At the FEMA Alert Gateway, the Alert Message
(Continued from previous page)
providers that elect to transmit emergency alerts and for the devices and equipment used by such providers for
transmitting such alerts).
13

Id. at § 602(a), 47 USC § 1202(a).

Id. at § 602(b), 47 USC § 1202(b). Under the WARN Act, CMS Providers could elect to participate in whole, in
part, or not at all. Id. at § 602(b)(1)(B), 47 USC § 1202(b)(1)(B). CMS Providers who intended to participate in
WEA were required to specify their intent to the Commission in writing. See id. at § 602(B)(2)(A), 47 USC §
1202(B)(2)(A) (requiring that “within 30 days after the Commission issues its order under [Section 602(b)], each
licensee providing commercial mobile service shall file an election with the Commission with respect to whether or
not it intends to transmit emergency alerts”).
15

See FCC, Master CMAS Registry, https://www.fcc.gov/pshs/docs/services/cmas/MasterCMASRegistry.xls (last
visited Oct. 21. 2015); PS Docket No. 08-146 (containing a record of all Participating CMS Providers’ elections to
participate in WEA). See also Policies Regarding Mobile Spectrum Holdings and Expanding the Economic and
Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, WT Docket No. 12-269 and Docket No. 12-268,
Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 6133, 6206 & n.502 (2014) citing Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993; Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With
Respect to Mobile Wireless, Including Commercial Mobile Services, WT Docket No. 11-186, Sixteenth Report, 28
FCC Rcd 3700, 3736-37, para. 26 (observing that “there are four nationwide providers in the U.S. with networks
that cover a majority of the population and land area of the country – Verizon Wireless, AT&T, Sprint, and TMobile –” and referring to other providers with “networks that are limited to regional and local areas” as “nonnationwide providers.”); Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993;
Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Mobile Wireless, Including
Commercial mobile Services, WT Docket No 15-125, Eighteenth Report, 30 FCC Rcd 14515, 14520, para. 9 (2015).
16

See FCC’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Sets Timetable in Motion for Commercial Mobile
Service Providers To Develop a System That Will Deliver Alerts to Mobile Devices, PS Docket No. 07-287, Public
Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 14388 (PSHSB 2009).
17

See CTIA, Wireless Emergency Alerts, http://www.ctia.org/your-wireless-life/consumer-tips/wireless-emergencyalerts (last visited Oct. 20, 2015). The AMBER (America’s Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response) program is a
nationwide alerting program designed to help bring missing children to safety. See Office of Justice Programs,
AMBERAlert.gov, http://www.amberalert.gov/about.htm (last visited Jul. 23, 2016).
18

See, e.g., 47 CFR § 10.450 (geo-targeting); 47 CFR § 10.430 (character limit); 47 CFR § 10.400 (classification).

See infra Figure 1 (WEA Architecture). CAP is an open, interoperable, XML-based standard that can include
multimedia such as streaming audio or video. See OASIS CAP v1.2 (IPAWS Profile for the OASIS Common
Alerting Protocol IPAWS USA). CAP messages contain standardized fields that facilitate interoperability between
and among devices. See id.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

is prepared for delivery to the Participating CMS Provider by being converted to Commercial Mobile
Alert for C-Interface (CMAC) format to render it readable by WEA-capable mobile devices. The Alert
Message is then disseminated across a secure Internet-based interface (the C-Interface) to the
Participating CMS Provider’s Alert Gateway (CMSP Gateway) for distribution to mobile customers over
cell broadcast (CMSP Infrastructure).20

Figure 1: WEA Architecture
8.
While the response to WEA from Participating CMS Providers and alert originators has
been overwhelmingly positive, stakeholders continue to recommend steps that the Commission can take
to require feasible improvements to WEA that can enhance its power as a life-saving tool. The
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has supported a number of research initiatives, including WEA
Mobile Penetration Strategy that examined barriers to WEA adoption and options for improving WEA
penetration, and the START Reports which sought to determine the optimal message contents for WEA.21
20

From a technical standpoint, the WEA system currently deployed by FEMA and Participating CMS Providers is
based on standards created by the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS), the
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) (jointly, ATIS/TIA), and the 3rd Generation Partnership Project
(3GPP). See CSRIC IV WEA Messaging Report at 7. We note that nothing in the WARN Act or the Commission’s
rules requires WEA to be a cell-broadcast-based service.
21

Daniel Gonzales, Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology, Wireless Emergency Alerts
Mobile Penetration Strategy at 124 (2013) (WEA Mobile Penetration Strategy); Department of Homeland Security
Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, Comprehensive Testing of Imminent Threat Public Messages for
Mobile Devices (2014) (START Report); Department of Homeland Security Study of Terrorism and Responses to
Terrorism, Comprehensive Testing of Imminent Threat Public Messages for Mobile Devices, at 29-30 (2015)
(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

Further, the Commission tasked its federal advisory committee, the Communications Security, Reliability,
and Interoperability Council (CSRIC) IV, with reviewing the current WEA rules and recommending any
appropriate changes.22 In 2014, CSRIC IV submitted two reports recommending rule changes and other
actions to facilitate improvements to WEA.23 The Government Accountability Office (GAO) also
recommended that the FCC, in conjunction with FEMA, review and update rules governing character
limitations, geo-targeting, and testing procedures.24 In light of these concerns, and considering the many
advancements in wireless technology since the adoption of the Commission’s WEA rules in 2008,
including the widespread use of smartphones and the development of 4G technologies,25 in November
2015, we adopted the WEA NPRM to seek comment on several proposals designed to improve WEA and
to facilitate more effective community-initiated alerting.26 In January 2016, we sought further comment
on the Nation’s alerting capability in the Alerting Paradigm NPRM, including the extent to which WEA
Alert Messages are currently available on tablets.27
(Continued from previous page)
(Updated START Report). START is a university-based research and education center, headquartered at the
University of Maryland, comprised of an international network of scholars committed to the scientific study of the
human consequences of terrorism in the United States and around the world. START was established in 2005 with
Department of Homeland Security grant funding as a U.S. Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence,
tasked with utilizing state-of-the-art theories, methods, and data from the social and behavioral sciences to improve
the understanding of the origins, dynamics, and social and psychological impacts of terrorism. See National
Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), About START,
http://www.start.umd.edu/about/about-start (last visited May 12, 2015).
22

See Larissa Herda, CSRIC IV Working Group Descriptions and Leadership 2-3 (2014),
http://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/pshs/advisory/csric4/CSRIC%20IV%20Working%20Group%20Descriptions%2010
%2023%2014.pdf (last visited Oct. 2, 2015). CSRIC is a federal advisory committee charged with providing
recommendations to the FCC to ensure, among other things, the optimal security and reliability of communications
systems, including telecommunications, media, and public safety systems, subject to the requirements of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA). See 5 USCA § 10.
23

See CSRIC IV, Working Group Two, Wireless Emergency Alerts, Testing Subcommittee, Final Report, at 7, 9
(2014), http://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/advisory/csric4/CSRIC_IV_WG-2_Testing-Rprt_061814.pdf (last visited Apr.
16, 2015) (CSRIC IV WEA Testing Report) (exploring various facets of the current WEA testing paradigm with the
goal of developing an approach that would support an option for state and local “end-to-end” testing); CSRIC IV
WEA Messaging Report (examining the feasibility and desirability of expanding the maximum character limit for
Alert Messages; enhancing Alert Message content with multimedia; and improving WEA geo-targeting).
24

See Government Accountability Office, Emergency Alerting: Capabilities Have Improved, But Additional
Guidance and Testing Are Needed, GAO 13-375 (2013).
25

Fourth generation (4G) mobile telecommunications technology standards include Long Term Evolution (LTE)
and Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (mobile WiMAX). See Implementation of Section 6002(b)
of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993; Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions
With Respect to Mobile Wireless, Including Commercial Mobile Services, WT Docket 15-125, Eighteenth Report,
30 FCC Rcd 14515 (WTB 2015) (2015 Competition Report). “LTE increases the capacity and speed of wireless
networks by redesigning and simplifying the network architecture to transition from the existing combination of
circuit and packet switching to an all-IP architecture system.” See Promoting Interoperability in the 700 MHz
Commercial Spectrum, WT Docket Nos. 12-332, 12-69, Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification, 28
FCC Rcd 15122, 15126-27, para.7 (2013). A “smartphone” is a cellphone and handheld computer that has the
functionality of a personal computer, but is compact, has a high-resolution screen, and supports voice recognition.
See PCMag Encyclopedia, http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/51537/smartphone (last visited May 14,
2015).
26

WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd 13781. We received 104 comments and 8 replies in response to the WEA NPRM.

Amendment of Part 11 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System, Wireless Emergency
Alerts, PS Docket Nos. 15-94, 15-91, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 594 (2016) (Alerting Paradigm
NPRM). We received 71 comments and 7 replies to the Alerting Paradigm NPRM.

Federal Communications Commission
III.

FCC 16-127

REPORT AND ORDER
A.

Alert Message Content
1.

Increasing Maximum Alert Message Length from 90 to 360 Characters
a.

Background

9.
Under Section 10.430 of the Commission’s rules, WEA Alert Messages are limited to 90
characters.28 In the WEA First Report and Order, the Commission concluded that a 90-character limit
was appropriate to serve the public interest “at this initial stage” because it enabled all currently existing
systems (mostly 2G and 3G networks defined herein as “legacy” networks)29 to transmit Alert Messages
with minimal change.30 Further, the Commission reasoned that an initial 90-character limit was advisable
because a person receiving a WEA Alert Message could choose to seek out additional information from
other media sources should the Alert Message be insufficient.31 In the WEA NPRM, we proposed
extending the character limit to 360 for those networks and devices for which it is technically feasible,
while continuing to allow the delivery of 90-character messages on legacy networks and devices.32
10.
The majority of commenters support expanding the maximum character length for Alert
Messages to 360 characters because it will increase the quality of information available to the public
during emergencies and reduce public confusion caused by difficult-to-understand abbreviations.33 Most
commenters agree, however, that legacy networks cannot support transmission of a 360-character
message.34 To address this issue, FEMA recommends that in cases where the alert originator does not
independently generate a 90-character maximum, free-form text message, the Integrated Public Alert and
Warning System (IPAWS) will automatically generate a 90-character maximum message from the CAP
parameters of the Alert Message (such as “hazard,” “location” and “time”) in order to provide a
transmittable Alert Message to customers on legacy networks.35 According to FEMA, this practice is
28

47 CFR § 10.430.

See Legacy Networks, https://www.techopedia.com/definition/25121/legacy-network (last visited May 17, 2016).

WEA First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 6174, para. 83.

See id.

WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13788, para. 9.

See, e.g., AT&T Services Inc. Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 5 (Jan. 13, 2016) (AT&T Comments); T-Mobile
USA, Inc. Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 3 (Jan. 13, 2016) (T-Mobile Comments); Sprint Corporation
Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 3 (Jan. 13, 2016) (Sprint Comments); Verizon Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91,
2 (Jan. 13, 2016) (Verizon Comments); Microsoft Corporation Reply, PS Docket No. 15-91, 2 (Feb. 12, 2016)
(Microsoft Reply); Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. Comments, PS
Docket No. 15-91, 3 (Jan. 13, 2016) (APCO Comments); Wireless RERC Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 6 (Jan.
13, 2016) (Wireless RERC Comments); Letter from Michael E. Gerber, Meteorologist, Office of Communications,
NOAA/National Weather Service to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket
No. 15-91, at 1 (filed May 21, 2015) (NWS May 21, 2015 Ex Parte); Federal Emergency Management Agency
Integrated Public Alert and Warning System Program Management Office Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 1 (Feb.
13, 2016) (FEMA Comments); Disability Advisory Committee Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 1 (Jun. 17, 2016)
(DAC Comments).
34

See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 6-7; T-Mobile Comments at 4; Sprint Comments at 3-4; Microsoft Reply at 2.

See Letter from Mark Lucero, Chief, IPAWS Engineering, FEMA National Continuity Programs, to Marlene
Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 5-6 (filed Jun. 9, 2016) (FEMA
Jun. 9, 2016 Ex Parte); accord AT&T Comments at 6-7 (stating that legacy networks could be supported by
automatically parsing 90-character messages from 360-character messages, but that that operation should be
completed in FEMA IPAWS). This filing amends FEMA’s previous statement that “[i]n no case should the IPAWS
system be responsible for this [message parsing] function.”). See Letter from Alfred Kenyon, IPAWS Engineering
Branch, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed Mar.
(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

consistent with the current ATIS/TIA C-interface specification for how to handle WEA Alert Messages
that do not contain 90-character maximum, free-form text, and could easily be applied to 360-character
maximum Alert Messages that do not contain 90-character maximum, free-form text.36
b.

Discussion

11.
We amend Section 10.430 to expand the character limit for Alert Messages from 90 to
360 characters for 4G-LTE and future networks. A 360-character maximum Alert Message length
balances emergency managers’ needs to communicate more clearly with their communities with the
technical limitations of CMS networks. While Hyper-Reach states that support for “1,000+” characters
would be preferable because it would be consistent with the START Report’s findings that messages
longer than 1,380 characters produce “better outcomes for interpretation, personalization and milling,
than did the standard 90-character WEA message,”37 this approach is not supported by the weight of the
record.38 Beaufort County cautions, for example, that “people will stop reading” Alert Messages once
they get past the second screen of text, diminishing the value of any additional characters that extend
beyond that,39 and moreover, longer Alert Messages may contribute to distracted driving.40 On balance,
(Continued from previous page)
17, 2016) (FEMA Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte). See also infra para. 14 (explaining in further detail how this approach
will work). IPAWS is the Nation’s federal alert and warning system, and is administered by FEMA. See Integrated
Public Alert & Warning System, https://www.fema.gov/integrated-public-alert-warning-system (last visited Aug.
22, 2016).
36

FEMA Jun. 9, 2016 Ex Parte at 5. Some alert origination software may also become able to automatically parse a
90-character Alert from a 360-character Alert Message. See APCO Comments at 4 (“APCO believes that the
software used by public safety alert originators can break up messages as needed, so that consumer devices limited
to 90-character alerts would still be able to receive longer messages as separate alerts until the full message length is
transmitted.”); Clark County Office of Emergency Management Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 1 (Jan. 13, 2016)
(CCOEM Comments) (stating that messaging software providers should make such an option available); Letter from
Tom Crane, Regulatory Counsel, Everbridge, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communication Commission,
PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed May 12, 2016) (Everbridge May 12, 2016 Ex Parte) (stating that “[i]t makes more
sense if IPAWS gateway accepts any length message and parses the message as needed” but also that “Everbridge
software could parse a message into required pieces given appropriate lead time and provide the pieces in the
required order within the XML document; Everbridge recommends IPAWS consider implementing a sequencing
attribute so the consuming applications downstream know the order in which to concatenate the message pieces.”);
Letter from Brian Murray, Emergency Public Information Planner, Harris County Office of Homeland Security &
Emergency Management, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 1591, at 2 (filed Mar. 8, 2016) (revised by erratum) (Harris County OHSEM Mar. 8, 2016 Ex Parte); Indiana
Department of Homeland Security Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 3 (Dec. 14, 2015) (Indiana DHS
Comments); Jefferson Parish Emergency Management Comments, PS Docket 15-91, 1 (Dec. 14, 2015) (Jefferson
Parish EM Comments); New York City Emergency Management Comments, PS Docket 15-91, at 2 (Dec. 29, 2015)
(NYCEM Comments); but see United States Geological Survey Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 1 (Jan. 13, 2016)
(USGS Comments) (stating that this may be undesirable because it would undermine many of the expected benefits
of expanded character length (e.g., jargon would still be needed to express the full message in the first 90
characters)).
37

Sam Asher Computing Services, Inc., dba Hyper-Reach, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 3 (Jan. 13, 2016) (Hyper-Reach
Comments) (Hyper-Reach is a mass notification provider); START Report at 30.
38

See, e.g., T-Mobile Reply, PS Docket No. 15-91, 3 (Feb. 12, 2016) (T-Mobile Reply); Verizon Comments at 6-7;
The Weather Company Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 1 (Feb. 12, 2016) (The Weather Company Comments).
39

See Verizon Comments at 6-7 (stating that “much higher character limits—such as the 1,380 character message
described in the NPRM or the use of multiple-part messages for legacy networks—would require new standards
development as well as network and device upgrades that network vendors may be reluctant to embrace for legacy
networks”); Beaufort County Emergency Management, Fire Marshal & Emergency Services Comments, PS Docket
No. 15-91, 1 (Jan. 12, 2016) (Beaufort County Comments) (reasoning that approximately 280 characters fit on a
mobile device screen); see also Kansas City Emergency Management Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 1 (Dec. 2,
2015) (Kansas City EM Comments).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

we find that a 360-character maximum for Alert Message text “is appropriate for disseminating official,
targeted, immediate, and actionable information.”41 We note that establishing 360 characters as the
maximum character length leaves emergency managers free to issue Alert Messages that are shorter than
360 characters in appropriate situations. We defer to emergency managers’ experience and best practices
to determine the appropriate message length for their particular needs.
12.
We also find that expanding the maximum character length to 360 for 4G-LTE networks
is technically feasible. As we observed in the WEA NPRM, CSRIC IV recommended that the
Commission expand the character limit for WEA Alert Messages on 4G LTE networks to a maximum of
280 characters, pending confirmation by the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS)
that such an increase would be feasible.42 Not only did ATIS’ feasibility study conclude that it was
feasible for 4G-LTE networks to transmit 280-character WEA Alert Messages, but it found that
Participating CMS Providers could transmit 360-character Alert Messages just as easily.43 ATIS found
that transmission of WEA Alert Messages longer than 360 characters, on the other hand, would cause
additional delays in the delivery of the Alert Message and could drain battery life.44 Commenting
Participating CMS Providers and device manufacturers agree.45 In addition to the feasible steps that
compliance with this rule will require Participating CMS Providers to take, FEMA states that the
increased message length will require “software modifications to CAP message authoring tools, IPAWS
OPEN, [and] the ‘C’ Interface.”46 We find that we can achieve our goal of expanding the maximum
(Continued from previous page)
40
See Wyoming Department of Transportation Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 2 (Jan. 13, 2016) (Wyoming DOT
Comments); Beaufort County Comments at 1; see also Letter from Matthew Straeb, Executive Vice President,
Global Security Systems, LLC, to David G. Simpson, Bureau Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 2 (filed Apr. 24, 2015) (Global Security Systems Ex
Parte) (stating that “WEA service is not intended to be a reading service” and should only include pertinent “lifesaving information for the Citizen.”). We urge all consumers to pull over if they receive a WEA Alert Message
while driving and want to read it. See Distraction.gov, http://www.distraction.gov/ (last visited Aug. 29, 2016)
(containing information and guidance on how to stay safe while driving).
41

APCO Comments at 3.

See CSRIC IV WEA Messaging Report at 44.

See ATIS, Feasibility Study for LTE WEA Message Length 18-19 (2015) (ATIS Feasibility Study for LTE WEA
Message Length).
44

Id. at 17-18.

See AT&T Comments at 6 (“The use of 360 characters as described in the ATIS (Alliance for
Telecommunications Industry Solutions) Feasibility Study is a compromise solution that delivers a longer message
to the user without adding significant delays in its delivery.”); T-Mobile Comments at 3 (“T-Mobile supports
expanding the maximum permissible length of WEA messages from 90 to 360 characters of alphanumeric text for
4G LTE and future network technologies.”); Sprint Comments at 3 (“Based on the CSRIC IV recommendations, it
may be appropriate to expand the maximum permissible length of WEA messages for LTE technologies.”); Verizon
Comments at 2 (“Expanding alerts to a 360-character maximum for LTE-enabled networks and devices is
technically feasible and in the public interest to enable alert originators to provide additional emergency information
to consumers.”); Verizon Comments at 2 (“Expanding alerts to a 360-character maximum for LTE-enabled networks
and devices is technically feasible and in the public interest to enable alert originators to provide additional
emergency information to consumers.”); see also, e.g., Microsoft Reply at 2 (“Microsoft is not opposed to the
expansion of alert lengths to 360 characters for LTE-capable devices on LTE networks in accordance with standards
once they are developed and to the extent all the technical and implementation issues are resolved.”).
46

FEMA Comments at 2. CSRIC IV observes that these standards and associated supplements would include, but
are not limited to, the following: (1) ATIS-0700008 (Cell Broadcast Entity (CBE) to Cell Broadcast Center (CBC)
Interface Specification); (2) ATIS-0700010 (CMAS via EPS Public Warning System Specification); (3) ATIS0700014 (Implementation Guidelines for CMAS Handling of CMAS, Supplemental Information Broadcast); (4) JSTD-100 (ATIS/TIA Mobile Device Behavior Specification); (5) J-STD-101 (Joint ATIS/TIA CMAS Federal Alert
Gateway to CMSP Gateway Interface Specification); (6) J-STD-102 (Joint ATIS/TIA CMAS Federal Alert Gateway
(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

character limit for WEA Alert Messages on 4G-LTE networks without presenting WEA stakeholders with
undue technical burdens.
13.
We also find, however, that we should continue to allow Participating CMS Providers to
transmit 90-character Alert Messages on legacy networks until those networks are retired. While many
public safety commenters, including APCO and Harris County OSHEM, state that it would be feasible
and desirable to support 360-character Alert Messages on legacy networks by linking together
(concatenating) multiple 90-character messages,47 we are convinced by AT&T that message
concatenation would be problematic because “[m]essages are not guaranteed to be received by the device
in the correct order,” which would likely cause confusion that would be exacerbated during the pendency
of multiple alerts.48 Further, according to AT&T, concatenating 90-character Alert Messages on legacy
networks would have an adverse effect on mobile device battery life.49 T-Mobile, Sprint and Microsoft
agree that, unlike 4G-LTE networks, it would be infeasible to expand the character limit for legacy
networks due to the technical limitations of those networks, and because of financial disincentives to
continue to update networks that will soon be retired.50 The risks that public confusion and other
complications would result from Alert Message concatenation are too great for public safety messaging
where the potential for panic is heightened, and the consequences of misinterpretation could be deadly.
14.
Emergency managers will be free to transmit an Alert Message containing as many as
360 characters as of the rules’ implementation date.51 FEMA IPAWS will make this possible, while also
(Continued from previous page)
to CMSP Gateway Interface Test Specification); (7) 3GPP TS 23.041 (3GPP Technical realization of Cell Broadcast
Service (CBS)); and (8) OASIS CAP v1.2 (IPAWS Profile for the OASIS Common Alerting Protocol IPAWS
USA). See CSRIC IV WEA Messaging Report at 50.
47

See Letter from Jeffrey S. Cohen, Chief Counsel, Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials, to
Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed Mar. 22, 2016)
(APCO Mar. 22, 2016 Ex Parte) (stating that “carriers should automatically concatenate and label messages
appropriately” and stating further that “it may be possible that alert origination software products could perform this
function”); Letter from Harris County Office of Homeland Security & Emergency Management, to Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, at 2 (filed Mar. 7, 2016) (Harris County OSHEM Mar. 7, 2016 Ex
Parte). (“Harris County supports the option of releasing four concatenated messages”); Indiana DHS Comments at 3
(“The ability to send multiple 90 character WEAs in the interim would be a workable solution from the alerting
agency's perspective.”); Jefferson Parish EM Comments at 1 (“If technology allows please let 90 characters phones
receive multiple messages to receive the full 360 characters.”); NYCEM Comments at 2; cf. Letter From David
Blonder, Director, Legal Counsel, Regulatory and Privacy, BlackBerry Corporation, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed Mar. 21, 2016) (Blackberry Mar. 21, 2016
Ex Parte) (noting that Alert Message concatenation would not contribute to alert delivery latency).
48

See Letter from William L. Roughton, Counsel, AT&T Services Inc., to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed Mar. 17, 2016) (AT&T Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte).;
AT&T Comments at 8; T-Mobile Reply at 4; Microsoft Reply at 2.
49

See AT&T Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte at 1.

See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 7 (“[T]hese networks cannot receive 360-character WEA messages.”); T-Mobile
Comments at 4 (“90-character limit on WEA messages on 2G and 3G networks . . . should be maintained due to
limitations on these networks and the rapid transition of consumers to 4G LTE.”); Sprint Comments at 5; Microsoft
Reply at 2. These commenters also state that an approach based on concatenation would be infeasible. See AT&T
Comments at 6-7; T-Mobile Comments at 4; Sprint Comments at 3-4; Microsoft Reply at 2.
51

See infra Section III.D (Compliance Timeframes). Where the alert originator provides no free-form 90-character
maximum text, IPAWS’ existing capabilities will automatically generate a 90-character maximum Alert Message
from the CAP fields of a 360-character free-form message. FEMA Jun. 9, 2016 Ex Parte at 5. We note that many
emergency managers have expressed a desire to send two separate free-form messages under this rule; our approach
affords emergency managers to do so where they so choose. See, e.g., Hyper-Reach Comments at 2, 3 (stating that
superior message quality will result if emergency management agencies retain responsibility for message creation
because emergency management agencies have the most knowledge about public safety messaging, and will better
(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

ensuring that all community members in the target area, including those on legacy networks, can receive
an Alert Message, by automatically generating a 90-character Alert Message from the CAP fields of a
360-character message for distribution on legacy networks whenever an emergency manager transmits
only a 360-character Alert Message.52 Once a CMS network is able to support 360-character messages, it
will cease to receive the 90-character version, and begin to receive the full 360-character version
instead.53 CSRIC IV and FEMA attest that this co-existence of 90- and 360-character Alert Messages is
technically feasible.54 Indeed, FEMA IPAWS already treats Alert Messages that do not contain free-form
text in this manner, and their approach is consistent with the methodology that the Participating CMS
Provider Alert Gateway will use to process Alert Messages in multiple languages.55 For example, if
FEMA IPAWS receives an Alert Message today without free-form text, it will use the CAP parameters
[hazard][location][time][guidance][source] to generate Alert Message text along the lines of “Tornado
Warning in this area until 6:30 PM. Take Shelter. Check Local Media. –NWS.”56 The CMS Provider
Alert Gateway will send the longer free-form message to devices on 4G-LTE networks, and the
automatically generated 90-character Alert Message to mobile devices on legacy networks.57 This is
illustrated as “Scenario 4” in Figure 2 below.58 This figure illustrates that, pursuant to the approach we
(Continued from previous page)
suited for creating two separate and effective messages than would Participating CMS Providers or FEMA); Letter
from Michael Gerber, Program Analyst, Office of Dissemination, NOAA/National Weather Service, to Marlene
Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed Mar. 9, 2016) (NWS
Mar. 9, 2016 Ex Parte) (concluding that they would “prefer to provide both a freeform 360 and 90 character
message for 4G LTE networks and legacy networks, respectively.”).
52

See FEMA Jun. 9, 2016 Ex Parte at 5.

Id.; see also FEMA Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte Letter (“Under CAP parameters, there is a single identification
number for each alert message. A single alert message may contain both 90 and 360 character message elements for
display on WEA capable devices. Devices would process both and display a message dependent upon the device
capability and the network to which the devices are connected. Each character length message may have a unique
identifier that a device would identify. A device on a 4G LTE network would get both messages and display the
correct message, while a legacy network would only receive a 90 character message.”).
54

CSRIC IV supports the coexistence of different message-length standards for legacy and 4G networks. Cf. CSRIC
IV WEA Messaging Report at 44 (“It is recommended that the industry modify existing CMAS/WEA standards to
support coexistence of both the legacy 90 characters of displayable text for use on 2nd and 3rd Generation CMS
Provider Infrastructure, and a message length of 280 displayable characters for 4G LTE CMS Provider
Infrastructure including the addressing of backward compatibility issues.”); see also FEMA Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte
Letter (“Under CAP parameters, there is a single identification number for each alert message. A single alert
message may contain both 90 and 360 character message elements for display on WEA capable devices. Devices
would process both and display a message dependent upon the device capability and the network to which the
devices are connected. Each character length message may have a unique identifier that a device would identify. A
device on a 4G LTE network would get both messages and display the correct message, while a legacy network
would only receive a 90 character message.”).
55

See FEMA Jun. 9, 2016 Ex Parte at 5 (stating, as well, that “[f]rom the CMSP Gateway perspective, this
methodology is identical to the working proposal for Spanish language message retrieval”).
56

Annex A of the Joint ATIS/TIA Federal Alert Gateway to CMSP Gateway Interface Specification (J-STD-101)
contains guidelines for the generation of the alert message in English from the CAP parameters, identifies the CAP
parameters to be used for the message generation, and associates CAP parameter values with the recommended
phrase for the alert message. Annex A of the ATIS Implementation Guidelines for CMAS Supplemental Information
Retrieval (ATIS-0700012) contains similar guidelines for the generation of Spanish alert messages from the CAP
message. See CSRIC IV WEA Messaging Report at 17.
57

This is the same approach that FEMA IPAWS currently takes to generating a 90-character Alert Message from the
CAP parameters of an Alert Message that contains no free-form text.
58

See infra Figure 2 (Our Approach to Expanding the Character Limit).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

adopt today, no matter how an alert originator transmits a WEA Alert Message, members of their
community in the target area will receive a version of it.

Figure. 2: Our Approach to Expanding the Character Limit
15.
Increasing the maximum character length for WEA Alert Messages will produce valuable
public safety benefits. Emergency managers state that the current 90-character limit is insufficient to
communicate clearly with the public because 90-character Alert Messages rely on difficult-to-understand
jargon and abbreviations.59 Expanding the character limit will reduce reliance on these potentially
confusing terms and will allow emergency managers to provide their communities with information that
is clear and effective at encouraging swift protective action. 60 The value of this benefit will be increased
59

See Wireless RERC Comments, PS Docket 15-91, at 7 (Jan. 13, 2016) (Wireless RERC Comments); San
Francisco International Airport Safety & Security Services Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 1 (Jan. 13, 2016) (San
Francisco Int’l Airport Safety & Security Services Comments); California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 2 (Dec. 14, 2015) (California Governor’s OES Comments); Eagle County,
Colorado Emergency Management Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 1 (Jan. 12, 2016) (Eagle County EM
Comments); NYCEM Comments at 3.
60

See, e.g., Florida Department of Law Enforcement Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 1 (Jan. 20, 2016) (Florida
Dept. of Law Enforcement Comments); Winnebago County Emergency Management Comments, PS Docket No.
15-91, 1 (Nov. 23, 2015) (Winnebago County EM Comments); Denver Office of Emergency Management and
Homeland Security Comments, PS Docket 15-91, at 1 (Dec. 9, 2015) (Denver OEMHS Comments); City of Austin
Homeland Security and Emergency Management Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 2 (Jan. 13, 2016) (Austin
HSEM Comments); CCOEM Comments at 1; City of Houston Office of Public Safety and Homeland Security
Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 2 (Jan. 12, 2016) (Houston OPHS Comments); Jefferson Parish EM Comments
at 1; International Association of Firefighters Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 1 (Jan. 6, 2016) (IAFC Comments);
(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

when taken together with several of the improvements that we adopt in this Report and Order. For
example, according to Jefferson Parish Emergency Management, the additional characters are necessary
to adequately communicate critical information, such as shelter locations, that could prevent unnecessary
loss of life and property damage.61 The additional characters will also support the inclusion of embedded
references in Alert Messages,62 help facilitate message comprehension for individuals with disabilities,63
and will facilitate the translation of English-language Alert Messages into the Spanish language.64
Further, our approach to the co-existence of 90- and 360-character Alert Messages has the additional
benefit of ensuring that emergency managers will be able to simply initiate one 360-character Alert
Message in instances where every second counts.65 In sum, this action will improve the likelihood that
the public will understand and properly respond to WEA Alert Messages, increasing the likelihood that
WEA will save lives.
2.

Establishment of a New Alert Message Classification (Public Safety
Messages)
a.

Background

16.
Section 10.400 of the Commission’s WEA rules provides for three classes of WEA:
(1) Presidential Alert; (2) Imminent Threat Alert; and (3) AMBER Alert.66 For an alert originator to issue
an Alert Message using WEA, it must fall within one of these three classifications.67 The Commission
adopted these requirements in the WEA First Report and Order because it found that adopting additional
classes of Alert Messages, such as traffic advisories, would be inconsistent with the WARN Act’s
direction to the Commission to enable an “emergency” alerting system, and because if the public were to
(Continued from previous page)
County of San Joaquin Office of Emergency Services Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 1 (Dec. 23, 2015) (San
Joaquin OES Comments); Ventura County Sheriff Office of Emergency Services Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91,
1 (Dec. 21, 2015) (Ventura County Sheriff EMS Comments).
61

See, e.g., Jefferson Parish EM Comments at 1; Indiana DHS Comments at 3; Pinellas County Emergency
Management Comments, PS Docket 15-91, 3 (Jan. 13, 2016) (Pinellas County EM Comments). Such information
would be helpful to include in “Public Safety Messages,” a new Alert Message classification we adopt today. See
infra Section III.A.2 (Establishment of a New Alert Message Classification).
62

City of Lexington, Division of Emergency Management Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 1 (Jan. 11, 2016)
(Lexington Division of Emergency Management Comments); see also infra Section III.A.3 (Supporting Embedded
References).
63

See Letter from Wireless RERC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Re:
Open Proceedings of the Emergency Alert System and the Commercial Mobile Alert System, April 25, 2011 at 28
(indicating that 46 percent of survey participants who were deaf found the 90-character message length “too short”),
http://www.wirelessrerc.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Ex%20Parte%20WEC%20filing%20%28final%2
9.doc; http://www.wirelessrerc.gatech.edu/content/publications/emergency-communications-and-people-disabilities
(last visited June 19, 2015); DAC Comments at 1. We note that this proceeding addresses, but does not close
accessibility issues that we raised in the Alerting Paradigm NPRM. See generally, Alerting Paradigm NPRM, 31
FCC Rcd 594, paras. 95-97.
64

More characters tend to be required to communicate a concept in Spanish than in English. See Why Spanish Uses
More Words than English, Transfluent, available at https://www.transfluent.com/fi/2015/07/why-spanish-usesmore-words-than-english-an-analysis-of-expansion-and-contraction/ (last visited Mar. 29, 2016); see also infra
Section III.A.4 (Supporting Spanish-language Alert Messages).
65

NYCEM recognizes that if emergency managers were to be required to initiate both 90- and 360-character Alert
Messages, as permitted by the CAP standard, the potential for message delivery delays could be particularly acute
for emergency management agencies that are short-staffed. NYCEM Mar. 8, 2016 Ex Parte at 2; Hyper Reach
Comments at 3.
66

47 CFR § 10.400.

Id.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

receive alerts that did not relate to bona fide emergencies, it would risk increasing consumer opt out.68 In
the WEA NPRM, we proposed to add a fourth Alert Message classification, “Emergency Government
Information,” defined as an essential public safety advisory that prescribes one or more actions likely to
save lives and/or safeguard property.69 The WEA NPRM proposed to allow Participating CMS Providers
to enable consumers to opt out of receiving this new Alert Message classification through existing
settings on their devices, and sought comment on appropriate contexts for sending such Alert Messages.70
17.
AT&T and the majority of emergency managers support creating a new Alert Message
71
classification. Some commenters, including FEMA, support the creation of a new Alert Message
classification, but suggest modifications to our proposed approach.72 A cross-section of commenters,
including the majority of Participating CMS Providers and some emergency managers, urge the
Commission to instead clarify that the types of Alert Messages that emergency managers want to issue
under a new Alert Message classification can be issued as Imminent Threat Alerts.73
b.

Discussion

18.
We amend Section 10.400 to create a fourth classification of Alert Message, “Public
Safety Message.” Whereas we proposed to name this new Alert Message classification “Emergency
Government Information” in the WEA NPRM, we agree with FEMA that it should be named “Public
Safety Message” because the title “Emergency Government Information” is “vague and could be
confusing,” and because FEMA’s recommended title more accurately describes the intended message
content.74 We define a Public Safety Message as “an essential public safety advisory that prescribes one
or more actions likely to save lives and/or safeguard property,” as we proposed.75 By defining Public
68

WEA First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 6155-56, para. 27.

WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13792, para. 18.

Id. at 13793-94, paras. 19, 21.

See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 11; Hyper-Reach Comments at 3; APCO Comments at 5; AWARN Coalition
Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 4 (Dec. 14, 2015) (AWARN Coalition Comments); Clarion County Office of
Emergency Services Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 1 (Nov. 25, 2015) (Clarion County OES Comments);
NYCEM Comments at 5; City of Peoria Emergency Communications Center Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 1
(Jan. 7, 2016) (Peoria ECC Comments); Ashtabula County Emergency Management Agency, PS Docket No. 15-91,
2 (Dec. 14, 2015) (Ashtabula County EMA Comments); California Governor’s OES Comments at 3; USGS
Comments at 1.
72

See, e.g., FEMA Comments at 2 (“[R]ecommending that this new Alert Message classification be called a “Public
Safety Message”); NYCEM Comments at 5 (recommending that our definition of this new Alert Message
classification hinge on an emergency managers’ opinion about whether it is appropriate to send an alert, and stating
that it should include a stipulation that the Alert Message be “time sensitive); Hyper-Reach Comments at 3 (stating
that the Commission should clarify that “permitted messages include those designed to prevent sickness and
promote public safety in general, in addition to saving lives and safeguarding property”).
73

See Boulder Regional Emergency Telephone Services Authority Comments, PS Docket 15-91, at 15 (Jan. 13,
2016) (BRETSA Comments) (stating that “WEA should be reserved for Imminent Threat Alerts” and that “[t]here
are other notification tools which can fill the need of emergency government information such as boil water
alerts.”); T-Mobile Comments at 5; Sprint Comments at 6-7; Microsoft Reply at 4; Alliance for Telecommunications
Industry Solutions Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 9 (Jan. 13, 2016) (ATIS Comments); Cellular Telephone
Industries Association, PS Docket No. 15-91, 10 (Jan. 14, 2016) (CTIA Comments); NWS Comments at 2-3; San
Joaquin OES Comments at 1; NYCEM Comments at 5; BRETSA Comments at 15; Douglas County, WA
Emergency Management Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (Jan. 11, 2016) (Douglas County EMA Comments);
Beaufort County Comments at 2; CCOEM Comments at 1; San Francisco Int’l Airport Safety & Security Services
Comments at 1.
74

See FEMA Comments at 2.

See WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13792-93, para. 18; see also infra para. 22 (explaining that while a Public Safety
Message may be as essential to public safety as an Imminent Threat Alert, it would not be appropriate to issue
(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

Safety Messages in this way and by tailoring their use as we describe below, we strike an appropriate
balance between some commenters’ requests for discretion in the use of this new Alert Message
classification,76 and others’ warnings that Public Safety Messages may be overused and contribute to alert
fatigue if they are defined in an over-inclusive manner.77
19.
Public Safety Messages will only be eligible for issuance in connection with an Imminent
Threat Alert, an AMBER Alert, or a Presidential Alert, as recommended by AT&T, CTIA and several
emergency management agencies.78 We agree with Mason County EM that “if this category were utilized
as a standalone alerting classification . . . it would desensitize the public” to the urgency of response to
WEA Alert Messages.79 In this way, we do not expand the definition of an “emergency” situation in
which it is appropriate to issue an Alert Message, but add a tool to emergency managers’ alerting toolkit
to improve their ability to communicate with the public during and after emergencies in a manner that
naturally complements existing Alert Message classifications. We note that several commenters state that
our new Alert Message classification should be eligible for issuance even in the absence of another Alert
Message type.80 If we were to allow Public Safety Messages to stand alone, however, it would expand the
definition of an “emergency” during which the issuance of a WEA Alert Message is appropriate, contrary
to our reasoning in the WEA First Report and Order that the existing Alert Message classifications are
sufficient to communicate information about “bona fide emergencies.”81 Further, we believe that a
broader definition of an “emergency” would risk increasing alert fatigue and consumer opt out.

(Continued from previous page)
Public Safety Messages as Imminent Threat Alerts because the required elements of “urgency,” “severity” and
“certainty” describe the underlying alert condition, not the supplemental instructions that Public Safety Messages are
intended to provide).
76

NYCEM Comments at 5 (stating that the Commission should adopt a broader definition of Public Safety
Messages to encompass “advisories that, in the opinion of the alert originator, provide time-sensitive information
about an emergency condition or situation to promote the public’s situational awareness”); Jefferson Parish EM
Comments at 2 (stating that a new Alert Message classification should be a “catch-all alert [for] non-previously
categorized messages”); Houston OPHS Comments at 2 (“This additional category would serve as a “catch-all” for
appropriate, actionable, life-saving information that may not be currently available in WEA”); Hyper-Reach
Comments at 3 (requesting that we clarify that “messages designed to prevent sickness and promote public safety in
general, in addition to saving lives and safeguarding property” are appropriate for issuance as Public Safety
Messages).
77

See, e.g., Indiana DHS Comments at 3; Jefferson Parish EM Comments at 2; Douglas County EMA Comments at
1; See CCOEM Comments at 1; see also APCO Comments at 5 (“APCO encourages the Commission to adopt and
apply a definition that prevents expanding use of WEA too far.”).
78

See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 11 (stating that the new Alert Message classification should be directly related to a
WEA alert); Mason County EM Comments at 1; accord CTIA Comments at 10 (stating that use of a new Alert
Message classification should be limited to imminent threats); Matanuska-Susitna Borough Comments, PS Docket
15-91, at 1 (Dec. 2, 2015) (Matanuska-Susitna Borough Comments).
79

Mason County EM Comments at 1.

See, e.g., NYCEM Comments at 6 (“Instead, the Commission should develop guidelines that permit alert
originators to use this message class if, in its opinion, a condition requires an acute level of individual awareness or
action as a result of an emergency condition”); Jefferson Parish EM Comments at 2; Houston OPHS Comments at 2;
CCOEM Comments at 1; Vail Public Safety Communications Center and Vail Police Department Comments, PS
Docket 15-91, 1 (Dec. 15, 2015) (Vail PSCC and PD Comments); Osage County Emergency Management Agency
Comments, PS Docket 15-91, 1 (Nov. 25, 2015) (Osage County EMA Comments); see also Verizon Comments at
10; CTIA Comments at 10; Indiana DHS Comments at 3.
81

WEA First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 6155-56, para. 27.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

20.
Any entity authorized to use WEA may initiate Public Safety Messages. Some
commenters state that we should limit eligibility to issue Public Safety Messages to government entities.82
This may be because it would not make sense for non-governmental entities to issue Alert Messages
under our proposed title, “Emergency Government Information.” Moreover, we agree with the majority
of emergency managers treating the issue that all entities that have completed FEMA IPAWS alert
originator authorization process may send Public Safety Messages.83 We thus defer to FEMA, as we have
done since WEA’s deployment, to determine the suitability of agencies as WEA alert originators.84
21.
Within this framework, we agree with commenters that the development of best practices
around the use of Public Safety Messages will help ensure that this new Alert Message classification is
used appropriately.85 NYCEM offers a number of best practices that would help inform emergency
managers’ determination of whether it is appropriate to send a Public Safety Message. These best
practices include answering the following questions prior to initiating a Public Safety Message: “‘Is your
emergency operations center activated?’ ‘Has a competent, authorized party declared a state of
emergency and/or are emergency orders being issued?’ ‘Is there a need for broad public action or
awareness of a condition that is occurring or likely to occur?’ ‘Will the message prevent public fear or
serve to preserve critical public safety functions that are (or could be) overwhelmed (e.g., inappropriate
use of 911)?’”86 We encourage emergency management agencies to build upon these best practices and
incorporate them into any alert origination training modules that they may develop for their staff. We
expect that emergency managers will be best positioned to determine the specific situations in which it is
appropriate to issue Public Safety Messages. We will monitor the use of this new Alert Message
classification, and will take further action in the event it becomes evident that our adopted definition is
either too narrow or too broad.
22.
We do not agree with commenters that, rather than create a new Alert Message
classification, we should clarify that the types of Alert Messages that would be issued as Public Safety
82

See, e.g., Pinellas County EM Comments at 5; Cochise County Office of Emergency Services Comments, PS
Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (Dec. 7, 2015) (Cochise County OES Comments).
83

See, e.g., Nebraska State Emergency Communication Committee Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (Dec. 17,
2015) (Nebraska SECC Comments); Douglas County EMA Comments at 1; Vail PSCC and PD Comments at 1.
84

Under FEMA guidelines, a federal, state, local, tribal or territorial entity that applies for authority for the use of
the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) is designated as a Collaborative Operating Group (COG)
by the IPAWS Program Management Office. A COG may have members from multiple jurisdictions with each
individual member account administered through its software system. Before a public safety entity may generate
WEA alert messages through IPAWS, it must undergo a four-step process administered by FEMA. First, an
organization must procure IPAWS compatible software. Second, to become a COG, a Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) must be executed between the sponsoring organization and FEMA. MOAs govern system security. Third,
alerting authorities that wish to send alerts to the public through IPAWS must complete an application defining the
types of alerts they intend to issue and the prescribed geographic warning area. Fourth, alerting authorities must
complete FEMA’s IPAWS web-based training, which includes skills to draft appropriate warning messages and best
practices for effective use of CAP. Once these steps are completed, alerting permissions will be implemented in
IPAWS, and the alerting entity will be able to send alerts and warnings in the geographically prescribed areas. See
FEMA, How to Sign Up for IPAWS, https://www.fema.gov/how-sign-ipaws (last visited May 14, 2015). Several
PSAPs have obtained alerting authority to generate WEA alert messages through IPAWS. See FEMA, Integrated
Public Alert & Warning System Authorities, https://www.fema.gov/integrated-public-alert-warning-systemauthorities (last visited May 8, 2015).
85

See, e.g., Microsoft Reply at 4; APCO Comments at 5; CTIA Comments at 11; Chester County Emergency
Management Agency Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (Dec. 18, 2015) (Chester County EMA Comments);
NYCEM Comments at 6; Lexington Division of Emergency Management Comments at 2; Pinellas County EM
Comments at 5; Cochise County OES Comments at 1; California Governor’s OES Comments at 3.
86

See NYCEM Comments at 6.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

Messages can be issued as Imminent Threat Alerts.87 The term “Imminent Threat Alert” is defined in our
rules as “an alert that meets a minimum value for each of three CAP elements: Urgency, Severity, and
Certainty.”88 Public Safety Messages would not fit within this definition because the “severity” and
“urgency” elements of an Imminent Threat Alert describe the underlying imminently threatening
emergency condition, whereas Public Safety Messages are intended to provide supplemental instructions
about how to protect life or property during an AMBER Alert, Presidential Alert, or Imminent Threat
Alert. We anticipate that this separate and broader applicability for Public Safety Messages will make
them more versatile emergency management tools than if we were to limit such Alert Messages to the
preexisting definition of an Imminent Threat Alert.
23.
In addition to tailoring the scope of emergency managers’ use of Public Safety Messages,
we also take steps to ensure that the public receives Public Safety Messages in an appropriate manner.
Specifically, we amend Section 10.280 to specify that Participating CMS Providers shall provide for their
subscribers to receive Public Safety Messages by default, and may provide their subscribers with the
option to opt out of receiving Public Safety Messages if they decide that they no longer wish to receive
them.89 We agree with the majority of commenters that the public should be opted in to receiving Public
Safety Messages by default because the information that they provide is essential by definition.90 We
agree with Hyper-Reach that treating Public Safety Messages in this manner ensures that a greater
percentage of the public will receive the information that Public Safety Messages are intended to provide
than would be possible if the public were opted out of receiving Public Safety Messages by default.91
24.
Further, we allow, but do not require Participating CMS Providers to associate a unique
attention signal or vibration cadence with Public Safety Messages. We agree with ATIS that requiring a
new, unique attention signal and vibration cadence could create “significant technical impacts” for

See BRETSA Comments at 15; T-Mobile Comments at 5; Sprint Comments at 6-7; Microsoft Reply at 4; ATIS
Comments at 9; CTIA Comments at 10; NWS Comments at 2-3; San Joaquin OES Comments at 1; NYCEM
Comments at 5; BRETSA Comments at 15; Douglas County EMA Comments at 1; Beaufort County Comments at
2; CCOEM Comments at 1; San Francisco Int’l Airport Safety & Security Services Comments at 1.
88

See 47 CFR § 10.400(b) (further defining each of the elements as follows, “(1) Urgency - The CAP Urgency
element must be either Immediate (i.e., responsive action should be taken immediately) or Expected (i.e., responsive
action should be taken soon, within the next hour); (2) Severity - The CAP Severity element must be either Extreme
(i.e., an extraordinary threat to life or property) or Severe (i.e., a significant threat to life or property); (3) Certainty The CAP Certainty element must be either Observed (i.e., determined to have occurred or to be ongoing) or Likely
(i.e., has a probability of greater than 50 percent)”).
89

See WARN Act § 602(b)(2)(E), 47 USC § 1202(b)(2)(E) (“Any commercial mobile service licensee electing to
transmit emergency alerts may offer subscribers the capability of preventing the subscriber’s device from receiving
such alerts, or classes of such alerts, other than an alert issued by the President.”). In the case that currently
deployed legacy devices are not able to receive software updates sufficient to provide consumers with an
independent option to opt-out of receiving Public Safety Messages, Participating CMS Providers may associate
consumers’ preference for receiving Public Safety Messages with their preference for receiving Imminent Threat
Alerts only until those devices are retired. We reason that while Public Safety Messages may also be issued in
connection with other Alert Message types, they are particularly likely to be issued in connection with Imminent
Threat Alerts, as illustrated by use cases commenters have offered into the record. See, e.g., Pinellas County EM
Comments at 4. All new devices and devices eligible for software updates should independently present consumers
with the option to opt out of receiving Public Safety Messages pursuant to the rule we adopt today.
90

See, e.g., Vail PSCC and PD Comments at 1; California Governor’s OES Comments at 3; CCOEM Comments at
1; Houston OPHS Comments at 2; Jefferson Parish EM Comments at 2; Cochise County OES Comments at 1;
Pinellas County EM Comments at 5; Fort Riley Emergency Management Comments, PS Docket 15-91, 1 (Dec. 10,
2015) (Fort Riley EM Comments); NYCEM Comments at 7; but see Chester County EMA Comments at 1.
91

See Hyper-Reach Comments at 5 (stating that “current opt-in programs for emergency alerts rarely succeed in
getting even 10% participation”).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

currently deployed WEA-capable mobile devices.92 We also agree with FEMA, however, that “the option
to silence alerts that do not present an immediate threat” may have value in reducing consumer opt out.93
By allowing Participating CMS Providers to offer this functionality, we allow the market to determine
whether or not any costs that may be implicated by these personalization options are outweighed by the
benefits. Similarly, we will allow, but do not require Participating CMS Providers to provide their
customers with the ability to turn off Public Safety Messages during certain hours. For example, if
customers want to receive Public Safety Messages, but only during the daytime, they may be given the
option to suppress the presentation of Public Safety Messages during nighttime hours.
25.
APCO and many emergency management agencies support our creation of a new Alert
Message classification because it “will enable public safety alert originators to take advantage of WEA
when helpful, as compared to less secure and less immediate methods they may be employing
presently.”94 We agree with commenters that adding a new Alert Message classification will allow
emergency managers to expand their “capabilities of informing the public . . . to keep the residents and
community safe and aware of potential situations” during and after emergencies in a manner that
complements existing Alert Message classifications.95 We also agree with Peoria County EMA that a
new classification of Alert Messages would allow emergency managers to include specific secondary
information, like shelter locations and other helpful disaster recovery instructions in WEA for the first
time.96 Finally, we agree with commenters and CSRIC IV that it is technically feasible to support the
transmission of this new Alert Message classification provided the sufficient time that we allow industry
to update relevant standards.97
3.

Supporting Embedded References and Multimedia
a.

Background

26.
The Commission’s rules provide minimum technical requirements for text-based WEA
Alert Messages.98 The rules do not include technical requirements for WEA Alert Messages that contain
multimedia. Under Section 10.440 of the Commission’s WEA rules, Participating CMS Providers are
92

See ATIS Comments at 9-10; T-Mobile Comments at 5.

FEMA Comments at 2.

APCO Comments at 5; see also Fort Riley EM Comments at 1; United States Coast Guard Comments, PS Docket
No. 15-91, 10 (Jan. 13, 2016) (US Coast Guard Comments); Indiana DHS Comments at 3; Vail PSCC and PD
Comments at 1; cf. Verizon Comments at 10 (opposing the addition of a new classification but stating that if the
Commission does elect to create a new category, it be “subject to the stringent criteria the CSRIC IV
recommended.”).
95

Clarion County OEM at 1; see also, e.g., AT&T Comments at 11 (stating that the new Alert Message
classification should “be a standalone message generated from credentialed, authorized, and trained alert originators,
but directly related to a WEA Alert”); APCO Comments at 5 (“APCO supports this new category, and the
Commission’s proposed definition”); Los Angeles Emergency Management Department Comments, PS Docket No.
15-91, 1 (Jan. 13, 2016) (Los Angeles EMD Comments) (“This new class of alerts greatly expands our ability to
send alerts that may not necessarily fall into the original three categories.”); Hyper-Reach Comments at 3; AWARN
Coalition Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 4 (Dec. 14, 2015) (AWARN Coalition Comments); NYCEM
Comments at 5; City of Peoria Emergency Communications Center Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 1 (Jan. 7,
2016) (Peoria ECC Comments); Ashtabula County Emergency Management Agency, PS Docket No. 15-91, 2 (Dec.
14, 2015) (Ashtabula County EMA Comments); California Governor’s OES Comments at 3; USGS Comments at 1;
California Governor’s OES Comments at 3; Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Comments, PS
Docket No. 15-91, 11 (Jan. 13, 2016) (TDI Comments).
96

Peoria ECC Comments at 1.

See CSRIC IV WEA Messaging Report at 46-47; T-Mobile Comments at 5 (stating that updates to 3GPP standards
may also be needed); Sprint Comments at 6-7; ATIS Comments at 9-10; CTIA Comments at 10.
98

See 47 CFR §§ 10.400 – 10.470.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

also prohibited from distributing non-Presidential Alert Messages that contain embedded references (i.e.,
phone numbers or Uniform Reference Locators (URLs)).99 In the WEA First Report and Order, we
declined to require Participating CMS Providers to support multimedia or embedded references in Alert
Messages because of the limitations of cellular broadcast technology at the time, and because a concern
that permitting embedded references’ inclusion in Alert Messages could exacerbate wireless network
congestion.100 The WEA NPRM proposed to allow the inclusion of embedded references in WEA Alert
Messages, and sought comment on whether it would serve the public interest to adopt rules governing the
provision of multimedia-enabled Alert Messages.101 The WEA NPRM also took note of the strong record
demonstrating that the benefits of embedded references would be particularly pronounced if allowed in
WEA AMBER Alerts.102
27.
The majority of commenters, including emergency managers, alert origination software
vendors, mass notification providers and individuals, support including embedded references in all WEA
messages because the availability of URLs could transform the scope of WEA from a character-limited
text message service to a multimedia-enabled, comprehensive disaster response resource,103 and because
phone numbers in WEA Alert Messages could help people to take rapid action to streamline incident
reporting.104 Conversely, Participating CMS Providers treating this issue state that including embedded
references in Alert Messages risks data network congestion,105 but have offered no support for their claim.
99

47 CFR § 10.440. Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) are the fundamental network identification for any
resource connected to the web, and are used to specify addresses on the Internet in the following format:
“protocol://hostname/other information.” See Indiana University, Knowledge Base, What is a URL?,
https://kb.iu.edu/d/adnz (last visited May 12, 2015).
100

See WEA First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 6161, para. 43; see also id. at 6175, para. 85.

101

WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13795, para. 25; see also id. at 13798, para. 30.

102

Id. at 13796, para. 27.

103

See Hyper-Reach Comments at 3; APCO Comments at 6; Wireless RERC Comments at 15; NWS Comments at
1; City of Henderson, Nevada Office of Emergency Management Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 1 (Dec. 15,
2015) (Henderson OEM Comments); NYCEM Comments at 9; Pinellas County EM Comments at 5; Mason County
Emergency Management Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 1 (Dec. 21, 2015) (Mason County Emergency
Management Comments); Peoria ECC Comments at 1; Cochise County OES Comments at 2; Douglas County EMA
Comments at 1; Eagle County EM Comments at 1; Bosque County Office of Emergency Management Comments,
PS Docket No. 15-91, 1 (Jan. 12, 2016) (Bosque County OEM Comments); Jefferson Parish EM Comments at 2;
Kansas City EM Comments at 1; Calcasieu Parish Police Jury Office of Homeland Security and Emergency
Preparedness Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 1 (Jan. 12, 2016) (Calcasieu Parish Police Jury Office of Homeland
Security and Emergency Preparedness Comments); NWS Comments at 3; USGS Comments at 1; FEMA
Comments at 2; Harris County Office of Homeland Security & Emergency Management Reply, PS Docket No. 1591, 3 (Feb. 16, 2016) (Harris County OHSEM Reply); California Governor’s OES Comments at 3; cf. Everbridge
May 12, 2016 Ex Parte at 1-2 (stating that it would be feasible to permit embedded references to be included in
WEA Alert Messages); accord Letter from Don Hall, IPAWS Product Manager, Emergency Communications
Network (ECN), to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1-2
(filed May 27, 2016) (ECN May 27, 2016 Ex Parte).
104

Maryland Emergency Management Agency Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 1 (Jan. 19, 2016) (Maryland EMA
Comments) (“Phone numbers and web URLs would be of a great importance as it allows the public another resource
to seek assistance in times of emergencies.”); Ashtabula County EMA Comments at 2 (“In this modem world, URLs
and telephone numbers are a staple of everyday American life. To not allow them in WEA alerts is like giving
someone an instruction manual with only half the pages.”); Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing,
Inc. Reply, PS Docket 15-91, 7 (Feb. 12, 2016) (TDI Reply).
105

See T-Mobile Comments at 6; Sprint Corporation, PS Docket No. 15-91, 5 (Feb. 12, 2016) (Sprint Reply);
Verizon Comments at 2, 8-9; Microsoft Reply at 3-4; ATIS Comments at 11; National Association of Broadcasters
and National Public Radio Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 2 (Jan. 13, 2016) (NAB and NPR Comments);
AWARN Coalition Comments at 5; CTIA Comments at 12.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

28.
Further, the WEA NPRM sought comment on the technical feasibility of including
multimedia in Alert Messages in light of technological developments since WEA’s deployment.106
Participating CMS Providers and ATIS agree that technology is available to support multimedia
alerting,107 but also observe that significant standards efforts would be required to determine the
feasibility of integrating this technology into WEA.108 For example, according to recent ATIS studies, the
development of a new WEA standard for transmitting binary content could enable Participating CMS
Providers to transmit a thumbnail-sized photo over WEA cell broadcast using eleven WEA binary
messages in less than a minute.109 Because multimedia transmission is not supported by current cell
broadcast standards, Participating CMS Providers urge the Commission not to adopt requirements for
multimedia content in this Order.110
b.

Discussion

29.
We require Participating CMS Providers to support embedded references, as proposed.111
Accordingly, Participating CMS Providers must support the transmission of embedded URLs and phone
numbers in WEA Alert Messages. This rule will become effective one year from the rules’ publication in
the Federal Register. Further, thirty days from the date the rules are published in the Federal Register,
we allow voluntary, early adoption of embedded references through an industry-established and industryled pilot program.112 With respect to multimedia, we find that the inclusion of multimedia capability in
WEA Alert Messages can result in tremendous public safety benefits. At the same time, however, we
recognize that additional standards development remains necessary. Accordingly, we seek comment in
the Further Notice regarding the establishment of an appropriate regulatory framework and timeframe for
incorporating multimedia capability into WEA Alert Messages. In order to facilitate the development of
106

WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13798, para. 30.

107

ATIS Comments at 13 (“eMBMS would permit the broadcasting of large amounts of data, including multimedia
content”); see also AT&T Comments at 16 (“Full multimedia content requires new technologies like evolved
Multimedia Broadcast Multicast Service”); AT&T May 5, 2015 Ex Parte at 2.
108

See AT&T May 5, 2015 Ex Parte at 2 (stating that integrating eMBMS into WEA would involve “costly updates
to both network infrastructure and handset technology as well as a significant amount of time”); AT&T Comments
at 16 (“eMBMS standards do not currently support WEA, and a standards effort will be required to determine the
feasibility of incorporating WEA capabilities into eMBMS”); ATIS Comments at 13 (“eMBMS is not widely
deployed and the underlying standards are still in a state of flux as enhancements to eMBMS are being considered
by the industry. Such standardization efforts, including efforts to make any necessary WEA-related modifications,
would take significant time (i.e., minimally several years), as would the implementation of new/revised standards.”);
CTIA Comments at 13 (“Multimedia has the potential to become a reality in the future, after deployment of LTE
evolved multimedia broadcast multicast service”).
109

ATIS Feasibility Study for WEA Supplemental Text at 10 (“A thumbnail photo of about 1.5"x1.5" with a
resolution of 72 dots per inch (DPI) will produce an image of 120x120 pixels. If 8 bit color scale is used, then a
digital image file will be about 14,400 bytes in size. If we assume a 25% compression, then the resulting image file
to broadcast would be 3600 octets. If a WEA message for broadcasting binary content were to be defined, the
example described above would require at least 11 WEA binary messages to broadcast a small image file at the
proposed WEA maximum of 360 characters.”); ATIS Feasibility Study for LTE WEA Message Length at 12 (stating
that WEA Alert Message segments can be transmitted every 80 milliseconds to 5.12 seconds). Where transmitting
11 WEA Alert Messages, one every 80 milliseconds would result in an 880 millisecond delay (0.88 seconds) and
transmitting 11 WEA Alert Messages, one every 5.12 seconds would result in a 56.32 second delay).
110

See T-Mobile Comments at 6; Verizon Comments at 2.

111

See supra note 40 (urging the public to pull over to avoid distracted driving if they receive a WEA Alert Message
and want to read it while behind the wheel). Consumers should avoid reading WEA Alert Messages while driving
irrespective of whether the Alert Message contains an embedded reference.
112

See infra Section III.D (Compliance Timeframes (requiring compliance with this rule within 30 months of its
publication in the Federal Register); see also infra para. 32 (explaining this approach in further detail).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

standards for multimedia in the swiftest timeframe possible, we allow voluntary, early prototyping of
certain multimedia capabilities in Public Safety Messages 30 months from the effective date of the rules,
as described in greater detail below.
30.
Participating CMS Providers express concern that allowing embedded references in Alert
Messages would risk network congestion,113 but the weight of the record supports our conclusion that this
action will be more likely to reduce network loading than to increase it. The public already accesses
public safety and other resources using the data network upon receipt of WEA messages that do not
include embedded references.114 This behavior, known as “milling,” is a predictable public response to
receiving an Alert Message, as members of the public will seek to confirm that the indicated emergency
condition is indeed occurring, and to gather additional information not provided by the Alert Message to
inform their response.115 Milling is considered undesirable from a public safety perspective because it
increases the delay between receiving an Alert Message and taking an appropriate protective action, and
from a network management perspective because it increases use of the data network.116 We agree with
FEMA, the National Weather Service (NWS), NYCEM, Dennis Mileti, Professor Emeritus of Sociology
at The University of Colorado, and the many emergency managers treating this issue that providing
access to additional text and resources through URLs embedded in WEA Alert Messages could actually
reduce network congestion by channeling the public’s milling behavior through a single authoritative and
comprehensive resource.117 This finding is also supported by the 2014 and 2015 START Reports, which
113

See T-Mobile Comments at 6; Sprint Reply at 4-5; Verizon Comments at 2, 8-9; Microsoft Reply at 3-4; ATIS
Comments at 11; NAB and NPR Comments at 2; AWARN Coalition Comments at 5; CTIA Comments at 12; see
also AT&T Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte at 3 (stating that embedding phone numbers in Alert Messages could be
potentially more problematic than embedding hyperlinks); but see Letter from Benjamin Moncrief, VP, Government
Relations, C Spire, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1
(filed Jun. 24, 2016) (C Spire Jun. 24, 2016 Ex Parte) (“It is unclear what impact embedded URLs in WEA
messages would have on network traffic. Data traffic could increase or decrease depending upon the type of alert,
the content available at the linked site, and whether the linked site encouraged or discouraged additional data
consumption by an alerted user.”).
114

See, e.g., APCO Mar. 22, 2016 Ex Parte at 2; FEMA Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte Letter at 4; NYCEM Mar. 8, 2016
Ex Parte at 3.
115

“Milling” is a behavior in which “individuals interact with others to confirm information and develop a view
about the risks they face at that moment and their possible responses. Milling creates a delay between the time a
warning is received and the time protective action is taken.” See Computer Science and Telecommunications Board;
Division of Engineering and Physical Sciences; National Research Council, Public Response to Alerts and Warnings
Using Social Media: Report of a Workshop on Current Knowledge and Research Gaps, at 4 (2013), available at
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=15853 (last visited Jun. 9, 2015); see also Letter from Dennis Mileti,
Professor Emeritus, University of Colorado Boulder, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed Apr. 7, 2016) (Dennis Mileti Apr. 7, 2016 Ex Parte) (“Recent
research findings in the START report on WEA messaging include a revolutionary finding: public WEA warning
messages, if properly revised, may hold the potential to reduce milling and encourage the public to more rapidly
initiate self-protective actions in imminent risk events than may now be the case.”).
116

See Dennis Mileti Apr. 7, 2016 Ex Parte at 2 (“Ignoring this basic human element in providing public disaster
warnings has and will continue to cost human lives.”); see also id. (“The key improvement needed in the nation’s
WEA system is to update the system such that it reduces public milling after receipt of a warning, particularly after
the first warnings received for imminent events in which public response delay can cost lives, and increase injuries
and property damage.”).
117

See NYCEM Mar. 8, 2016 Ex Parte at 3; NWS Mar. 10, 2016 Ex Parte at 2; Dennis Mileti Apr. 7, 2016 Ex Parte
at 2; Mason County Emergency Management Comments at 1 (stating that “the public already turns to internet based
news media and/or social media to confirm the alert and learn more”); FEMA Comments at 2 (stating that inclusion
of a URL in alerts “would be consistent with the long-standing historical observation that people who are warned
engage in a search for additional information before taking a protective action. Thus, inclusion of a URL will
contribute to a reduction of post-alert milling by the public.”); FEMA Jun. 18, 2015 Ex Parte at 2; Jefferson Parish
(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

state that providing the public with access to enhanced information in WEA Alert Messages can help to
convince people to take protective action more quickly.118 Upon review of these studies and expert
analyses, we are persuaded that embedded references are likely to reduce network load when included in
Alert Messages.
31.
Finally, Participating CMS Providers who claim that embedded references will result in
harmful network congestion have offered no network models, or any other form of rigorous network
analysis, to support their proposition that allowing embedded references in WEA would cause or
contribute to network congestion.119 While all network activity contributes to network congestion to some
degree, the unsupported assertion of a risk of network congestion cannot be the sole basis for declining to
adopt any measure that utilizes the data network, particularly a measure that has been demonstrated to
have a statistically significant impact on WEA’s ability to save lives.120 In the absence of data to the
contrary, and in light of the significant record outlined above, we conclude that even if support for
embedded references were to result in an incremental increase in data network usage in some cases, this
increase would be insufficient to affect network performance during emergencies.121 Further, we observe
that many WEA-capable mobile devices are set to offload network usage to Wi-Fi where available by
default, and nearly all smartphones make this option available through the settings menu.122 Thus, many
individuals who choose to click on an embedded reference will not use the mobile data network to access
them at all.
32.
At the same time, however, we seek to ensure that Participating CMS Providers are able
to assess the performance of their networks in real-world conditions and have an opportunity to make any
necessary adjustments to accommodate embedded references. AT&T and CCA support “moving ahead
with a time-limited trial on their wireless network for purposes of determining whether embedded URLs
(Continued from previous page)
EM Comments at 2 (“[I]ncluding a URL would point people to a place to receive more information like maps,
reducing a “milling” effect.”); San Francisco Int’l Airport Safety & Security Services Comments at 1; Denver
OEMHS Comments at 1; Boulder Regional Emergency Telephone Services Authority Reply, PS Docket 15-91, at 4
(Feb. 12, 2016) (BRETSA Reply). (“inclusion of an alternative telephone number, URL which could be accessed by
wireline or broadband internet service as well as by mobile internet access, twitter feed information, or other
alternative information source could reduce PSAP congestion, and possibly network congestion to the extent voice
calls to 9-1-1, family or friends are not the most efficient use of network resources.”); USGS Comments at 1;
Jefferson Parish EM Comments at 2; San Francisco International Airport Safety & Security Services Comments at
1; TDI Comments at 13; but see T-Mobile Comments at 6; Sprint Reply at 5; Verizon Comments at 2, 8-9;
Microsoft Reply at 3-4; ATIS Comments at 11; NAB and NPR Comments at 2; AWARN Coalition Comments at 5;
CTIA Comments at 12.
118

See START Report at 29; see also Updated START Report at 31 (finding that understanding of Alert Messages
was “significantly higher for individuals who viewed the optimized 280- character WEA message that also included
a link to additional general information”); Hyper-Reach Comments at 3 (supporting this connection between
providing the public URLs and the START Report’s findings about how providing the public with enhanced
information in a WEA Alert Message reduces milling).
119

See NWS Mar. 9, 2016 Ex Parte at 2.

120

See, e.g., NCMEC May 5, 2015 Ex Parte at 1 (“A review of the most recent 359 AMBER Alerts that have
contributed to the successful recovery of an abducted child found that 89% featured either license plate information,
a photo or both”).
121

Harris County OSHEM Mar. 7, 2016 Ex Parte at 2-3.

122

See, e.g., Android One Help, https://support.google.com/android-one/answer/2819524?hl=en (last visited Mar.
30, 2016) (instructing users how to turn off mobile data and offload to Wi-Fi in order to prevent data overages); see
also Pablo Valerio, WiFi Offloading to Skyrocket, Information Week – Network Computing,
http://www.networkcomputing.com/wireless/wifi-offloading-skyrocket/1733513641 (last visited Aug. 23, 2016)
(sharing the Juniper Research finding that “[c]arriers will offload a four-fold increase in mobile data traffic to WiFi
networks by 2019”).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

result in unmanageable congestion when included in Amber Alerts.”123 We therefore allow voluntary,
early adoption of embedded references through an industry-established and industry-led pilot.124 In this
regard, we allow Participating CMS Providers, if they choose, to “pressure test” the use of embedded
references in Alert Messages in a sample of their network area or subscriber base, prior to full
implementation. To this end, Participating CMS Providers may voluntarily coordinate with NCMEC,
NWS, FEMA, and other stakeholders to accomplish a targeted, pilot deployment of embedded references
in WEA in a particular geographic location, Alert Message classification, or to a particular subset of
subscribers thirty days from the rule’s publication in the Federal Register, and prior to the effective date
of our rule requiring support for embedded references.125 We encourage all WEA alert initiators to work
with Participating CMS Providers as this functionality is piloted and deployed in order to establish best
practices for the inclusion of embedded references in Alert Messages, including the development of any
network congestion mitigation strategies as appropriate. For example, stakeholders could voluntarily
agree to constrain the amount of data that is made available through an embedded reference. We note that
NCMEC already states that it intends to use a low-bandwidth (15kB or less), mobile-friendly version of
their website (missingkids.com) in connection with their issuance of WEA AMBER Alerts.126 C Spire,
FEMA and NWS have suggested that limiting the bandwidth requirements of embedded references will
likely mitigate the risk of network congestion by limiting the amount of data that will need to be
transferred.127 We defer to Participating CMS Providers to identify the specific terms and timeframe of
any such pilot deployment on their own initiative, as well as to undertake any necessary coordination,
whether they do so individually or through a third-party coordinator of their choosing.
33.
CSRIC IV and FEMA agree that support for embedded references in alert origination
software, IPAWS, the C-interface, and on mobile devices can be enabled through a straightforward
process of updating standards and software.128 The successful use of embedded references will also
require the development of appropriate best practices. Specifically, CSRIC IV observes that some
individuals, particularly those with feature phones, may not have access to the data connection necessary
to access content made available by URLs.129 We share this concern, and urge emergency managers to
continue to convey the most important actionable information through the Alert Message text to ensure
that all members of the public are able to receive that information, even if they are unable to access the
123

Letter from Bill Roughton, Executive Director, Senior Legal Counsel, AT&T Services, Inc., to Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed May 23, 2016) (AT&T May 23,
2016 Ex Parte); accord Letter from Rebecca Murphy Thompson, Executive Vice President and General Counsel,
Competitive Carriers Association, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket
No. 15-91, at 2 (filed Jul. 18, 2016) (CCA Jul. 18, 2016 Ex Parte).
124

See infra Appx. A (Final Rules); Section III.D (Compliance Timeframes).

125

See infra Section III.D (Compliance Timeframes); see also infra Appx. A (Final Rules). Emergency
management agencies should not expect FEMA IPAWS or Participating CMS Providers to support embedded
references prior to the effective date of our rule requiring support for embedded references absent a specific
agreement.
126

See Letter from Preston Findlay, Counsel, Missing Children Division, National Center for Missing & Exploited
Children, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1-2 (filed
Mar. 2, 2016) (NCMEC Mar. 2, 2016 Ex Parte).
127

See C Spire Jun. 24, 2016 Ex Parte at 1; NWS Mar. 9, 2016 Ex Parte at 2; FEMA Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte at 4.

128

See CSRIC IV WEA Messaging Report at 36; see also Letter from Wade Witmer, Deputy Director, IPAWS
Division, FEMA and Mark Lucero, Chief Engineer, IPAWS Division, FEMA to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 2 (filed Jun. 18, 2015) (FEMA Jun. 18, 2015 Ex Parte).
(“The ATIS/TIA specification for the interface between IPAWS and participating wireless carrier gateways already
contains the provisions for including a phone number in AMBER type messages.”).
129

See CSRIC IV WEA Messaging Report at 42.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

URL.130 Commenters also express concern that inadequately prepared web servers or call centers may
become overloaded as a result of mass access.131 NCMEC assures us that the AMBER Alerts website is
capable of handling the expected increase in traffic, and we urge all alert originators to take appropriate
steps to ensure the preparedness of their web hosting service before initiating an Alert Message that
contains a URL.132 Further, we urge emergency managers to consider the capacity of their call centers or
hotlines before embedding a phone number in an Alert Message.
34.
Finally, commenters express concern that allowing embedded references in Alert
Messages may provide an opportunity for a malicious actor to compromise WEA.133 To the extent that
Participating CMS Providers take part in this opportunity to pilot the use of embedded references in WEA
Alert Messages, they should take appropriate steps, in concert with their pilot program partners, to ensure
the integrity of the embedded references they transmit. We also encourage emergency management
agencies to continue to work with FEMA and Participating CMS Providers to ensure the authenticity and
integrity of every Alert Message they initiate. For example, NCMEC confirms that it already
authenticates the content on every AMBER Alert on its website and that it will take measures to ensure
the security of any URL that it might embed in a WEA AMBER Alert.134 We note that all WEA Alert
Messages are protected with a CAP digital signature that effectively prevents malicious intrusion into
Alert Message content in transit.135 We also note that industry has already begun to take steps to address
any particular cybersecurity issues that may be implicated by allowing URLs to be included in WEA.
Pursuant to the recommendation of CSRIC V, ATIS is completing a best practice standard to address
potential threat vectors for WEA, including embedded references.136 We also encourage Participating

130

See Letter from Paul Margie, Counsel for Apple Inc., to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 2 (filed Mar. 22, 2016) (Apple Mar. 22, 2016 Ex Parte) (stating that “the
Commission’s rules should ensure that alerts convey recipient-usable information in the absence of broadband
Internet access.”).
131

See, e.g., ATIS Comments at 11.

132

NCMEC Mar. 2, 2016 Ex Parte at 2 (stating that the website to which the public would be directed during an
AMBER Alert (www.missingkids.org/AMBER) “can accommodate even the highest volume of simultaneous
visitors seeking information about a current AMBER Alert, and it is optimized for viewing on mobile devices”); see
also NWS Mar. 9, 2016 Ex Parte at 1-2 (stating that NWS believes that it also has the ability to create a small web
landing page for weather alerts with the necessary server capacity to support mass access).
133

See, e.g., Sprint Reply at 5; Verizon Comments at 8-9, ATIS Comments at 12; CTIA Reply at 10-11; United
States Coast Guard Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 11 (Jan. 13, 2016) (US Coast Guard Comments); Microsoft
Reply at 3; but see FEMA May 21, 2015 Ex Parte at 2 (stating that a standard already exists for including a phone
number in AMBER Alerts).
134

See Letter from Preston Findlay, Counsel, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, to Marlene
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1-2 (filed Jul. 27, 2016) (stating further that NCMEC ensures that
each AMBER Alert is linked to a recognized AMBER Alert Plan).
135

See OASIS, Common Alerting Protocol Version 1.2, § 3.3.4.1 (Digital Signatures); Letter from Mark Lucero,
IPAWS Chief Engineer, FEMA, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 15-91 (filed Sep. 28, 2016)
(stating that the danger of spoofing or altering a URL is greatly decreased thanks to the existing security of WEA,
provided in part by CAP digital signatures and carrier network security controls).
136

See CSRIC V, Working Group 2, WEA Security, Final Report, at 7, 24, 30 (2016) (CSRIC V WEA Security
Report). The “appropriate cyber security protections and protocols” for URLs added to Alert Messages will likely
also be informed by the guidelines established in the CSRIC IV Cybersecurity Risk Management and Best Practices
Final Report and the WEA Cybersecurity Risk Management Strategy for Alert Originators. See CSRIC IV,
Working Group Four, Cybersecurity Risk Management and Best Practices Working Group, Final Report (2015),
https://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/advisory/csric4/CSRIC_IV_WG4_Final_Report_031815.pdf (last visited Jun. 9,
2015) (CSRIC IV Cybersecurity Report); see also Software Engineering Institute, WEA Project Team, Wireless
Emergency Alerts (WEA) Cybersecurity Risk Management Strategy for Alert Originators (2014), available at
(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

CMS Providers and alert originators to work with FEMA to develop protocols that may help to mitigate
potential risks.137
35.
Commenters identify the inclusion of embedded references in Alert Messages as the most
critical among all of our proposed improvements to WEA.138 NCMEC, in particular, has found this
capability to be paramount to the success of AMBER Alerts.139 We agree that allowing emergency
managers to embed URLs in Alert Messages empowers them to offer the public multimedia-capable,
comprehensive emergency response resources.140 Including an authoritative URL will also likely lead to
swifter community response by reducing the likelihood that consumers will seek to verify information
through additional sources before taking action.141 We also agree with commenters that allowing URLs to
be included in Alert Messages will improve WEA accessibility,142 could streamline the public’s use of
911 services,143 and would provide alert originators with a method to ensure the public has access to upto-date information.144
36.
In addition to embedded URLs, allowing embedded phone numbers to be included in
Alert Messages will offer the public significant public safety benefits. We agree with emergency
managers, disability rights advocates and individuals that support including phone numbers in Alert
Messages because integrating clickable phone numbers into WEA will provide an accessible method to
(Continued from previous page)
http://resources.sei.cmu.edu/asset_files/SpecialReport/2014_003_001_87729.pdf (last visited Jun. 9, 2015)
(Software Engineering Institute WEA Security Report).
137

This may include the development of a FEMA-hosted URL repository of authenticated and approved embedded
references.
138

NCMEC May 5, 2015 Ex Parte at 2; see also Hyper-Reach Comments at 3; NYCEM Comments at 10; Houston
OPHS Comments at 3; Florida Department of Law Enforcement Comments at 1; Osage County EMA Comments at
2.
139

See NCMEC May 5, 2015 Ex Parte at 3 (stating that “in those cases in which AMBER Alert is credited for the
safe rescue of a child 89% included a picture and/or vehicle and license plate information”); see also Florida Dept.
of Law Enforcement Comments at 1 (The child’s photo and/or abductor photo would provide the public with an
accurate, visual reference, so the public will more readily and easily identify missing child(ren) and/or the
abductor(s).”).
140

See supra note 103 (listing commenters supporting our proposal to allow embedded references in WEA Alert
Messages for these reasons). While the cell broadcast technology currently used to support WEA on legacy
networks has inherent technical limitations (e.g., difficulty supporting multimedia, messages longer than 360
characters, messages in languages other than English and Spanish), requiring support for embedded references
allows alert initiators to overcome those limitations by providing them with a tool to give the public direct access to
specific, purpose-built websites. See, e.g., Missingkids, http://www.missingkids.org/AMBER (last visited Mar. 30,
2016); NOAA’s National Weather Service, Storm Prediction Center, http://www.spc.noaa.gov/products/outlook/
(last visited Mar. 30, 2016) (containing graphical depictions of predicted severe storm activity).
141

See supra para. 30 (discussing “milling” behavior).

142

See, e.g., TDI Comments at 13 (stating that “[t]he deaf and hard of hearing community will especially benefit
from having convenient, direct access to URLs and even telephone numbers in the context of the written message”);
Wireless RERC Comments at 18; CCOEM Comments at 2; Henderson OEM Comments at 1; Douglas County EMA
Comments at 1; Harris County OHSEM Comments at 2; Kansas City EM Comments at 1; Houston OPHS
Comments at 3; DAC Comments at 2.
143

According to APCO, enhancing WEA by requiring support for embedded references could “reduce unnecessary
9-1-1 calls and enable more informed and focused 9-1-1 calls to PSAPs.” See APCO Comments at 6; accord Austin
HSEM Comments at 2.
144

NWS Comments at 3; NCMEC May 5, 2015 Ex Parte at 2 (“The ability to direct recipients to the AMBER Alert
website through a URL would allow any person continuous access to the most up-to-date information, including
cancellations from that website.”).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

quickly contact public safety officials.145 This capability may be particularly relevant to WEA AMBER
Alerts where emergency management organizations will often establish special hotlines or call centers to
receive reports about missing children that may be reached at a phone number other than 911 that may not
be as commonly known.146 According to FEMA, providing the public with a direct emergency telephone
number could hasten emergency response, and help to ensure that calls to 911 will not have to be
rerouted.147 In sum, allowing embedded references to be included in WEA Alert Messages will
dramatically improve WEA’s effectiveness at moving the public to take protective action.
37.
With respect to multimedia, our decision to require support for embedded references in
WEA Alert Messages is an important first step towards ensuring that WEA can be used to provide the
public with actionable multimedia content during emergencies. The record shows that WEA’s
effectiveness depends on its ability to help the all members of the public to close the thought-action gap,
and that including multimedia content in Alert Messages themselves would hasten protective action
taking, reduce milling, and improve Alert Message accessibility.148 We therefore believe that support for
multimedia content has the potential to provide tremendous public safety benefits and should be
implemented as soon as technically feasible.149 Recognizing that further standards development remains
necessary to integrate multimedia technology into WEA,150 we seek comment in the Further Notice on
how best to implement the support of multimedia content in WEA Alert Messages in a reasonable
timeframe.151 In particular, as described in greater detail in the Further Notice, we seek comment on the
inclusion of thumbnail-sized images, including hazard symbols, in Public Safety Messages on 4G LTE
145

Maryland Emergency Management Agency Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 1 (Jan. 19, 2016) (Maryland EMA
Comments) (“Phone numbers and web URLs would be of a great importance as it allows the public another resource
to seek assistance in times of emergencies.”); Ashtabula County Emergency Management Agency Comments, PS
Docket No. 15-91, 2 (Dec. 14, 2015) (Ashtabula County EMA Comments) (“In this modem world, URLs and
telephone numbers are a staple of everyday American life. To not allow them in WEA alerts is like giving someone
an instruction manual with only half the pages.”); TDI Reply at 7.
146

See CCOEM Comments at 2; see also NCMEC May 5, 2015 Ex Parte at 3 (“The ability to provide a hotline
phone number directing recipients to the investigating law enforcement agency during an AMBER Alert activation
would be beneficial. This contact information is standard for every other type of missing child alert, bulletin, notice,
and poster that NCMEC disseminates.”); Morton County Emergency Management Comments, PS Docket 15-91, 1
(Dec. 8, 2015) (Morton County EM Comments).
147

See FEMA Comments at 2 (stating, for example, that “[t]he Tennessee Emergency Management Agency
experienced a situation in which all cellular 911 calls were being incorrectly routed to the wrong county dispatch
center. This created a disruption in critical public safety services. The ability to issue a WEA including the correct
direct emergency telephone number would have reduced potential delays providing emergency services to the
proper areas.”).
148

See NYCEM Comments at 11; TDI Comments at 14; San Joaquin OES Comments at 1; Los Angeles EMD
Comments at 1; The Iowa Flood Center at the University of Iowa Comments, PS Docket 15-91, 2 (Feb. 12, 2016)
(Iowa Flood Center Comments).
149

Hazard symbols pictographically represent the type of warning being conveyed (e.g., fire, tornado, flood,
chemical spill). Hazard symbols could reinforce the significance of the emergency situation described in the text
portion of the Alert Message, particularly for those with access and functional needs.
150

See infra Section IV.B.1 (Multimedia Alerting).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

and future networks.152 In the interim, in order to facilitate the swift development of standards for
supporting multimedia content in WEA, we allow the industry to participate in voluntary prototyping of
this functionality in Public Safety Messages, in coordination with FEMA, emergency management
agencies, and other relevant WEA stakeholders, as of the effective date of our rule requiring support for
Public Safety Messages.153
4.

Supporting Spanish-language Alert Messages
a.

Background

38.
Section 10.500 of the Commission’s WEA rules requires mobile devices to be able to
extract Alert Message content in the subscriber’s preferred language.154 The Commission adopted this
requirement in the WEA First Report and Order, while encouraging the development and implementation
of multilingual alerting capabilities.155 At the same time, the Commission declined to require
Participating CMS Providers to support transmission of alerts in languages other than English because of
technical challenges.156 In the WEA NPRM, we sought comment on whether the fundamental technical
problems that limited the ability of Participating CMS Providers to provide Alert Messages in languages
other than English in 2008 remain barriers to implementation.157
39.
Every commenting organization representing individuals with access and functional
needs and nearly every commenting emergency manager strongly supports providing Alert Messages in
customers’ preferred language.158 Commenters agree that transmission of Spanish-language Alert
Messages is feasible within two years because ATIS has already completed the necessary standardssetting processes to transmit Spanish-language Alert Messages.159 While some emergency management
152

See id.

153

Participating CMS Providers may begin voluntary prototyping of thumbnail-sized pictures and hazard symbols in
Public Safety Messages 30 months from the effective date of the rules, the same timeframe for implementation of
Public Safety Messages. As with the pilot of the embedded reference functionality discussed above, we emphasize
that emergency managers should not expect that any images they include in Alert Messages would be transmitted by
Participating CMS Providers absent voluntary agreement, and even then, only to the extent agreed upon by
voluntary arrangement. See id. (proposing to require support for certain multimedia content only in Public Safety
Messages).
154

47 CFR § 10.500(e).

155

WEA First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 6172, para. 77.

156

Id.

157

WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13799, para. 32.

158

See, e.g., Wireless RERC Comments at 21-22; AWARN Coalition Comments at 5; FEMA Jun. 18, 2015 Ex
Parte at 3; USGS Comments at 2; Nebraska SECC Comments at 1; Chester County EMA Comments at 2; San
Joaquin OES Comments at 1; Lexington Division of EM Comments at 2; Eagle County EM Comments at 2;
Douglas County EMA Comments at 1; Jefferson Parish EM Comments at 3; Pinellas County EM Comments at 6;
Ashtabula County EMA Comments at 2; California Governor’s OES Comments at 4; San Antonio Office of
Emergency Management Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (Nov. 25, 2015) (San Antonio OEM Comments);
Los Angeles EMD Comments at 1; Austin HSEM Comments at 2; Osage County EMA Comments at 2.
159

See Verizon Comments at 7 (“ATIS has started work to enable service providers to incorporate Spanish language
messages into the WEA system within a two-year period. With sizeable Spanish-speaking populations receiving
alerts, including Spanish language alerts is a natural and reasonable development of the WEA system. A rule
requiring transmission of Spanish alerts within two years for LTE networks and handsets would thus be feasible and
in the public interest.”); AT&T Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte at 5; ATIS Implementation Guidelines for CMAS
Supplemental Information Retrieval Revision 2 (ATIS-0700012v.002) (detailing the capability of WEA
supplemental information retrieval process associated with Alert Message text in Spanish); ATIS Implementation
Guidelines for Mobile Device Support of Multi-Language CMAS (ATIS-0700013) (defining the guidelines for
mobile devices that support WEA in multiple languages (e.g., English and Spanish); ATIS Implementation
(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

agencies urge us to encourage the use of machine-based Alert Message translation to facilitate support for
WEA in additional languages,160 the weight of the record shows that these technologies are still not
sufficiently mature to merit use in the emergency messaging context.161
b.

Discussion

40.
We adopt a new Section 10.480 requiring Participating CMS Providers to support the
transmission of Spanish-language Alert Messages.162 This, along with Section 10.500(e) of the
Commission’s WEA rules, which requires “extraction of alert content in English or the subscriber’s
preferred language,”163 will provide a framework to ensure that Spanish-language Alert Messages will be
processed and displayed properly. Pursuant to this framework, we would expect that Spanish-language
WEA Alert Messages would be displayed on and only on WEA-capable mobile devices where the
subscriber has specified Spanish as their preferred language.
41.
The record demonstrates that it is technically feasible for Participating CMS Providers to
support Spanish-language Alert Messages.164 ATIS has developed standards that support the Alert
Gateway, the CMS Provider network and mobile devices in receiving, transmitting and displaying Alert
Messages in Spanish as well as English.165 We applaud ATIS for completing these standards, and
(Continued from previous page)
Guidelines for CMSP Handling of CMAS Supplemental Information Broadcast Revision 2 (ATIS-0700014.v002)
(describing the functionality of Cell Broadcast based CMAS when the CMAS messages are being broadcast in
English and Spanish). See also infra Section IV.B.2 (Multilingual Alerting) (seeking comment on how we can
continue to deepen WEA’s support for additional languages).
160

NYCEM Comments at 12; CCOEM Comments at 2.

161

AT&T Mar. 17 Ex Parte at 5 (“In the CMSAAC and subsequent research, it was shown that automatic translation
can result in significant and material changes to the meaning of the message”); FEMA Jun. 18, 2015 Ex Parte at 3;
Pinellas County EM Comments at 6; Letter from Joseph P. Benkert, Attorney, Boulder Regional Emergency
Telephone Service Authority, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No.
15-91, at 3 (filed Mar. 3, 2016) (BRETSA Mar. 3, 2016 Ex Parte).
162

We note the importance of supporting alerts in a wide variety of languages to achieving emergency managers’
public safety goals. See, e.g., FEMA Jun. 18, 2015 Ex Parte at 3; Nebraska SECC Comments at 1; Chester County
EMA Comments at 2; San Joaquin OES Comments at 1; Lexington Division of EM Comments at 2; Eagle County
EM Comments at 2; Douglas County EMA Comments at 1; Jefferson Parish EM Comments at 3; Pinellas County
EM Comments at 6; Ashtabula County EMA Comments at 2; California Governor’s OES Comments at 4; San
Antonio OEM Comments at 1; Los Angeles EMD Comments at 1; Austin HSEM Comments at 2; Osage County
EMA Comments at 2. We seek comment on how to further improve WEA’s language support in the Further Notice.
See infra Section IV.B.12 (Multilingual Alerting).
163

47 CFR § 10.500(e).

164

See, e.g., Verizon Comments at 2 (“Transmitting Spanish language alerts is . . . feasible and in the public
interest.”); FEMA Feb. 13, 2016 Ex Parte at 2, 3 (“The IPAWS system as currently deployed and based upon the
Common Alerting Protocol standards is capable of supporting multiple languages beyond English.”); ATIS
Comments at 16 (noting that transmitting alerts in English and Spanish is feasible but transmission of additional
languages may be complicated and is not supported by ATIS at this time.); Letter from Paula Boyd, Director,
Regulatory and Governmental Affairs, Microsoft Corporation, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 2 (filed Mar. 9, 2016) (Microsoft Mar. 9, 2016 Ex Parte);
AT&T Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte at 6.
165

See ATIS Implementation Guidelines for CMAS Supplemental Information Retrieval Revision 2 (ATIS0700012v.002) (detailing the capability of CMAS supplemental information retrieval process associated with
CMAS message text in Spanish); ATIS Implementation Guidelines for Mobile Device Support of Multi-Language
CMAS (ATIS-0700013) (defining the guidelines for mobile devices that support CMAS in multiple languages (e.g.,
English and Spanish); ATIS Implementation Guidelines for CMSP Handling of CMAS Supplemental Information
Broadcast Revision 2 (ATIS-0700014.v002) (describing the functionality of Cell Broadcast based CMAS when the
CMAS messages are being broadcast in English and Spanish).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

encourage their continued efforts to standardize network functionality for Alert Messages in additional
languages. According to Microsoft, multilingual alerting is already taking place in other countries.166
42.
We agree with Participating CMS Providers that they should not be responsible for Alert
Message translation.167 Rather, emergency managers are the entities best equipped to determine message
content, including content in other languages.168 We recognize that some emergency management
agencies report that they do not currently have the capability to initiate Alert Messages in languages other
than English.169 Other emergency management agencies, such as Harris County OHSEM, state that they
do have this capability,170 and “NYCEM is in the final stages of preparing to offer . . . [its] 80 most
common messages in the 13 most commonly spoken languages in New York City, including American
Sign Language,” but those messages would have to be transmitted using alternative alerting platforms
until WEA’s multilingual alerting capabilities improve.171
43.
We anticipate that requiring Participating CMS Providers to support Spanish-language
Alert Messages where available will encourage other emergency management agencies to continue to
develop their multilingual alerting capabilities. Indeed, many emergency managers state that they can use
State/Local WEA Tests as a tool to exercise and improve their multilingual alerting capability over time
with the help of voluntary community feedback.172 We do not agree with NYCEM and Clark County
OEM, however, that we should facilitate Alert Message translation by requiring Participating CMS
Providers to “place a ‘translate’ button/link” in WEA Alert Messages.173 Rather, we agree with FEMA
and the majority of emergency management agencies that automatic translation technologies that may
reside on some mobile devices are currently too inaccurate to support emergency messaging.174
44.
The overwhelming majority of emergency management agencies support expanding
WEA’s language capabilities because it will help them to reach members of their communities that are
currently inaccessible to them.175 Emergency managers in areas with large Spanish-speaking populations,
as well as those in areas popular among tourists, state that requiring support for Spanish-language WEA
166

Microsoft Mar. 9, 2016 Ex Parte at 2 (stating that, in such cases, emergency managers initiate Alert Messages in
primary and secondary languages for CMS Providers to transmit to all mobile devices in the target area. Mobile
devices extract the Alert Message in the primary language, and extract it in the secondary languages as well if and
only if the subscriber’s device language preference is the same as the secondary language Alert Message).
167

See, e.g., Sprint Comments at 10; T-Mobile Reply at 9; CTIA Comments at 13.

168

See AT&T Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte at 5; Apple Mar. 21, 2016 Ex Parte at 2.

169

Cochise County OES Comments at 2; see also NYCEM Comments at 12 (“[N]ot all alert originators will always
have the capacity . . . to offer WEA messages in multiple languages.”); NWS Mar. 9, 2016 Ex Parte at 3 (stating that
they do not have a multilingual alerting capability, except in Puerto Rico); Pinellas County EM Comments at 6;
Houston OPHS Comments at 3; CCOEM Comments at 2; Kansas City EM Comments at 2; Indiana DHS Comments
at 4.
170

See Harris County OHSEM Mar. 8, 2016 Ex Parte at 4.

171

NYCEM Mar. 8, 2016 Ex Parte at 3.

172

See, e.g., Harris County OSHEM Mar. 7, 2016 Ex Parte at 4; NYCEM Mar. 8, 2016 Ex Parte at 4.

173

NYCEM Comments at 12; CCOEM Comments at 2.

174

FEMA Jun. 18, 2015 Ex Parte at 3; Pinellas County EM Comments at 6; AT&T Mar. 17 Ex Parte at 5;;
BRETSA Mar. 3, 2016 Ex Parte at 3.
175

See, e.g., Wireless RERC Comments at 21-22; AWARN Coalition Comments at 5; FEMA Jun. 18, 2015 Ex
Parte at 3; USGS Comments at 2; Nebraska SECC Comments at 1; Chester County EMA Comments at 2; San
Joaquin OES Comments at 1; Lexington Division of EM Comments at 2; Eagle County EM Comments at 2;
Douglas County EMA Comments at 1; Jefferson Parish EM Comments at 3; Pinellas County EM Comments at 6;
Ashtabula County EMA Comments at 2; California Governor’s OES Comments at 4; San Antonio OEM Comments
at 1; Los Angeles EMD Comments at 1; Austin HSEM Comments at 2; Osage County EMA Comments at 2..

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

Alert Messages will be particularly beneficial.176 We also anticipate that this action will allow emergency
managers to better facilitate the inclusion of Spanish-speaking individuals, and particularly those with
limited English proficiency, into their emergency response plans.
B.

Alert Message Delivery
1.

Logging Alert Messages at the Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateway
a.

Background

45.
Section 10.350 of the WEA rules requires Participating CMS Providers to keep an
automated log of Required Monthly Test (RMT) messages received by the Participating CMS Provider
Alert Gateway from the FEMA Alert Gateway.177 The Commission adopted this requirement in the WEA
Second Report and Order, noting support from commenters and that CMSAAC recommended alert
logging in order ensure system reliability and performance.178 Participating CMS Providers are not
currently required, however, to log or analyze their participation in WEA beyond RMT testing. In the
WEA NPRM, consistent with CMSAAC recommendations, we proposed to require Participating CMS
Providers to log messages with time stamps that verify when Alert Messages are received, and when the
Alert Messages are acknowledged or rejected by the Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateway, and if an
Alert Message is rejected, to provide the specific error code generated by the rejection.179 Also consistent
with CMSAAC’s recommendations, we proposed that this log should be maintained for at least 36
months, and that the Participating CMS Providers’ Alert Gateways should be capable of generating
monthly system performance statistics.180
46.
The majority of emergency managers state that the creation and publication of alert logs
are necessary components of mission critical communications that would inform them if their alerts are
not delivered, and if not, why not.181 All emergency managers treating the issue agree that alert logs
should be shared with the Commission, FEMA, and with alert originators that have a signed Memoranda
of Agreement (MOA) with FEMA for use of IPAWS.182 Participating CMS Providers state that they
already log alerts, but that their logging methodologies are not always as uniform, as detailed, or
maintained as consistently as what the WEA NPRM proposed.183 For example, AT&T states that it logs
the CMAC alert attributes of each alert and test that it receives from the FEMA Gateway, and that these
logs are archived for 90 days, but that their gateway does not generate monthly system performance
statistics as we proposed to require.184 AT&T states that ATIS should be tasked with developing a best
176

See Eagle County EM Comments at 1; Los Angeles EMD Comments at 1; Austin HSEM Comments at 2. We
seek further comment below on how WEA could support additional languages that may be particularly relevant to
other major language communities in the United States. See infra Section IV.B.2 (Multilingual Alerting).
177

47 CFR § 10.350(a)(7).

178

WEA Second Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 10772-73, paras. 18, 21.

179

WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13810, para. 56; see also CMSAAC Report at 62-63.

180

Id.

181

See APCO Comments at 9; Henderson OEM Comments at 1; Chester County EMA Comments at 3; NYCEM
Comments at 14; Eagle County EM Comments at 1; but see Verizon Comments at 3; Sprint Reply at 7; Kansas City
EM Comments at 2.
182

See, e.g., Chester County EMA Comments at 3; Pinellas County EM Comments at 8; Douglas County EMA
Comments at 2; Houston OPHS Comments at 4; CCOEM Comments at 3 (stating that alert origination software
should automatically receive such alert logs for presentation to the alert originator).
183

AT&T Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte at 7 (attaching a sample alert log); but see CTIA Comments at 14 (stating that
“the ability to log, track, and verify WEA messages is not possible under the current WEA architecture”).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

practice standard for WEA logging in a manner that can be used to generate quarterly reports,185 but
Verizon and T-Mobile state that each Participating CMS Provider takes a unique approach to alert
logging, and that requiring a uniform approach to creating and sharing alert logs would implicate costs
that outweigh the benefits.186 CTIA asserts that Participating CMS Providers should only be required to
maintain alert log data for three months because this data should only be relevant for a short period of
time, and will most likely be retrieved by alert originators immediately following tests.187
b.

Discussion

47.
We require Participating CMS Providers to log their receipt of Alert Messages at their
Alert Gateway and to appropriately maintain those records for review. Specifically, we adopt a new
Section 10.320(g) that will require Participating CMS Providers’ Alert Gateways to log Alert Messages as
described below. Based on the record, we have modified the rules we proposed in the WEA NPRM in
order to accommodate the varied approaches Participating CMS Providers take to alert logging.188


Logging Requirements. Participating CMS Providers are required to provide a mechanism to
log the CMAC attributes of all Alert Messages received at the CMS Provider Alert Gateway,
along with time stamps that verify when the message is received, and when it is retransmitted
or rejected by the Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateway. If an alert is rejected, a
Participating CMS Provider is required to log the specific error code generated by the
rejection.



Maintenance of Logs. Participating CMS providers are required to maintain a log of all
active and cancelled Alert Messages for at least 12 months after receipt of such alert or
cancellation.



Availability of Logs. Participating CMS Providers are required to make their alert logs
available to the Commission and FEMA upon request. Participating CMS Providers are also
required to make alert logs available to emergency management agencies that offer
confidentiality protection at least equal to that provided by the federal Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) upon request, but only insofar as those logs pertain to alerts initiated
by that emergency management agency.189 We encourage, but do not require, Participating
CMS Providers to work with alert origination software vendors to automate transmission of
alert log data to emergency managers’ alert origination software.

185

AT&T Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte at 9; accord Sprint Reply at 9; CTIA Comments at 14; Hyper-Reach Comments
at 4 (stating that if the Commission were to require alert logging, stakeholders would need to develop a uniform,
interoperable protocol for information sharing in order to make effective use of their logs).
186

See Verizon Comments at 13; T-Mobile Reply at 9.

187

See Letter from Brian Josef, Assistant Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No 15-91, at 3 (filed Sep. 20, 2016) (CTIA Sep. 20, 2016 Ex
Parte).
188

See Verizon Comments at 13; T-Mobile Reply at 9; AT&T Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte at 7; C Spire Jun. 24, 2016 Ex
Parte at 2; Bluegrass Cellular Jun. 29, 2016 Ex Parte at 5; see also WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13810, para. 56
(proposing to require Participating CMS Providers to log alert messages with time stamps and error messages, where
appropriate, proposing to require that Participating CMS Providers maintain logs for 90 days and archived logs for
36 months, and seeking comment on how alert logs should be shared); but see id. (proposing that the Alert Gateway
generate monthly system performance statistics).
189

See 5 USC § 552 (2006), amended by OPEN Government Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-175, 121 Stat. 2524
(stating the FOIA confidentiality standard, along with relevant exemptions); see also Review of the Emergency
Alert System, EB Docket 04-296, Sixth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 6520, 6533, n. 90 (2015) (Sixth Report and
Order) (requiring federal, state and local entities to have confidentiality protections at least as strong as FOIA in
order to receive test result data filed in the EAS Test Reporting System).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

48.
We find that compliance with these minimal alert logging requirements will be
technically feasible. Indeed, the approach we adopt today is a more flexible and less burdensome
alternative to that which we proposed in the WEA NPRM, and allows Participating CMS Providers to take
a variety of approaches to achieve compliance.190 T-Mobile, Verizon, AT&T, Bluegrass Cellular and C
Spire already log Alert Messages, and we anticipate that many other Participating CMS Providers may
already be doing so as well, as part of their own system maintenance best practices.191 While
Participating CMS Providers have taken different approaches to logging Alert Messages relative to the
Trust Model recommended by CMSAAC,192 we anticipate that those Participating CMS Providers that
already do log Alert Messages would log at least the CMAC attributes of all Alert Messages received, and
be capable of sending error reports to the FEMA Alert Gateway consistent with those stipulated in the
CMSAAC Report.193 We recognize Verizon’s concern that requiring logging of information more granular
than CMAC attributes and time stamps, or requiring alert logging at junctures in the WEA system other
than the Alert Gateway would “impose burdensome paperwork and IT-related requirements,” but the
requirements that we adopt today require only basic logging functionality at the Alert Gateway.194 We
also recognize T-Mobile’s concern that a uniform system of alert logging would be required in order to
aptly compare Participating CMS Provider alert logs.195 We do not require Participating CMS Providers
to take a uniform approach to alert logging today, only that they log the relevant information, maintain
that information and make it available to appropriate parties. Further, the CMSAAC Report already
stipulates a standard set of error code messages for communication between Participating CMS Provider
and FEMA Alert Gateways.196 Finally, we recognize CTIA’s concern about requiring alert logs to be
maintained longer than necessary.197 By requiring alert logs to be maintained for 12 months, rather than
36, as proposed, we reduce the burden that alert log maintenance may pose for Participating CMS
Providers.198 CTIA observes that a shorter alert log maintenance timeframe would incentivize emergency
management agencies to request alert log data after every test or alert out of concern that alert log data
may be deleted if they delay.199 At the same time, however, necessitating emergency management
agencies to request logging information after every test is burdensome for both CMS Providers (who must
produce this data) and the emergency managers (who must request the data). We believe that requiring
190

See WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13810, para. 56 (proposing to require Participating CMS Providers to maintain
both online and archived logs, and proposing to require the Alert Gateway to generate monthly system performance
statistics).
191

See Verizon Comments at 13; T-Mobile Reply at 9; AT&T Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte at 7; C Spire Jun. 24, 2016 Ex
Parte at 2; Bluegrass Cellular Jun. 29, 2016 Ex Parte at 5.
192

The “Trust Model” recommends security requirements for CMS Provider network infrastructure, including alert
logging. See CMSAAC Report at 62-63.
193

See infra Appx. H (Sample CMAC Attribute Alert Log); see also C Spire Jun. 24, 2016 Ex Parte at 2 (stating that
they log CMAC Attributes of Alert Messages); Bluegrass Cellular Jun. 29, 2016 Ex Parte at 5 ( “Bluegrass Cellular
currently logs Alert Messages and pulls weekly reports from the SMSC. Bluegrass is able to log, at a minimum, the
basic CMAC attributes of the Alert Messages sent, including the county, time and type of alert that was sent.”);
CMSAAC Report at 92.
194

See Verizon Comments at 13. We seek comment on whether to require logging at additional junctures in the
WEA system in the Further Notice. See infra Section IV.D.2 (Alert Logging Standards and Implementation).
195

T-Mobile Reply at 9. We seek comment on whether to require a uniform standard for alert logging in the Further
Notice. See infra Section IV.D.2 (Alert Logging Standards and Implementation).
196

CMSAAC Report at 92. While compliance with the CMSAAC Report’s recommendation is not required, it may
be a guide to those looking for a model framework.
197

CTIA Sep. 20, 2016 Ex Parte at 3.

198

See WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13810, para. 56.

199

See CTIA Sep. 20, 2016 Ex Parte at 3.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

that alert logs be retained for one year strikes an appropriate balance that will allow emergency
management agencies to request reports less frequently, posing lesser burdens on Participating CMS
Providers and emergency management agencies, without requiring providers to retain logs for an
extended period of time. Further, circumstances may arise that warrant a retrospective examination of
prior log data that represents a sufficient period of time to accurately identify and represent trends or
anomalies.200
49.
Alert logging has been a fundamental aspect of the WEA Trust Model.201 As we adopt
changes to our rules that reflect our four years of experience with WEA and the underlying advancements
of technology, it is time to ensure this fundamental component of system integrity is implemented.
Authorized WEA alert originators agree that alert logs maintained at the Participating CMS Provider
Alert Gateway have potential to increase their confidence that WEA will work as intended when
needed.202 According to emergency managers, this increased confidence in system availability will
encourage emergency managers that do not currently use WEA to become authorized.203 Alert logs are
also necessary to establish a baseline for system integrity against which future iterations of WEA can be
evaluated. Without records that can be used to describe the quality of system integrity, and the most
common causes of message transmission failure, it will be difficult to evaluate how any changes to WEA
that we may adopt subsequent to this Report and Order affect system integrity. We disagree with AT&T,
Sprint and ATIS that the responsibility for alert logging properly belongs with FEMA IPAWS because
FEMA has access to sufficient information to generate these reports.204 We find that alert logging is
particularly important at Participating CMS Providers’ Alert Gateway because even though FEMA
IPAWS maintains an alert log at their Alert Gateway as well,205 that alert log alone could not capture and
describe alert delivery across the C-interface, which is arguably the most critical interface in the WEA
architecture because it describes the connection between the public aspect of WEA (FEMA IPAWS) and
the private aspect (CMS Providers). Additionally, the time stamps that we require Participating CMS
Providers to log for Alert Message receipt and retransmission may represent a useful model for collecting
latency data throughout the WEA system, as proposed in the Further Notice.206 As discussed in further
detail below, developing a stronger understanding of the extent of alert delivery latency is also crucial to

200

See infra Section IV.D.1 (Annual WEA Performance Reporting).

201

See id. 66 (recommending that alert logs should be kept and preserved as an integral part of the Trust Model for
maintaining WEA system integrity, for protecting system security, and for testing and troubleshooting purposes).
202

See NYCEM Comments at 14 (stating additionally that “[d]uring one of our WEA activations (January 2015),
NYCEM identified that a particular network’s devices did NOT receive the message. NYCEM escalated the issue
to FEMA, who contacted the mobile service provider. The mobile service provider identified a significant gap in its
system that required resolution prior to its consumers being able to receive WEA messages”); Beaufort County
Emergency Management, Fire Marshal & Emergency Services Comments at 4; Pinellas County EM Comments at 8;
APCO Comments at 9, 10; Chester County EMA Comments at 3; Douglas County EMA Comments at 2; Eagle
County EM Comments at 1; Calcasieu Parish Police Jury Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness
Comments at 1.
203

See Beaufort County Emergency Management, Fire Marshal & Emergency Services Comments at 4; Pinellas
County EM Comments at 8; APCO Comments at 9, 10; Chester County EMA Comments at 3; Douglas County
EMA Comments at 2; Eagle County EM Comments at 1; Calcasieu Parish Police Jury Office of Homeland Security
and Emergency Preparedness Comments at 1.
204

See AT&T Comments at 22 (stating that FEMA has broader visibility into Participating CMS Providers’ Alert
Message management than does any single Participating CMS Provider, enabling them to produce generalized
reports); accord Sprint Reply at 9; ATIS Comments at 20.
205

See FEMA Mar. 18, 2016 Ex Parte at 2-3.

206

See infra Section IV.D.1 (Annual WEA Performance Reporting).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

building emergency managers’ confidence that the system will work as intended when needed.207 We
anticipate that the alert log maintenance requirements that we adopt today will serve to ensure that alert
logs are available when needed, both to the Commission and to emergency management agencies.
Indeed, any alert logging requirement would be seriously undermined if those logs could be overwritten
as soon as they were recorded, or if they could not be reviewed in appropriate circumstances. Further, we
observe that the alert log maintenance requirements that we adopt today are consistent with CMSAAC’s
initial recommendations for the WEA system.208 Finally, we observe that implementing these CMSAACrecommended procedures would be beneficial in harmonizing our WEA logging requirements with those
already in place for EAS Participants.209
2.

Narrowing Geo-targeting Requirements
a.

Background

50.
Under Section 10.450 of the Commission’s WEA rules, Participating CMS Providers
may not transmit Alert Messages to areas larger than the county or county equivalents with which the
target area of the Alert Message overlaps.210 In the WEA First Report and Order, we concluded that it
would be premature to require geo-targeting to areas smaller than a county, despite many commenters’
statements that cell broadcast technology could already support geo-targeting at the sub-county level,
because not all carriers were expected to employ cell broadcast to deliver Alert Messages, and because
NWS was currently only targeting its Alert Messages at the county level.211 In the WEA NPRM, we
proposed to narrow our WEA geo-targeting requirement such that any Alert Message that is specified by
a geocode, circle, or polygon must be transmitted to an area not larger than the specified area.212 If,
however, a Participating CMS Provider is unable to accurately match the geocode, circle, or polygon
provided by the emergency manager, we proposed to retain the current backstop that the Participating
CMS Provider may geo-target the Alert Message to an area that approximates the desired alert area, but is
no larger than a single transmission site.213
51.
All commenters support more stringent geo-targeting requirements for WEA Alert
Messages, stating that improvements would reduce alert fatigue and consumer opt out.214 Emergency
managers, in particular, state that the current county-level geo-targeting requirement is problematic
because most emergencies affect areas smaller than a county.215 All commenting CMS Providers support
207

See infra para. 172 (discussing how improving emergency managers’ awareness of how long it takes their
messages to be delivered will increase their confidence in using the system during emergencies).
208

See CMSAAC Report at 66.

209

See 47 CFR § 11.35 (requiring EAS Participants to “determine the cause of any failure to receive . . . required
tests or activations,” indicating reasons why a test was not received in a log, and requiring such a log to be
maintained for two years); 47 CFR § 11.61(3)(iv) (requiring EAS Participants to log tests results in the Electronic
Test Reporting System (ETRS)).
210

47 CFR § 10.450.

211

WEA First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 6166, paras. 55-56.

212

WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13801, para. 37.

213

See id.

214

See, e.g., National Public Safety Telecommunications Council Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 5 (Jan. 13,
2016) (NPSTC Comments); Letter from William Hutchinson McClendon IV, CEO AC&C, LLC, to Marlene
Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed November 12, 2015)
(AC&C Nov. 12, 2015 Ex Parte); APCO Comments at 7; Wireless RERC Comments at 25; CTIA Reply at 11.
215

See Ventura County Sheriff EMS Comments at 4; Douglas County EMA Comments at 1; Pinellas County EM
Comments at 7; Houston OPHS Comments at 3 (“County-level WEA warning is not only inconvenient, but can be
dangerous, as protective actions may vary depending on the proximity to the hazard.”).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

geo-targeting to an area that “best approximates” the target area, as recommended by the CSRIC IV WEA
Messaging Report.216 Participating CMS Providers disagreed with our proposed rule to narrow our geotargeting standard to an area “not larger than the target area specified by the alert originator” because it
would routinely and predictably lead to over-alerting absent the implementation of device-based geofencing.217 CSRIC V finds that current cellular broadcast technology “has limitations to achieve the
necessary geo-fencing precision desired by the [Alert Originators].”218
b.

Discussion

52.
We narrow our WEA geo-targeting requirement from the current county-level standard to
a polygon-level standard. Specifically, we amend Section 10.450 to state that a Participating CMS
Provider must transmit any Alert Message that is specified by a geocode, circle, or polygon to an area that
best approximates the specified geocode, circle, or polygon. While we initially proposed that
Participating CMS Providers should transmit the Alert Message to an area “no larger than” the specified
area, the record shows that implementation of such a standard, in the absence of geo-fencing, would
routinely and predictably lead to under alerting.219 We acknowledge, as do many emergency managers,
that cell broadcast technology has a limited capacity for accurate geo-targeting.220 The “best
approximates” standard we adopt today, recommended by CSRIC IV and supported by Participating
CMS Providers, requires Participating CMS Providers to leverage that technology to its fullest extent,
given its limitations.221 At the same time, as we discuss below, we acknowledge that emergency
managers need even more granular geo-targeting than the “best approximates” standard requires.222 We
commend Participating CMS Providers for voluntarily geo-targeting Alert Messages more accurately than
our rules require, where possible, in the years since WEA’s deployment.223 We expect that Participating
CMS Providers will continue to innovate in order to provide their subscribers with the best emergency
alerting service it is feasible for them to offer. In this regard, we clarify that the geo-targeting
requirement we adopt today does not preclude Participating CMS Providers from leveraging the locationsensing capability of WEA-capable mobile devices on their networks to geo-target Alert Message more
accurately. As discussed below, the Commission will be adopting even more granular, handset-based,

216

CSRIC IV WEA Messaging Report, at 44; see also, e.g., AT&T May 6, 2015 Ex Parte at 2; T-Mobile Comments
at 6; Verizon Comments at 2; CTIA Comments at 7.
217

See, e.g., Sprint Comments at 11; CTIA Comments at 7. A device-based solution entails an alert originator
transmitting geographic coordinates for the target area along with the WEA message, and an end-user device using
the device’s location-based technology to display only those WEA messages that are relevant to the geographic area
in which the device is located. CSRIC IV WEA Messaging Report at 40. This technique is sometimes referred to as
“geo-fencing.” See, e.g., NWS May 21, 2015 Ex Parte Letter at 2. FEMA agrees that “[g]eo-targeting proficiency
can be improved by implementing geographical targeting for WEA broadcasts by cell-sector, including delivery of
alert area specifications to the phone enabling mobile-assisted geographical targeting (aka geo-fencing), and other
techniques.” FEMA Jun 18 Ex Parte Letter at 2.
218

CSRIC V, Working Group Two, Wireless Emergency Alerts – Recommendations to Improve Geo-Targeting and
Offer Many-to-One Capabilities, Final Report, at 30 (2016) (CSRIC V WEA Geo-targeting Report).
219

See, e.g., Sprint Comments at 11; CTIA Comments at 7.

220

See, e.g., NPSTC Comments at 5; Ventura County Sheriff EMS Comments at 4; USGS Comments at 2, NYCEM
Comments at 12; see also CSRIC IV WEA Messaging Report at 17; CSRIC V WEA Geo-targeting Report at 30.
221

See CSRIC IV WEA Messaging Report at 40; AT&T Services, Inc. May 5, 2015 Ex Parte at 5; Sprint Comments
at 11; CTIA Comments at 7; AT&T Services Inc. May 5, 2015 Ex Parte at 2.
222

See infra notes 225; 244.

223

See 47 CFR § 10.450; see also, e.g., AT&T May 6, 2015 Ex Parte at 2; Verizon Comments at 12; T-Mobile
Comments at 6.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

geo-targeting requirements.224 Our ultimate objective is for all Participating CMS Providers to match the
target area provided by an alert originator.
53.
Some alert originators remain concerned that a “best approximates” standard will
continue to result in over-alerting and subsequent consumer opt-out.225 NYCEM, for example, warns that
the “best approximates” approach is vague and risks weakening our current geo-targeting requirement.226
While we do not adopt specific parameters for what constitutes “best approximates,” we expect
Participating CMS Providers to take reasonable efforts to leverage existing technology to its fullest
extent, as noted above. We observe that in a recently adopted report, CSRIC V articulates expectations
for cell broadcast-based geo-targeting in rural, suburban and urban areas pursuant to a “best
approximates” approach.227 Specifically, in rural areas, CSRIC V expects that Participating CMS
Providers would be able to approximate the target area with 30,000 meters of “overshoot.”228 In suburban
areas, where cell broadcast facilities are likely to be more densely deployed, CSRIC V expects that geotargeting would become more accurate, achieving an average overshoot of five miles.229 In urban areas,
CSRIC V expects that geo-targeting would be more accurate still, averaging two miles of overshoot.230
We find that these values would satisfy reasonable efforts to “best approximate” the alert area, consistent
with our requirement. In this regard, we believe we strike an appropriate balance between the limitations
of Participating CMS Providers’ current geo-targeting capabilities using cell broadcast, and WEA
stakeholders’ goal of sending WEA Alert Messages only to those members of the public who are at
risk.231
54.
We find that compliance with this geo-targeting requirement is technically feasible, and,
in fact, every commenting CMS Provider except one states that they already use network-based cell
broadcast techniques, such as algorithm-based facility selection and cell sectorization, to geo-target Alert
Messages to polygonal areas more granular than required by our current “county-level” requirement.232 In
this sense, the rule we adopt today will require most Participating CMS Providers only to continue to
employ the techniques that they have been deploying as a matter of best practice. Emergency managers
such as the NWS have also already transitioned from county- to polygon-level geo-targeting, and express
a need for WEA to keep pace with their ability to forecast with granularity the areas that will be impacted

224

See infra Section IV.B.3 (Matching the Geographic Target Area).

225

See, e.g., NPSTC Comments at 5; Ventura County Sheriff EMS Comments at 4; USGS Comments at 2.

226

See NYCEM Comments at 12.

227

See John Schanz, Theresa Hennesy, CSRIC V Working Group Descriptions and Leadership, at 2 (2015)
https://www.fcc.gov/file/3465/download (tasking CSRIC V, Working Group 2 with providing recommendations “on
how best to encourage the use of emergency alerts by state and local officials at a local/geo-targeted level”); CSRIC
V WEA Geo-targeting Report at 29.
228

CSRIC V WEA Geo-targeting Report at 29 (approximately 20 miles).

229

Id.

230

Id.

231

See CSRIC IV WEA Messaging Report at 18-23, 28.

232

See id. at 40; see also AT&T May 6, 2015 Ex Parte at 2; Verizon Comments at 12; but see Letter from Pamela L.
Gist, Counsel, Bluegrass Cellular, Inc., to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS
Docket No. 15-91, at 5 (filed June 29, 2016) (Bluegrass Cellular Jun. 29, 2016 Ex Parte) (stating that “Bluegrass
Cellular currently has cell sectorization capabilities on a network level, but sends Alert messages on a county wide
basis”). We allow non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers a longer period of time within which to comply
with this rule in light of our concern that other non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers that did not contribute
to the record of this proceeding may be in a similar situation as Bluegrass Cellular. See infra Section III.D
(Compliance Timeframes).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

by weather events.233 We observe that in the event Participating CMS Providers are unable to practice
polygon-level geo-targeting, we continue to allow Participating CMS Providers to transmit Alert
Messages to an area not exceeding the propagation area of a single transmission site, as described in
Section 10.450.234 We make conforming amendments to Section 10.450, however, to reflect the new geotargeting standard that we adopt today and specify that “[i]f, however, the Participating CMS Provider
cannot broadcast the Alert Message to an area that best approximates the target area, a Participating CMS
Provider may transmit the Alert Message to an area not larger than the propagation area of a single
transmission site.”235
55.
Participating CMS Providers’ support for polygon-level geo-targeting will produce
significant public safety benefits. Relative to county-level geo-targeting, we expect that polygon-level
geo-targeting will reduce over-alerting.236 When the public regularly receives alerts that do not apply to
them, it creates alert fatigue,237 a driving factor behind consumers’ decisions to opt out of receiving WEA
Alert Messages.238 Further, the Houston Office of Public Safety and Homeland Security comments that
“[c]ounty-level WEA warning is not only inconvenient, but can be dangerous, as protective actions may
vary depending on the proximity to the hazard.”239 Under-alerting also poses severe public safety risks.
According to Austin Homeland Security and Emergency Management, under a county-level geo-targeting
standard, “if there are no cell towers physically located in the warning area, the alert may not be
transmitted at all by some carriers.”240 This would be impermissible under the “best approximates”
standard we adopt today. We also agree with Dennis Mileti, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at The
University of Colorado, that with improved geo-targeting, “it is quite likely that milling after a received
WEA message would decrease since people would not need to determine if they are in the intended
audience for the WEA.”241 A reduction in milling is desirable because it reduces the delay between the
time an Alert Message is received, and the time that the public will begin to take protective action.242
233

NWS May 21, 2016 Ex Parte at 2.

234

See 47 CFR § 10.450 (providing that “[i]f, however, the propagation area of a provider's transmission site
exceeds a single County or County Equivalent, a Participating CMS Provider may transmit an Alert Message to an
area not exceeding the propagation area”).
235

See infra Appx. A (Final Rules).

236

See, e.g., Letter from William Hutchinson McClendon, IV, Chief Executive Officer, AC&C, LLC, to Marlene
Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed Apr. 21, 2015) (AC&C
Apr. 21, 2015 Ex Parte); Chester County EMA Comments at 2; Mason County Emergency Management Comments
at 1; Ventura County Sheriff EMS Comments at 4; Jefferson Parish EM Comments at 3; Austin HSEM Comments
at 3; Indiana DHS Comments at 4; Mark Maxwell Comments at 1.
237

See, e.g., AC&C Apr. 21, 2015 Ex Parte at 1; Chester County EMA Comments at 2; Mason County Emergency
Management Comments at 1; Ventura County Sheriff EMS Comments at 4; Jefferson Parish EM Comments at 3;
Austin HSEM Comments at 3; Indiana DHS Comments at 4.
238

See Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate, Best Practices in Wireless
Emergency Alerts, at 22 (2013),
http://www.firstresponder.gov/TechnologyDocuments/Wireless%20Emergency%20Alerts%20Best%20Practices.pdf
(last visited May 8, 2015) (stating that, “[a]s county residents receive alerts that are not relevant to them, over time
this could result in alert fatigue, as the recipients become desensitized to the alerts.”); National Public Safety
Telecommunications Council Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 5 (Jan. 13, 2016) (NPSTC Comments).
239

Houston OPHS Comments at 3.

240

Austin HSEM Comments at 3 (stating about flood warnings that “[w]aterways are in low-lying areas and cell
towers are typically located at higher elevations,” meaning, alerts may not be issued to the at-risk area).
241

Dennis Mileti Apr. 7, 2016 Ex Parte at 3.

242

See supra para. 30 (discussing milling in greater detail in the context of the impact of requiring support for
embedded references).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

This reduction in milling behavior is also likely to benefit Participating CMS Providers by reducing
network usage at times when their network is otherwise vulnerable to congestion due to the pending
emergency event.243 Finally, we agree with BRETSA and Douglas County Emergency Management that
more granular alerting will encourage emergency managers to become authorized as WEA alert
originators.244 Simply put, Participating CMS Providers’ support for polygon-level geo-targeting is an
important step towards ensuring that everyone affected by an emergency has access to the emergency
information provided by WEA, and contributes to the public perception that “if you receive a WEA, take
action, because it applies to you.”
56.
Our decision to require support for Participating CMS Providers’ best approximation of
the target area is an important step towards ensuring that WEA Alert Messages can be sent to only those
individuals for whom they are relevant. The record shows that over-alerting leads to alert fatigue,
residents that ignore the Alert Messages, and public safety officials who refrain from using WEA in
emergencies.245 The record also demonstrates consensus among emergency managers and Participating
CMS Providers that we should clear a path forward for even more accurate geo-targeting, and that we
should make progress towards the achievement of this goal by adopting an appropriate regulatory
framework, and by continuing to collaborate with WEA stakeholders to establish standards and best
practices, and to better understand technical issues.246 Recognizing that standards development and
network modifications may be necessary to further improve geo-targeting, in the Further Notice we seek
comment on any issues that remain to be addressed and on an appropriate timeframe for compliance.
57.
Finally, we take action to ensure that emergency alert originators better understand the
manner in which their messages will be geo-targeted. In the WEA NPRM we sought comment on whether
to require Participating CMS Providers to report data to alert originators about their provision of WEA

243

See, e.g., Sprint Reply at 4; NAB and NPR Comments at 2; CTIA Comments at 12.

244

BRETSA Comments at 11 (“WEA is also of limited utility to local public safety agencies because messages
cannot be targeted to affected areas.”); cf. Douglas County EMA Comments at 1; Lexington Division of Emergency
Management Comments at 2 (poor geo-targeting discourages emergency managers from using WEA).
245

See, e.g., Letter from Barb Graff, City of Seattle Office of Emergency Management, to Tom Wheeler, Chairman,
FCC, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed Sep. 22, 2016) (“The lack of precise targeting makes WEA useless for Seattle
in all but the largest events.”); Letter from James O’Neil, Police Commissioner, City of New York, to Tom Wheeler,
Chairman, FCC, PS Docket 15-91, at 1 (filed Sep. 22, 2016) (stating that when New York City used WEA in
connection with a recent bombing, they experienced a degree of over-alerting that is concerning because they “they
do not want people opting out of the system because they receive messages that are not relevant to them”).
246

See, e.g., CSRIC V WEA Geo-targeting Report at 30-32 (recommending that the Commission modify its existing
county-level geo-targeting requirement to a best approximate standard, and collaborate with WEA stakeholders to
“conduct research, develop standards and implement systems that support enhanced geo-targeting and allow device
operating systems and device based applications” to take specific steps to improve geo-targeting accuracy, with new
handsets deployed within 34 months of the completion of standards Letter from Brian Josef, Assistant Vice
President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS
Docket No 15-91 (filed Sep. 22, 2016) (“In recent days, several parties have requested that device-based geotargeting be included in the upcoming Report and Order, instead of being addressed in a Further Notice. Consistent
with the recent CSRIC V recommendations and the rulemaking record, the Commission should absolutely move
forward with a technically feasible and appropriate proposal in a Further Notice, and should make clear that nothing
in the upcoming Report and Order will preclude service providers from pursuing technically feasible device-based
geo-targeting methods in the interim.”); Letter from Benjamin Krakauer, Director, Watch Command, NYCEM, to
Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed Sep. 22, 2016) (“[T]he public interest would best
be served by including this issue in the upcoming Rule and Order as opposed to including it in a Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking”); Letter from Bill de Blasio, Mayor, City of New York, to Tom Wheeler, Chairman, FCC,
PS Docket No. 15-91, at 2 (filed Sep. 22, 2016) (encouraging the Commission to adopt a geo-targeting
recommendation that leverages the intelligence mobile devices in the Report and Order).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

along key performance metrics, including the accuracy of geo-targeting.247 In response, emergency
managers observe that information about geo-targeting, in particular, would be helpful to inform their
emergency response planning efforts by improving transparency and understanding of IPAWS/WEA
among emergency managers authorized to use WEA.248 Commenters also indicate that this transparency,
in turn, could increase WEA adoption by non-participating emergency managers.249 In light of the
demonstrated benefits of improving emergency managers’ understanding of the geographic area to which
their WEA Alert Messages will be targeted, we require that, upon request from an emergency
management agency, a Participating CMS Provider will disclose information regarding their capabilities
for geo-targeting Alert Messages (e.g., whether they are using network-based technology to “best
approximate” the target area, or whether they are using device-based geo-fencing). A Participating CMS
Provider is only required to disclose this information to an emergency management agency insofar as it
would pertain to Alert Messages initiated by that emergency management agency, and only so long as the
emergency management agency offers confidentiality protection at least equal to that provided by the
federal FOIA.250
3.

Presenting Alert Messages Concurrent with Other Device Activity
a.

Background

58.
With respect to WEA Alert Message prioritization at the Alert Gateway and in transit,
Sections 10.320 and 10.410 of the Commission’s WEA rules provide that Participating CMS Providers
must transmit AMBER and Imminent Threat Alerts on a first in-first out (FIFO) basis, and Presidential
Alerts immediately upon receipt.251 With respect to WEA Alert Message prioritization at the mobile
device, Section 10.510 states that WEA-capable mobile devices “must not enable an Alert Message to
preempt an active voice or data session.”252 In adopting Section 10.510, the Commission reasoned that
the public would be ill-served if, during a crisis, their calls for emergency services were preempted by
WEA.253 In the WEA NPRM, we sought comment on whether we should amend our rules to address Alert
Message prioritization at the Alert Gateway, in transit, or on the mobile device.254
59.
All public safety commenters treating this issue agree that WEA messages should take
priority over all device activity except emergency phone calls.255 AT&T and CTIA urge us to maintain
247

See WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13810-11, para. 57.

248

See Pinellas County EM Comments at 8; Beaufort County Emergency Management, Fire Marshal & Emergency
Services Comments at 4; CCOEM Comments at 3; Los Angeles EMD Comments at 1; Jefferson Parish EM
Comments at 4.
249

See, e.g., Hyper-Reach Comments at 5; Chester County EMA Comments; Ventura County Sheriff EMS
Comments at 6; Peoria ECC Comments at 1; APCO Comments at 9.
250

47 CFR § 10.320; 47 CFR § 10.410.

252

47 CFR § 10.510.

253

WEA First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 6173, para. 80.

254

WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13817, para. 77.

255

See, e.g., The Iowa Flood Center at the University of Iowa Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 2 (Feb. 12, 2016)
(Iowa Flood Center Comments); NWS Comments at 2; Los Angeles EMD Comments at 1; NYCEM Comments at
16.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

our existing rules for Alert Message prioritization at the Alert Gateway and in transit, stating that no
approach to Alert Message prioritization other than FIFO is technically feasible.256 With respect to Alert
Message Prioritization at the mobile device, AT&T states that all mobile devices display a WEA message
as soon as it is received.257 During an active data session, WEA-capable mobile devices on 4G-LTE
networks can be simultaneously tuned to the control channel that carries WEA Alert Messages, enabling
them to receive Alert Messages as soon as they are available, irrespective of other device activity.258
WEA-capable mobile devices on legacy networks, however, cannot be tuned to both channels
simultaneously, so receipt of a WEA Alert Message on the control channel would be delayed until the
conclusion of an active session on the data channel.259 AT&T further states that WEA Alert Messages are
currently displayed during active phone calls, but that there is no accompanying vibration cadence and
attention signal, and that changing this functionality would require a change to standards.260
b.

Discussion

60.
We amend Section 10.510 to require WEA-capable mobile devices to present WEA Alert
Messages as soon as they are received.261 We expect that devices engaged in active voice or data sessions
on 4G-LTE networks will receive and prominently present WEA Alert Messages as soon as they are
available, whereas WEA-capable mobile devices engaged in active voice or data sessions on legacy
networks will not be able to receive available Alert Messages until the active voice or data session
concludes.262 This approach is consistent with the ATIS/TIA Mobile Device Behavior Specification’s
treatment of Alert Message prioritization.263
61.
We also allow Participating CMS Providers to provide their subscribers with the option
to specify how the vibration cadence and attention signal should be presented when a WEA Alert
Message is received during an active voice or data session in a manner that does not “preempt” it.
Pursuant to the ATIS/TIA Mobile Device Behavior Specification, a “momentary interruption of a voice
256

AT&T Comments at 25; CTIA Comments at 14; ATIS Comments at 21; but see Letter from Thomas Goode,
ATIS General Counsel, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 16-32,
at 2 (filed Jul. 19, 2016) (stating that “it should be technically possible to prioritize [] alerts (similar to the
prioritization of Presidential Alerts via WEA)”). This Report and Order requires no change to the manner in which
Participating CMS Providers prioritize Alert Messages at the Alert Gateway or in transit, only at the mobile device.
Prioritization at the Alert Gateway and in transit are addressed in the Further Notice. See infra Section IV.A.4
(Earthquake Alert Prioritization).
257

AT&T Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte at 6-7.

258

Id.; see also NYCEM Comments at 16.

259

AT&T Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte at 6-7.

260

Id. at 6; Microsoft Reply at 6 (stating that any other approach to Alert Message prioritization at the mobile device
could encourage consumer opt out).
261

Pursuant to this rule, all WEA-capable mobile devices will be required to present WEA Alert Messages upon
receipt. We expect that legacy WEA-capable mobile devices that cannot receive the Alert Message during an active
voice or data session because they cannot be simultaneously tuned to the data and control channels will nonetheless
present the Alert Message prominently as soon as it is received (upon the conclusion of the active voice or data
session).
262

See AT&T Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte at 6-7; Microsoft Mar. 8, 2016 Ex Parte at 2; see also ATIS/TIA Mobile
Device Behavior Specification at 9-10.
263

The ATIS/TIA Mobile Device Behavior Specification states that “[i]t is desirable to have the CMAS displayable
message text prominently presented on the mobile device consistent with user settings for presentation of incoming
phone calls and SMS messages.” ATIS/TIA Mobile Device Behavior Specification at 10 (including the illumination
of the visual display without user interaction when the Alert Message is received); cf. Microsoft Mar. 9, 2016 Ex
Parte at 2 (stating that the relevant standard requires “dominance” of the WEA Alert Message); NYCEM Comments
at 16 (stating that it is common practice for mobile devices to process multiple tasks concurrently).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

call or active data session, such as a brief visual, audible and/or vibration indication that a CMAS
message has been received, is not considered preemption so long as the voice call/data session is not
terminated and facilities to support that voice call or data session are not seized or released.”264 We note
that, according to ATIS, WEA-capable mobile devices currently take a variety of approaches to the use of
the vibration cadence and audio attention signal to make the user aware of the receipt of an Alert Message
while he/she is engaged in other device activity,265 but, according to AT&T, it “is possible to display the
WEA alert in LTE VoLTE with the alert tone suppressed” during active voice sessions.266 We encourage
Participating CMS Providers to leverage this capability by providing their customers with the option to
change the manner in which the common attention signal and vibration cadence are used during active
voice and data sessions.
62.
This approach reflects the critical importance of a WEA Alert Message to its recipient,
while also respecting that the Alert Message recipient may be using their mobile device to engage in a
protective action that should not be interrupted, such as placing a call to 911, at the time the Alert
Message is received.267 This approach is consistent with mobile device manufacturers’ perspective that
giving full priority to WEA Alert Messages during active voice calls “would be distracting to the user,”268
and that the WEA Alert Message should not disrupt the voice telephony capability of the device.269 It is
also consistent with emergency managers’ perspective that the readily recognizable common attention
signal and vibration cadence should be presented to the public as quickly as technically possible,
particularly during emergency situations where every second is critical.270 Conversely, we agree with
commenters that a “priority access” requirement that would require ongoing voice and data sessions to be
terminated by the receipt of a WEA Alert Message would not be in the public interest because it could
result in the termination of other critical emergency communications.271
C.

Testing and Outreach
1.

Supporting State/Local WEA Testing and Proficiency Training Exercises
a.

Background

63.
Section 10.350 of the Commission’s WEA rules requires Participating CMS Providers to
participate in monthly tests initiated by FEMA and in periodic testing of the C-interface.272 The
Commission adopted these requirements in the WEA Second Report and Order, consistent with the testing
model recommended by CTIA at the time.273 In the WEA NPRM, we proposed to supplement the WEA
testing model, as recommended by CSRIC IV, with State/Local WEA Tests, end-to-end system tests

264

See ATIS/TIA Mobile Device Behavior Specification at 11.

265

Letter from Thomas Goode, General Counsel, Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions, to Marlene
Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 19 (filed Mar.18, 2016) (ATIS
Mar. 18, 2016 Ex Parte).
266

AT&T Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte at 7.

267

See Los Angeles EMD Comments at 1; Iowa Flood Center Comments at 2. Similarly, if someone is sending a
text message to 911 when a WEA message is received, the incoming WEA Alert Message must not preempt the
ability of the user to complete their action and continue their text exchange.
268

See Blackberry Mar. 21, 2016 Ex Parte at 2.

269

See Microsoft Mar. 8, 2016 Ex Parte at 2.

270

See USGS Comments at 2; NYCEM Comments at 16; Houston OPHS Comments at 4.

271

See Microsoft Reply at 6; CTIA Comments at 14; Blackberry Mar. 21, 2016 Ex Parte at 2.

272

47 CFR § 10.350.

273

WEA Second Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 10773-74, paras. 21-23.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

initiated by state and local emergency managers and terminating with members of the public who opt in
to receiving them.274
64.
The majority of commenters support the proposed State/Local WEA Testing model, and
agree that requiring Participating CMS Providers to support State/Local WEA Tests will be beneficial to
both alert originators and the public.275 Commenters differ on how frequently emergency managers
should be allowed to conduct State Local WEA/Tests, offering preferred rates for testing that range from
“constantly” to annually.276 The majority of commenters agree that State/Local WEA Tests should be
retransmitted by Participating CMS Providers immediately upon receipt because allowing Participating
CMS Providers to delay up to 24 hours before sending a State/Local WEA Test, as they are permitted to
do for RMTs, would defeat the purpose of end-to-end testing, and may result in the public receiving test
messages at night, which would encourage opt out.277 Verizon and CTIA state that providing consumers
with the option to opt in to receive State/Local WEA Tests would require new standards to implement,
militating for a 30-month implementation timeframe.278 Emergency managers also agree that proficiency
training would be beneficial, but APCO and NYCEM state that this activity does not require live WEA
tests, and in fact, may be accomplished more effectively and efficiently via other offline methods using
the alert origination software.279
b.

Discussion

65.
We require Participating CMS Providers to support State/Local WEA Tests, as proposed
in the WEA NPRM. Specifically, we adopt a new Section 10.350(c) to require Participating CMS
Providers to support the receipt of State/Local WEA Tests from the Federal Alert Gateway Administrator,
and to distribute such tests to the desired test area in a manner consistent with the Commission’s Alert
Message requirements.280 We reason that requiring State/Local WEA Tests to be received and delivered
274

WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13806-07, para. 47; CSRIC IV WEA Testing Report at 24.

275

See, e.g., Verizon Comments at 3; T-Mobile Reply at 10; APCO Comments at 8; CTIA Comments at 8; NWS
Comments at 2 (stating that the phrase “may support” should be replaced with “shall support” opt-in to State/Local
WEA Testing); FEMA May 21, 2015 Ex Parte at 4; NYCEM Comments at 13; but see BRETSA Comments at 19
(stating that, rather than allowing for State/Local WEA Testing, WEA should be connected to other Emergency
Notification Services (ENS) though an application programming interface (API)); Sprint Comments at 13 (stating
that this could have staffing implications, and that hundreds of tests could overwhelm CMSP resources); APCO
Comments at 9 (stating that offline methods of testing alert software present more optimal modes of proficiency
training); CTIA Comments at 9 (stating that new rules should limit support for testing to 4G LTE and future
networks); DAC Comments at 3-4 (stating that proficiency training opportunities provided by these exercises could
“help to ensure that Emergency Man[a]gers have taken the appropriate steps to identify at-risk members of their
local communities”).
276

See, e.g., Ventura County Sheriff EMS Comments at 5 (stating the emergency managers need to constantly test
and train on sending emergency messages); Matanuska-Susitna Borough Comments (supporting weekly testing);
Kansas City EM Comments at 2 (supporting monthly testing); Henderson OEM Comments at 1 (supporting
quarterly testing); Pinellas County EM Comments at 7 (supporting biannual testing); Mason County EM Comments
at 1 (stating that testing would be useful even if limited to once per year).
277

See Indiana DHS Comments at 5; Henderson OEM Comments a 1; NYCEM Comments at 14; Jefferson Parish
EM Comments at 3-4; Pinellas County EM Comments at 7; Kansas City EM Comments at 2; but see Douglas
County EMA Comments at 1.
278

See Verizon Comments at 13; CTIA Comments at 9.

279

See Henderson OEM Comments at 1; San Joaquin County OES Comments at 2; Peoria ECC Comments;
NYCEM Comments at 14; CCOEM Comments at 2; cf. APCO Comments at 9; NYCEM Comments at 13; San
Joaquin OES Comments at 2.
280

Our Alert Message Requirements are provided in Subpart D of our Part 10 WEA rules. See 47 CFR §§ 10.400 –
10.480. These requirements address classification, prioritization, message elements, character limit, embedded
references, geo-targeting, and roaming.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

in accordance with our Alert Message requirements will ensure that emergency managers have the
opportunity to test in an environment that mirrors actual alert conditions and evaluate, for example, the
accuracy with which various Participating CMS Providers geo-target Alert Messages in their community.
Unlike other Alert Messages, however, consumers will not receive State/Local WEA Tests by default.
Participating CMS Providers should provide their subscribers with the option to receive State/Local WEA
Tests, and subscribers would have to affirmatively select this option in order to receive these test
messages.281 According to CTIA, “[t]his way, unwanted test messages will not disturb wireless
consumers who could become confused or annoyed by test messages and opt out of WEA entirely.”282
We also agree with Sprint that making State/Local WEA Tests available on an opt-in basis minimizes any
risk of call center congestion.283 Another respect in which a State/Local WEA Test will differ from an
actual Alert Message is that we require State/Local WEA Tests to include conspicuous language
sufficient to make clear to the public that the message is, in fact, only a test. This will minimize any
chance that such test messages might be misconstrued as actual Alert Messages.
66.
The 24-hour delivery window that currently applies to RMTs under Section 10.350(a)(2)
will not apply to State/Local WEA Tests. Rather, we require that Participating CMS Providers transmit
State/Local WEA Tests immediately upon receipt.284 We agree with commenters that allowing
Participating CMS Providers to delay delivery of State/Local WEA Tests would make it impossible for
emergency managers to evaluate message delivery latency, and might result in individuals who do opt in
to receive State/Local WEA Tests receiving them in the middle of the night, which is unlikely to promote
participation.285 A Participating CMS Provider may not forgo or delay delivery of a State/Local WEA
Test, except when the test is preempted by actual Alert Message traffic, or if an unforeseen condition in
the Participating CMS Provider infrastructure precludes distribution of the State/Local WEA Test.286 If a
Participating CMS Provider Gateway forgoes or delays a State/Local WEA Test for one of these reasons,
it shall send a response code to the Federal Alert Gateway indicating the reason consistent with how we
currently require Participating CMS Providers to handle forgone RMTs.287 We anticipate that allowing
Participating CMS Providers to forgo transmittal of a State/Local WEA Test if it is preempted by actual
alert traffic or if unforeseen conditions arise will ensure that State/Local WEA Tests do not “overwhelm
wireless provides’ limited resources, ” as stated by CTIA.288 We defer to emergency managers to
determine how frequently testing is appropriate, given this constraint.
67.
We encourage emergency management agencies to engage in proficiency training
exercises using this State/Local WEA Testing framework where appropriate. We agree with commenters
that proficiency training exercises are a helpful and meaningful way for emergency managers to engage
281

Notwithstanding Section 10.350(c)(4), for legacy devices no longer supported by software updates, Participating
CMS Providers may provide subscribers with the option to receive State/Local WEA Tests, but are not required to
do so.
282

CTIA Comments at 8; accord T-Mobile Reply 10; Chester County EMA Comments at 2; NYCEM Comments at
14; Cochise County OES Comments at 2; Jefferson Parish EM Comments at 3; Kansas City EM at 2.
283

See Sprint Comments at 12 (stating that support for State/Local WEA Testing will have “significant staffing
implications”).
284

See Chester County EMA Comments at 3 (requesting testing that accurately reflect latencies).

285

See Indiana DHS Comments at 5; Henderson OEM Comments a 1; NYCEM Comments at 14; Jefferson Parish
EM Comments at 3-4; Pinellas County EM Comments at 7; Kansas City EM Comments at 2; Denver OEMHS
Comments at 2.
286

47 CFR § 10.350(a) (describing RMTs).

287

See 47 CFR § 10.350(a)(3); CMSAAC Report at 92.

288

CTIA Comments at 9; accord Sprint Comments at 13; cf. Verizon Comments at 13 (expressing concern that tests
may be received during major network upgrades).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

with alert and warning issues.289 Moreover, we agree with San Joaquin County OES that “proficiency
training is an essential element of verifying competency” in the alert origination skill set necessary to
issue effective WEA Alert Messages.290 We observe that our rules allow such proficiency training
exercises now. We agree with APCO that alert origination software can be used to support internal
proficiency training exercises where emergency managers wish to iterate alert origination best practices in
a closed environment, 291 and that the State/Local WEA Testing framework described above is sufficient
to support cases where emergency management agencies find it appropriate to involve the public in their
WEA exercises.292 We hope that proficiency training exercises will provide emergency management
agencies with a method of generating their own WEA alert origination best practices, particularly with
respect to the kinds of enhanced Alert Messages enabled by this proceeding (i.e., Alert Messages up to
360 characters in length that may include embedded references, may be issued in Spanish, and may be
intended to supplement an already-issued Alert Message).
68.
We find that requiring Participating CMS Providers to support this State/Local WEA
Testing framework is technically feasible, requiring only updates to software and standards in order to
allow users the option to opt in to receive such tests,293 and that it will result in significant public safety
benefits.294 Specifically, we agree with Clarion County OES and the Lexington Division of Emergency
Management that while occasional system failures are probable, a solid testing and training platform such
as this can ensure that failures can be corrected during a period where no real emergency exists.295 We
also agree with Calcasieu Parish Police Jury Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness
that regular readiness testing and proficiency training are critical to maintaining WEA alert origination
competency because “[i]f you don’t use it you lose it.”296 According to FEMA, requiring Participating
CMS Providers to support State/Local WEA Testing will improve WEA by providing confidence to the
public that their handsets are capable of receiving an Alert Message from local emergency management
agencies, and by rendering WEA suitable for use in coordinated public warning exercises, such as those
required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for local emergency preparedness programs.297 Further,
we agree with Harris County Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Management that State/Local
WEA Tests, in conjunction with targeted outreach efforts, may be useful to emergency managers as a tool
to improve their competency at initiating Alert Messages in languages other than English.298 Importantly,
289

See San Joaquin County OES Comments at 2; APCO Comments at 9.

290

San Joaquin County OES Comments at 2.

291

APCO Comments at 9.

292

Id.

293

See Verizon Comments at 13; ATIS Comments at 20; CTIA Comments at 9.

294

See, e.g., Calcasieu Parish Police Jury Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness Comments at
1; Clarion County OES Comments at 1; Lexington Division of Emergency Management Comments at 2; FEMA
Jun. 18, 2015 Ex Parte Letter at 3.
295

See Clarion County OES Comments at 1; Lexington Division of Emergency Management Comments at 2.

296

Calcasieu Parish Police Jury Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness Comments at 1.

297

See FEMA Jun. 18, 2015 Ex Parte Letter at 3; see also U.S. N.R.C., About NRC, http://www.nrc.gov/aboutnrc.html (last visited Jul. 15, 2016). The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was created as an
independent agency by Congress in 1974 to ensure the safe use of radioactive materials for beneficial civilian
purposes while protecting people and the environment. The NRC regulates commercial nuclear power plants and
other uses of nuclear materials, such as in nuclear medicine, through licensing, inspection and enforcement of its
requirement. Each nuclear power plant operator is required to submit the radiological emergency response plans
including scheduled tests and exercises for state and local governments that are within the 10-mile plume exposure
pathway “Emergency Planning Zones (EPZ),” as well as the plans of state governments within the 50-mile ingestion
pathway EPZs. See 10 CFR §§ 50.33(g); 50.54(s).
298

See Harris County OSHEM Mar. 7, 2016 Ex Parte at 4.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

emergency managers may also use State/Local WEA Tests to voluntarily collect and share information
about geo-targeting, alert delivery latency, and other vital performance metrics.299 We encourage
emergency managers and related entities to engage in extensive outreach to their respective communities
in order to socialize the benefits of public participation in State/Local WEA Tests, and otherwise to raise
public awareness about the benefits of receiving WEA messages, including through the use of PSAs.300
2.

Testing the NCE Public Television C-interface Back-up
a.

Background

69.
Under the WARN Act, non-commercial educational (NCE) public television broadcast
television stations are required to “install necessary equipment and technologies on, or as part of, any
broadcast television digital signal transmitter to enable the distribution of geographically targeted alerts
by commercial mobile service providers that have elected to transmit emergency alerts.”301 Section
10.340 of the Commission’s rules, in turn, implements this statutory mandate by requiring NCE public
broadcast television station licensees and permittees to deploy transmission facilities capable of receiving
“WEA alerts from the Alert Gateway over an alternate, secure interface and then to transmit such WEA
alerts to CMS Provider Gateways of Participating CMS Providers.”302 In other words, this NCE public
broadcasting equipment provides a secure back-up to the C-interface. The Commission adopted this
requirement in the WEA Second Report and Order in order to satisfy Section 602(c) of the WARN Act,
and to serve the public interest by creating a redundant, alternate Alert Message distribution path.303 In
the WEA NPRM, we sought to refresh the record on whether and how testing of the broadcast-based WEA
infrastructure should be implemented.304
70.
PBS, APTS, and CPB state that they already voluntarily test their broadcast-based WEA
equipment and its connectivity to FEMA in a continuous manner to detect and address any anomalies.305
These commenters state that in order to fully test and validate message delivery and improve system
integrity, they would support a weekly or monthly test the public television broadcast-based backup to the
C-interface initiating from the FEMA Gateway and traversing the broadcast-based WEA infrastructure to
the CMS Provider Gateway.306 CSRIC V highlights the importance of the broadcast-based backup to the
C-interface to protecting system resiliency in its March 2016 CSRIC V WEA Security Report, stating that
“PBS WARN is a safeguard to ensure delivery of the WEA, even in the event that a cybersecurity or
other event disrupts the primary WEA delivery path.”307

299

See id.

300

See infra Section III.C.3 (Facilitating WEA PSAs).

301

WARN Act § 602(c), 47 USC § 1202(c).

302

47 CFR § 10.340.

303

WEA Second Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 1077-71, paras. 15-16.

304

WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13817, para. 74.

305

Public Broadcasting Service, Association of Public Television Stations, and Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 2 (Jan. 13, 2016) (PBS, APTS, and CPB Comments).
306

See Letter from Thomas Rosen, Assistant General Counsel, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed Mar. 11, 2016) (PBS, APTS, and CPB Mar 11,
2016 Ex Parte). This position represents a revision of their previous analysis, in which they asserted that that
imposing any additional WEA testing obligations on NCE public broadcast television stations “remains just as
infeasible, costly, and ineffective as it was eight years ago when the Commission last considered this same issue.”
PBS, APTS, and CPB Comments at 3.
307

CSRIC V WEA Security Report at 26.

Federal Communications Commission
b.

FCC 16-127

Discussion

71.
We agree with the public broadcasting and NCE commenters that in order to be fully
effective and reflective of WEA system needs, a test of the public television broadcast-based backup to
the C-interface should be implemented as an end-to-end test from the IPAWS to the CMS Provider
Gateways. Accordingly, we amend our rules to make it clear that periodic C interface testing must
include the testing of its public television broadcast-based backup. Pursuant to this framework, FEMA
would initiate a test of the broadcast-based C-interface backup by sending a test message through that
infrastructure to the CMS Provider Alert Gateway, which would respond by returning an
acknowledgement of receipt of the test message to the FEMA Gateway. This approach ensures reliable
continuity between FEMA and Participating CMS Providers, even during a disaster in which internet
connectivity may be lost.308 We defer to FEMA as the IPAWS and Federal Alert Gateway administrator
to determine the periodicity of these tests in conversation with Participating CMS Providers.309
72.
By requiring CMS Providers to participate in periodic testing of the broadcast-based
backup to the C-interface, “we develop and implement the appropriate safeguards to ensure delivery of
critical infrastructure services,” as recommended by the CSRIC V WEA Security Report.310 PBS, APTS,
and CPB agree that this approach to testing the C-interface backup presents NCE public broadcasting
entities with no additional cost burdens.311 We agree with PBS, APTS, and CPB that this rule will require
no “material intervention” by such stations because their receipt and retransmission of test messages will
be entirely automated, and will use equipment already installed at their facilities.312 Accordingly, we
anticipate that stations in compliance with our rules today will have to take no additional steps in order to
comply with this new testing requirement.
3.

Facilitating WEA PSAs
a.

Background

73.
Sections 11.45 and 10.520 of the Commission’s EAS and WEA rules, respectively,
contain prohibitions on the use of the common emergency alerting attention signal in cases other than an
actual emergency.313 The Commission adopted Section 10.520 in the WEA First Report and Order in
order to ensure WEA accessibility.314 The Commission adopted Section 11.45 in the EAS Deployment
Order in order to prohibit the false or deceptive use of the EAS attention signal.315 We have recently
granted waivers of these rule provisions to facilitate FEMA’s efforts to create and disseminate WEA
PSAs.316 In the WEA NPRM, we proposed to allow federal, state and local governments to use the
308

See id. at 25-28.

309

Cf. Joint ATIS/TIA CMAS Federal Alert Gateway to CMSP Gateway Interface Specification, J-STD 101, at 18
(2012) (specifying that FEMA will determine the periodicity of C-interface tests in conversation with Participating
CMS Providers).
310

CSRIC V WEA Security Report at 26.

311

See Letter from Thomas Rosen, Assistant General Counsel, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, at 1 (filed Mar. 11, 2016) (PBS, APTS, and CPB Mar. 11, 2016 Ex Parte).
Similarly, this position represents a revision of their previous analysis. See PBS, APTS, and CPB Comments at 3.
312

PBS, APTS, and CPB Mar. 11, 2016 Ex Parte at 1.

313

47 CFR § 11.45; 47 CFR § 10.520(d).

314

WEA First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 6168-69, paras. 64, 67.

315

Amendment of Part 73, Subpart G, of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the Emergency Broadcast System,
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FO Docket Nos. 91-301, 91-171, 10 FCC Rcd 1786,
1815, para. 84 (1994) (EAS Deployment Order).
316

See, e.g., Waiver of Section 11.45 of the Commission’s Rules to Allow Broadcast of Public Service
Announcements Produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to Educate the Public on the Wireless
(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

attention signal common to EAS and WEA to raise public awareness about WEA, provided the relevant
entity makes it clear that the WEA Attention Signal is being used in the context of the PSA, “and for the
purpose of educating the viewing or listening public about the functions of their WEA-capable mobile
devices and the WEA program,” including by explicitly stating that the WEA attention signal is being
used in the context of a PSA for the purpose of educating the public about WEA.317
74.
Commenters unanimously support our proposal to facilitate WEA PSAs, and NYCEM
states that this would be particularly important in light of the creation of the new Alert Message
classification and the need to educate the public about the value of the additional information they intend
to provide.318 Dennis Mileti, Professor Emeritus, University of Colorado, states that the social science
research record on public response to warning concludes that “pre-event public education is useful to
familiarize the public, among other things, with warning technologies and approaches that may be used in
the future.”319
b.

Discussion

75.
We amend Sections 11.45 and 10.520 to allow federal, state and local, tribal and
territorial entities, as well as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in coordination with such entities,
to use the attention signal common to EAS and WEA to raise public awareness about WEA. WEA PSAs
that use the WEA attention signal must make clear that it is being used in the context of the PSA, “and for
the purpose of educating the viewing or listening public about the functions of their WEA-capable mobile
devices and the WEA program,” including by explicitly stating that the WEA attention signal is being
used in the context of a PSA for the purpose of educating the public about WEA.320
76.
We agree with commenters that facilitating federal, state, local, tribal and territorial
governments’ issuance of WEA PSAs, as proposed, is in the public interest,321 and that the utility of WEA
PSAs will only be augmented by allowing NGOs to produce them in coordination with governmental
entities by promoting effective community partnership.322 Specifically, WEA PSAs can be effective tools
to raise public awareness about, and promote positive perceptions of WEA, which may reduce consumer
opt-out and reduce milling.323 We note the PSA campaign of Minnesota Emergency, Community Health
and Outreach (ECHO), a program and service of Twin Cities Public Television, as an example of how
governmental entities can partner with NGOs to raise community awareness about the significance of the
(Continued from previous page)
Emergency Alert System, PS Docket No. 07-287, Order, DA 15-1326, para. 6 (2015) (granting a limited waiver of
Sections 11.45 and 10.520 of the Commission’s rules to allow the broadcast or transmission of the WEA Attention
Signal in PSAs produced as part of FEMA’s WEA public education campaign).
317

WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13815, para. 70. In the Alerting Paradigm NPRM, we sought comment on this
same issue in the EAS context. Alerting Paradigm NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at, 626-27, paras. 66-68. We resolve this
issue here only insofar as it pertains to the broadcast or transmission of the WEA Attention Signal. We will address
this issue as it pertains to EAS in the Alerting Paradigm proceeding.
318

See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 24; USGS Comments at 2; NWS Comments at 4; see also NYCEM Comments at
15-16; DAC Comments at 4.
319

Dennis Mileti Apr. 7, 2016 Ex Parte at 4-5.

320

See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 24; USGS Comments at 2; NWS Comments at 4; NYCEM Comments at 15-16.

322

See, e.g., California Governor’s OES Comments at 4; USGS Comments at 2.

323

See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 24; USGS Comments at 2; NWS Comments at 4; NYCEM Comments at 15-16;
Dennis Mileti Apr. 7, 2016 Ex Parte at 4-5.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

common alerting attention signal for EAS and WEA.324 We also note that WEA PSAs have become a
critical part of FEMA’s Ready campaign that has “shown that it can enhance the public’s understanding
of how the WEA functions and increase the public’s benefits from the WEA and thereby benefit public
safety generally.”325 We agree with commenters that the issuance of WEA PSAs is particularly
appropriate in the context of the rules we adopt today.326 For example, with respect to increasing the
maximum WEA character limit, FEMA notes that it will “need to . . . conduct additional public
information efforts to inform people of the new format of Alert Messages they may receive on their
cellular phones.”327 Additionally, we anticipate that PSAs will be an effective method to acclimate the
public to the fact that they may receive supplemental instructions about how to respond to an emergency
through the newly adopted WEA Public Safety Message classification. Indeed, we commit to work with
WEA stakeholders to develop community outreach plans and raise public awareness about each of the
WEA enhancements made possible by this Report and Order. Moreover, we agree with Professor Denis
Mileti, Professor Emeritus, University of Colorado, that WEA PSAs can reduce milling by “build[ing] the
reputation of the WEA system with the American public,” making it a more credible and authoritative
single resource for emergency information.328
D.

Compliance Timeframes
a.

Background.

77.
In the WEA NPRM, we recognized that while all of our proposed rules are intended to
leverage commercially available technologies to improve public safety at minimal cost to Participating
CMS Providers, compliance with our WEA message content rules, unlike our WEA testing and geotargeting rules, would likely require modifications to existing standards in order to ensure that
Participating CMS Providers are able to comply with these proposed rules in a uniform manner.329
Accordingly, we proposed to require Participating CMS Providers to comply with our WEA messaging
rules within one year, and with our WEA geo-targeting and testing/outreach rules within sixty days.330
We also sought comment on reasonable timelines to implement improvements to WEA on which we
sought comment, such as multilingual alerting, and testing of the backup to the C-interface.

324

See, e.g., Public Service Announcements/Short Videos, http://echominnesota.org/topics/psa (last visited Jul. 23,
2016) (Echo is an NGO that works alongside state and local entities, including Twin Cities Public Television (TPT)
to deliver effective PSAs to populations with limited English proficiency).
325

Waiver of Section 11.45 of the Commission’s Rules to Allow Broadcast of Public Service Announcements
Produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to Educate the Public on the Wireless Emergency Alert
System, PS Docket No. 07-287, Order, DA 15-1326, para. 7 (2015); About the Ready Campaign,
https://www.ready.gov/about-us (last visiting Jul. 29, 2016) (“‘Ready’ is a national public service advertising (PSA)
campaign designed to educate and empower Americans to prepare for and respond to emergencies including natural
and man-made disasters. The goal of the campaign is to get the public involved and ultimately to increase the level
of basic preparedness across the nation.”).
326

See, e.g., FEMA Jun. 18, 2015 Ex Parte at 1; NWS Comments at 2-3; USGS Comments at 2.

327

FEMA Jun. 18, 2015 Ex Parte at 1.

328

Dennis Mileti April 7, 2016 Ex Parte at 3.

329

WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13819, paras. 82, 84 (including extending the maximum WEA message length,
establishing a new Alert message classification, and including embedded references in WEA Alert Messages among
our WEA message content rules).
330

See id. at 13819, para. 82.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

78.
Most emergency management agencies treating the issue agree that our proposed
compliance timeframes are reasonable.331 Participating CMS Providers, ATIS, CTIA, and San Joaquin
OES, on the other hand, state that our proposed compliance timeframes are insufficient because they do
not allow Participating CMS Providers, in conversation with the Commission, FEMA and alert
originators, to “jointly identify timelines for enhanced WEA development, testing, and deployment
‘within six months of adoption of rules’ as recommended by CSRIC IV,” 332 and because we have not
allowed enough time for the development of new technical standards in all cases.333
b.

Discussion

79.
Where the record shows that compliance with our rules will require Participating CMS
Providers to update standards and software, we require compliance thirty months from the date of the
rules’ publication in the Federal Register.334 Specifically, we allow Participating CMS Providers thirty
months to support 360-character messages on 4G-LTE and future networks and devices, to support Public
Safety Messages, to comply with our Alert Message prioritization requirements, and to allow consumers
to opt in to receiving State/Local WEA Tests. Participating CMS Providers state that 30 months is a
sufficient amount of time to make such changes within their networks,335 and the record shows that
updates to IPAWS and alert origination software can be completed within this timeframe as well.336 In
establishing this compliance timeframe, we take into consideration commenters’ feedback that we should
take into account the time necessary to complete all relevant updates to standards and software.337
Specifically, the record shows that we should allow twelve months for appropriate industry bodies to
finalize and publish relevant standards,338 another twelve months for Participating CMS Providers and
mobile device manufacturers to develop and integrate software upgrades consistent with those standards

331

See Omaha-Douglas County Emergency Management Agency Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 2 (Jan. 13,
2016) (Omaha-Douglas County EMA Comments); NYCEM Comments at 17; USGS Comments at 1; Vail PSCC
and PD Comments at 1.
332

See T-Mobile Comments at 7 citing CSRIC IV WEA Messaging Report at 49; ATIS Comments at 22
(recommending “a meeting of the relevant stakeholders be convened after the new rules are established to develop
reasonable implementation timeframes.”).
333

See Verizon Comments at 5; Sprint Reply at 2-3 (“[T]he timeline proposed in the NPRM is not sufficient to
develop and implement appropriate standards. Moreover, once these standards are developed, carriers, alerting
authorities, and FEMA will need additional time to make the requisite changes to their networks, software, and
handsets.”); ATIS Comments at 8, 22 (“While ATIS supports the implementation of 360-character WEA
notifications (consistent with ATIS’ input above) within one year of the rules’ effective date, ATIS believes that
some of the other proposed deadlines may not appropriately consider the work that will need to be completed by all
relevant stakeholders.”); San Joaquin OES Comments at 2.
334

Except as otherwise stated, compliance is required with each of the rules we adopt today as of their effective date.

335

Verizon Comments at 5 (“[A]t least 30 months will be needed to implement the new technical requirements.”);
T-Mobile Comments at 5 (stating that it would take 24-36 months to support a new Alert Message classification);
AT&T Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte at 3-4 (“It will take at least 12 months to standardize, then 18 months for OS
development/testing, followed by device roll-out.”).
336

See Verizon Comments at 5; FEMA Jun. 18, 2015 Ex Parte at 1 (stating that it will need to upgrade the IPAWS
Alert Aggregator and C-interface in order to comply with the rules we adopt today, which will take a total of twelve
months); see also Everbridge May 12, 2016 Ex Parte at 1 (stating that one year will be sufficient time for alert
origination software vendors to develop and deploy any updates to their software that our rules may require).
337

See supra note 329 (listing commenters urging the Commission to allow appropriate time for the adoption of new
standards prior to requiring compliance with its proposed rules).
338

See T-Mobile Comments at 8; Verizon Comments at 5; ATIS Comments at 21-22.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

into embedded plant, and to complete required “technical acceptance testing,”339 and then six more
months for Participating CMS Providers and mobile device manufacturers to deploy this new technology
to the field.340 We therefore conclude that 30 months will be a sufficient period of time for all affected
parties to complete the necessary steps to deploy improvements to WEA with confidence that they will
work correctly when needed, rather than allow them to be beta tested “in the wild.”341
80.
With respect to embedded references, however, we require Participating CMS Providers
to support embedded references in Alert Messages within one year. While the timeline set forth above
may be reasonable to apply in most use cases, we believe that the inclusion of embedded URLs and phone
numbers is a critical modification that can and must be prioritized. As observed above, the public safety
community views this change as the most important among all those we consider in this proceeding,
because it will transform WEA from a character-limited text message service to a multimedia-enabled,
comprehensive disaster response resource.342 We believe it is feasible for Participating CMS Providers to
support embedded references within one year, and also that it is necessary to ensure that WEA evolves
along with consumer expectations.343 We further expect that Participating CMS Providers will be
interested in making this functionality available as quickly as possible in the best interest of their
subscribers, including by implementing necessary changes to their software without waiting for the
completion of industry standards. In addition, by allowing Participating CMS Providers to pilot this
functionality prior to the date of required compliance, we enable them to identify and address any
technical prerequisites to compliance in a controlled, real-world environment. Finally, we note that any
Participating CMS Provider unable to comply within one year may request a waiver of this requirement
pursuant to Section 1.3 of our rules.344

339

See Verizon Comments at 5 (“the need for manufacturers and vendors to incorporate the new standards into their
products and test them . . . can take as much as 12 months”); ATIS Comments at 21-22 (stating that work to comply
with our proposed rules will include “the modification of existing industry standards and/or development of new
standards; the testing and deployment of new WEA capabilities in wireless networks; and the deployment of
subscriber devices (if needed) for receipt of new WEA capabilities”); cf. Microsoft Reply at 3 (recommending 24
months from the completion of standards for software testing and deployment).
340

See Verizon Comments at 5; ATIS Comments at 21-22. For example, common to any commenters’ support for
expanding the character limit to 360 for 4G-LTE and future networks is the completion of Alliance for
Telecommunications Industry Standards (ATIS) standards, the incorporation of those standards into new
technologies, and the incorporation of new technologies into existing networks— a process commenters agree is
feasible, but would take at least 30 months. See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 7 (“Support for both 90 and 360character messages will require changes to the interface between the FEMA IPAWS (‘Integrated Public Alert and
Warning System’) and the CMSP network, and changes to the CMSP infrastructure. The changes will first require
modifications to industry standards, followed by development, testing, and deployment of the changes.”); T-Mobile
Comments at 4; Verizon Comments at 6 (“the Commission should expand the allowable WEA character limits to
360 characters for messages on LTE networks and on devices first offered to consumers 30 months after adoption of
new rules”); Microsoft Reply at 3 (“Before requiring implementation, the Commission should allow at least 24
months after standards have been completed and accepted to allow for the technology to be developed, tested, and
implemented in devices and networks.”).
341

Microsoft Comments at 2.

342

See supra para. 27

See Kansas City EM Comments at 1 (“The public expects more detail about the nature of the alert and
geography. Even though the alerts theoretically only reach those in the danger area, we need to be able to say what,
where, and how long. Simply ‘Tune to local radio’ isn’t cutting it.’”); TDI Comments at 12 (“In today’s mobilesavvy environment, the current prohibition against embedded phone numbers and URLs has no public interest
benefit and stands only as a testament to the rapid change in mobile usage and public expectations.”).
343

344

47 CFR § 1.3.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

81.
We require Participating CMS Providers to support Spanish-language Alert Messages
within two years. Unlike the aforementioned rules where updated standards are prerequisites to
compliance, Verizon and Microsoft observe that standards already exist to support Spanish-language
Alert Messages.345 Accordingly, Verizon suggests that it would be appropriate to require compliance with
this requirement within two years, rather than within 30 months.346 We agree that the record shows that
Participating CMS Providers can develop and integrate software upgrades into embedded plant, and
deploy this new technology to the field in two years.347
82.
The record shows that shorter compliance timeframes are also appropriate for our alert
logging requirements, our more narrow geo-targeting requirements, our requirement to test the backup to
the C-interface, and our new WEA PSA rules, because stakeholders are already able to comply with these
requirements. In instances where the record shows that the “nationwide” Participating CMS Providers are
already able to comply with our requirements but small, rural and regional Participating CMS Providers
are not, we allow additional time for these “non-nationwide” Participating CMS Providers to establish
compliance. The Commission has traditionally considered “nationwide” Participating CMS Providers to
be Participating CMS Providers that “cover a majority of the population and land area of the country,”
including AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile, and we continue to use that definition here.348
Specifically, the record suggests that nationwide Participating CMS Providers already log Alert Messages
consistent with our requirement.349 We note that the 60 day timeframe for compliance with our alert
logging rules will begin from the date of publication in the Federal Register of a notice announcing the
approval by the Office of Management and Budget of the modified information collection
requirements.350 We reason that 60 days will be a sufficient amount of time for nationwide Participating
CMS Providers to prepare to make the alert logs that they already generate available upon request.351 At
the same time, we allow non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers two years from the date of
publication in the Federal Register of a notice announcing the approval by the Office of Management and
Budget of the modified information collection requirements to comply with our alert logging
requirements because, according to T-Mobile, not all Participating CMS Providers log the CMAC
attributes of Alert Messages, generate time stamps for receipt and retransmission, and record any error
reports that they send to the Federal Alert Gateway.352 We anticipate that non-nationwide CMS Providers
that do not already log Alert Messages in this manner will need to update their alert gateway software in
order to achieve compliance. The record demonstrates that two years is an appropriate period of time to
allow Participating CMS Providers to develop and integrate software upgrades consistent into embedded
plant, and deploy this new technology to the field.353 As with software updates necessary to support
Spanish-language alerting, the record demonstrates that that two years will be sufficient time for non345

Verizon Comments at 7; see also Microsoft Reply at 3-4 (supporting this requirement).

346

Verizon Comments at 7. No commenter opposes Verizon’s assessment.

347

This includes twelve months for Participating CMS Providers and mobile device manufacturers to develop and
integrate software upgrades consistent with standards and 6-8 months to implement these changes in their networks
and device offerings. See Verizon Comments at 5; ATIS Comments at 21-22; Microsoft Reply at 3.
348

See supra note 15 (explaining the Sixteenth Annual Competition Report’s and the Eighteenth Annual Competition
Report’s approaches to distinguishing between nationwide and non-nationwide CMS Providers).
349

See Verizon Comments at 13; T-Mobile Reply at 9; AT&T Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte at 7; CMSAAC Report at 92.

350

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.

351

See supra para 46 (confirming that nationwide Participating CMS Providers already log alerts).

352

See T-Mobile Reply at 9 (“Although wireless carriers generally log WEA performance, each carrier does so in a
different way. Thus, if logging information is going to be compared, a uniform system would be required. Such a
requirement would be extremely costly and require carriers to revise their existing processes.”).
353

See Verizon Comments at 5; ATIS Comments at 21-22; Microsoft Reply at 3.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

nationwide Participating CMS Providers to deploy software capable of meeting out alert logging
requirements.354
83.
We allow nationwide Participating CMS Providers 60 days, and non-nationwide
Participating CMS Providers one year to comply with the more accurate geo-targeting standard we adopt
today from the date of its publication in the Federal Register. We note that CSRIC IV recommended that
we allow two years for all Participating CMS Providers to comply with this rule, but the record shows
that a two-year compliance timeframe would unduly delay improvements to geo-targeting that nationwide
Participating CMS Providers are already capable of providing through the use of proprietary geo-targeting
algorithms.355 While Bluegrass Cellular, a non-nationwide Participating CMS Provider, states that it can
develop a polygon-level geo-targeting capability in as little as six months,356 and no other non-nationwide
Participating CMS Provider made a statement to the contrary, we find it prudent to allow non-nationwide
Participating CMS Providers one year to achieve compliance with this rule in order to accommodate
differences among non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers’ technical sophistication.357 Further, we
note that all Participating CMS Providers (including those subject to our shorter 60-day compliance
timeframe noted earlier in this paragraph) would be able to comply with our amended geo-targeting
requirement immediately by geo-targeting to an area not larger that the propagation area of a single
transmission site.358 We find that this approach, however, would regularly and predictably lead to underalerting. The public would be better served by allowing non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers that
cannot provide polygon-level geo-targeting today to continue to geo-target to the county level, where
appropriate, until one year from the rule’s publication in the Federal Register.359
84.
Finally, affected entities state that testing the C-interface backup presents no new cost
burdens to NCEs and small stations, and many broadcasters are already performing such testing
voluntarily.360 Amending our WEA PSA rules presents no new burdens to WEA stakeholders, but rather,
354

See id.

355

CSRIC IV WEA Messaging Report at 45 (recommending that that a WEA cell broadcast geo-targeting best
practices standard be completed within one year after the issuance of the FCC Report & Order, and that Participating
CMS Providers implement this standard within two years after the issuance of the FCC Report & Order); see also id.
at 8 (stating that “the algorithms for mapping the intended alert area to the relevant cell sites/sectors in the CMSP
network are considered proprietary and there is no standard method to perform this mapping. Each CMSP handles
the mapping in their own proprietary manner, since the geo-targeting capabilities is dependent upon each individual
CMSP cell site topology”); Verizon Comments at 12 (“Existing geo-targeting techniques that superimpose alert
areas with network architecture coverage already ensure that WEAs closely target the affected consumers.”).
356

See Bluegrass Cellular Jun. 29, 2016 Ex Parte at 5 (stating that it will take Bluegrass Cellular between 6-12
months to develop a solution with its equipment manufacturer).
357

See CCA Jul. 18 Ex Parte (expressing no concerns about our approach to geo-targeting, and providing no reason
why non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers need extra time to comply).
358

See infra Appx. A (Final Rules) (“If, however, the Participating CMS Provider cannot broadcast the Alert
Message to an area that best approximates the target area, a Participating CMS Provider may transmit an Alert
Message to an area not larger than the propagation area of a single transmission site.”).
359

For example, if the polygonal target area for an Alert Message were to be larger than the propagation area of a
single transmission site, but smaller than a county, it would be preferable for a CMS Provider not able to provide its
best approximation of the polygonal alert area to overshoot the target area by geo-targeting the Alert Message to the
county level than to undershoot the target area by geo-targeting the Alert Message to a single transmission site.
360

See WEA Second Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 10772-73, para. 16 (requiring NCEs to “install necessary
equipment,” meaning, no new system architecture would be required); Public Broadcasting Service, Association of
Public Television Stations, and Corporation for Public Broadcasting Comments, PS Docket 15-91, 1 (Jan. 13, 2016)
(“PTV and its member stations have taken important steps, on a voluntary basis, to monitor and continuously test the
redundant back-up path provided for commercial mobile service providers to receive geo-targeted alerts.”).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

eases regulatory burdens on emergency management agencies.361 Accordingly, we require compliance
with our C-interface backup testing, and WEA PSA requirements 30 days from the date of their
publication in the Federal Register.
85.
For ease of reference, we provide the table below to set forth the timeframes for
compliance with each of the rules we adopt today.
RULE AMENDMENT

COMPLIANCE TIMEFRAME

RULE(S) AFFECTED

Increasing Maximum WEA
Character Length

Within 30 months of the rule’s
publication in the Federal Register

47 CFR § 10.430

Classifying Public Safety
Messages

Within 30 months of the rules’
publication in the Federal Register

47 CFR § 10.280(a)
47 CFR § 10.400(d)
47 CFR § 10.410

Supporting Embedded
References and Multimedia

The removal of our prohibition on
the use of embedded references is
effective 30 days from the rules’
publication in the Federal Register.
Our requirement to support
embedded references is effective
one year from the rules’
publication in the Federal
Register.362

47 CFR § 10.440

Spanish-language Alerting

Within 2 years of the rule’s
publication in the Federal Register

47 CFR § 10.480

Alert Logging

Within 60 days of publication in
the Federal Register of a notice
announcing the approval by the
Office of Management and Budget
of the modified information
collection requirements363

47 CFR § 10.320(g)

WEA Geo-targeting

Within 60 days of the rule’s
publication in the Federal Register

47 CFR § 10.450

47 CFR § 10.441

364

WEA Presentation
361

Within 30 months of the rule’s

47 CFR § 10.510

See supra Section III.C.3 (Facilitating WEA PSAs).

362

See infra Appx. A (Final Rules) (abrogating the embedded reference prohibition by removing Section 10.440
from our rules and requiring support for embedded references by adding a new Section 10.441). Participating CMS
Providers may begin to prototype support for multimedia in Public Safety Messages as of the effective date of our
rule requiring support for Public Safety Messages, 30 months from the rules’ publication in the Federal Register.
See supra para. 37 (allowing Participating CMS Providers to voluntarily prototype this functionality in Public Safety
Messages).
363

As explained above, we allow non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers two years from the publication in the
Federal Register of a notice announcing the approval by the Office of Management and Budget of the modified
information collection requirements in order to comply with this rule. See supra para. 82.
364

As explained above, we allow non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers one year from the rule’s publication
in the Federal Register to comply with this narrower geo-targeting standard. See supra para.81.

Federal Communications Commission
RULE AMENDMENT

COMPLIANCE TIMEFRAME

FCC 16-127
RULE(S) AFFECTED

publication in the Federal Register
State/Local WEA Testing

Within 30 months of the rule’s
publication in the Federal Register

47 CFR § 10.350(c)

C-interface Backup Testing

Within 30 days of the rule’s
publication in the Federal Register

47 CFR § 10.350(b)

WEA PSAs

Within 30 days of the rule’s
publication in the Federal Register

47 CFR § 10.520(d)

Figure 3: Compliance Timeframes
86.
Therefore, nationwide Participating CMS Providers’ subscribers should have greater
confidence that WEA Alert Messages they receive are intended for them as of February, 2017.365
Participating CMS Providers’ subscribers should expect to be able to receive Alert Messages in Spanish
by 2019.366 Then, by June 2019, they should expect to see 360-character maximum alerts on 4G LTE and
future networks, Public Safety Messages, Alert Messages that contain embedded references, and
State/Local WEA Tests presented as soon as they are received. While we expect that updates to our
WEA PSA, C-interface backup testing, and alert logging rules will produce significant public safety
benefits, as described below, we do not anticipate that consumers will immediately notice a change in
service due to these updates.
E.

Benefit-Cost Analysis

87.
In this section, we show that we can reasonably expect the minimum benefit resulting
from the improvements to WEA we adopt today to exceed their maximum cost. The maximum
reasonable cost burden our rules could present to Participating CMS Providers is $40 million as a onetime cost, and $2.3 million as an annual cost.367 These costs result from modifications to standards and
software, as well as recordkeeping and reporting. The rules we adopt today also present many
independent sources of benefit. These benefits include potential prevented fatalities, injuries or property
damage during child abductions, severe weather events and other emergencies. Benefits also include
significant cost reductions for PSAPs, mass notification providers, and state, local, tribal and territorial
government entities.
88.
As we observed in the WEA NPRM, when Congress adopted the WARN Act, it expressly
contemplated that WEA would evolve along with advancements in technology.368 The rules we adopt
today leverage existing market-driven advances in technology to improve the Nation’s readiness posture
during emergencies, as envisioned by Congress. In this regard, as Congress has specifically legislated to
365

Where improvements to geo-targeting will make it less likely that consumers receive Alert Messages when they
are outside of the target area specified by the alert originator. See supra Section III.B.2 (Narrowing Geo-targeting
Requirements). Similarly, non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers’ subscribers should expect improved geotargeting by February, 2018. See supra note 364. Each of the premises articulated in this paragraph assume that
these final rules will be published in the Federal Register on or before November 30, 2016, and are applicable only
insofar as the subscriber has a WEA-capable mobile device.
366

Whether a subscriber actually receives Alert Messages in Spanish will depend on whether the alert originator
initiates a Spanish-language version of the Alert Message, and on whether the subscriber has specified their
preferred language as “Spanish” on their WEA-capable mobile device.
367

Where the total cost to modify standards required to comply with our rules is $657,000 as a one-time cost; the
total cost of software updates is $39,680,000 as a one-time cost, and alert logging requirements represent a one-time
cost burden of $6,300and an annual cost of $2,281,000. See infra paras. 98 (standards), 99-100 (software), 101-102
(recordkeeping). We round these numbers to avoid false precision.
368

WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13802, para. 38, citing WARN Act § 604(b)(2)(A), 47 USC § 1204(b)(2)(A).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

create this system and identified areas in which the Commission should create rules (e.g., technical
requirements), it has already assessed that WEA provides benefits to the public. To the extent that a
benefit-cost analysis is useful to help explain our decision-making, the estimates below may be helpful.
We conclude that costs implicated by the rules we adopt today are consistent with the WARN Act and are
appropriate to assure that WEA continues to provide the public with an alert and warning service that
works effectively and keeps pace with the evolving capabilities of CMS networks. This is particularly
relevant where, as here, the benefits of the rules we adopt today are best expressed in terms of
improvements to public safety outcomes, such as the prevention of injury and death, which are difficult to
monetize.369 Using existing estimates of the monetary value of injury and death prevention below, we
estimate that the total expected benefits far exceed our estimated maximum one-time annual costs. We
note that we sought specific comment on the costs and benefits of our proposed rules in the WEA
NPRM,370 but received a sparse record in response, including no dollar figure estimates.371

369

We note that precision in our estimate of the dollar value of public safety benefits is not necessary to illustrate
that it is reasonable to conclude that the benefits of our rules will outweigh their costs. See The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) concludes that “some important benefits and costs . . . may be difficult
or impossible to quantify or monetize given current data and methods,” and in such circumstances urges regulatory
agencies to explain why quantitative information is not available, and present all available quantitative information.
Office of Information and Regulatory Analysis (OIRA), Regulatory Impact Analysis: A Primer,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/regpol/circular-a-4_regulatory-impact-analysis-aprimer.pdf (stating that in such cases agencies should ask (last visited Aug. 16, 2016); see also David Rodgers,
Vladimir Tsirkunov, Costs and Benefits of Early Warning Systems, Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk
Reduction, at 6 (World Bank, 2010) (“there are relatively few quantitative estimates of the costs and benefits of
specific warnings and subsequent actions. This may account for the difficulty in convincing many governments,
particularly in developing countries, of the economic and social value or early warning systems as preventative
measures for disaster reduction.”).
370

See, e.g., WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13792, para. 16 (seeking comment on the costs associated with changing
the maximum character limit); id. at 13793, para. 20 (seeking comment on the costs and benefits of creating an
additional Alert Message classification); id. at 13796, para. 28 (seeking comment on potential costs associated with
incorporating embedded references into WEA Alert Messages); id. at 13799, para. 33 (seeking comment on the
technical implications and potential costs of supporting multilingual WEA alerting); id. at 13803, para. 42 (seeking
comment on potential costs of more granular geo-targeting requirements); id. at 13808, para. 52 (seeking comment
on potential costs that may be imposed by our proposed testing requirements); id. at 13812, para. 60 (seeking
comment on the potential costs of alert logging and test reporting); id. at 13816, para. 75 (seeking comment on the
costs of testing the broadcast-based C-interface backup).
371

See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 10 (“Any cost for modifications to increase the maximum character length is
mainly contained to the WEA-specific CMSP infrastructure and does not affect the underlying cell broadcast
technology; these are costs that the CMSP must absorb to continue to meets it obligations as a Participating
CMSP.”); T-Mobile Reply at 9 (“Although wireless carriers generally log WEA performance, each carrier does so in
a different way. Thus, if logging information is going to be compared, a uniform system would be required. Such a
requirement would be extremely costly and require carriers to revise their existing processes.”); ATIS Comments at
16 (“Increasing the number of languages that would need to be supported would increase both the complexity and
associated costs.”); Harris County OSHEM Reply at 3 (“Certainly cost is a legitimate issue but the wireless industry
has been singularly successful in monetizing innovation in the past and that is one trend that seems likely to
continue.”); California Governor’s OES Comments at 4 (“By allowing URL links, messages can be posted on the
originators website using translation software at a relatively low cost.”); Letter from Patricia Higginbotham,
Telecommunications Industry Association, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed
Aug. 24, 2016) (citing wide variance in complexity, the nature of issues to be addressed, and the scope of industry
participation as factors that frustrate the quantification of the cost of standards development).

Federal Communications Commission
a.

FCC 16-127

Benefits

89.
The robust record in this docket and media reports demonstrate that WEA saves lives,372
and the improvements to WEA that we adopt today will render WEA an even more powerful life-saving
tool.373 Indeed, scholars agree that “[m]ortality in the United States declined significantly over the years
because its early warning systems for recurring hazards such as lightning, floods, storms and heat waves
are continually improving.374 Nevertheless, in 2015, in the United States alone, weather-related events
caused 522 fatalities and 2,143 injuries.375 Further, we observe that, according to the Federal Bureau of
372

See, e.g., Weather-Ready Nation, Wireless Emergency Alerts: Real Stories,
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/com/weatherreadynation/news/130313_wea_stories.html#.VXHyZM_BzRY (last visited
June 6, 2015) (detailing life-saving WEA success stories in Connecticut, Illinois, New York, Mississippi, and
Virginia); Partnership for Public Service, Robert Bunge: New Weather Alert System is Saving Lives, The
Washington Post (Nov. 12, 2015), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/12/robert-bungenew-weather-alert-system-is-saving-lives/ (“On July 1, 2013, a tornado obliterated a soccer dome in East Windsor,
Conn., where 29 children had been playing. Seconds before the tornado struck, a cellphone alert prompted the camp
manager to rush the children out of the dome and into an adjacent building, preventing injuries and a possible loss of
life.”); World Bank, Natural Hazards, Unnatural Disasters: Effective Prevention through an Economic Lens, at 231
(2010) (identifying early warning systems as one among three specific, desirable spending items for disaster
prevention).
373

See, e.g., Jefferson Parish EM Comments at 1 (“By adding more characters to an alert this can help to put more
information about an event or what action(s) seniors, tourist, or others should take to save lives and property.”);
Ventura County Sheriff Office of Emergency Services Comments at 4 (“The benefits of geotargeted messages are
providing accurate, timely and actionable messaging to residents directly impacted from an incident that will
ultimately save lives.”); Douglas County EMA Comments at 1 (“Geo-targeting would provide accurate and timely
messaging with specific actions to follow. This would save lives for those directly impacted by the emergency.”);
Washoe County EM and Homeland Security Comments (stating about State/Local WEA Testing that emergency
managers “need to practice perishable alert and warning skills so that during a crises[sic], we can quickly alert and
warn our citizens. This can save lives.”); Mason County EM Comments at 1 (In the few instances when a WEA
message has been received in our community, the public already turns to internet based news media and/or social
media to confirm the alert and learn more. The ability to immediately direct the public’s attention to a specific site
would be invaluable to provide life-saving information.”); Wireless RERC Comments at 21-22 (“We strongly agree
with MMTC regarding the importance for additional emergency information in languages other than English as a
way to provide life-saving emergency alerts to ensure that all individuals have the ability to quickly understand the
message – whether the primary language is English, Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese or one of the many other spoken
languages in the U.S.”).
374

David Rodgers, Vladimir Tsirkunov, Costs and Benefits of Early Warning Systems, Global Assessment Report on
Disaster Risk Reduction, at 3 (World Bank, 2010) (stating that “mortality fell by 45 percent and injuries by 40
percent in 15,000 tornadoes from 1986 to 1999 thanks to more timely warnings that enabled people to take shelter”)
citing T.J. Teisberg and R.F. Weiher, Benefits and Costs of Early Warning Systems for Major Natural Hazards,
World Bank (2009). Similarly, a 2005 study found that, during the 1990s, NWS installed Doppler radar systems
which increased the fraction of tornadoes for which a warning was provided from 35 percent to 60 percent, and
increased the average warning lead-time from 5.3 minutes to 9.5 minutes. See Kevin Simmons and Daniel Sutter,
WSR-88D Radar, Tornado Warnings, and Tornado Casualties, Weather and Forecasting, Vol. 20, No. 3, at 301, 308
(2005). The authors analyzed nearly 15,000 tornadoes in the U.S. from 1986 to 1999, during which time the
Doppler radar systems were progressively installed throughout the United States. See id. They conclude that “…
expected fatalities after Doppler radar installation were 45% lower and expected injuries 40% lower, a substantial
benefit. Id. Based on the number of fatalities and injuries observed nationally between 1997 and 1999, this implies
that 79 fatalities and over 1050 injuries from tornadoes were avoided per year during this period.” See also Kristie
Ebi, et. al., Heat Watch Warning Systems Save Lives: Estimated Costs and Benefits for Philadelphia, 19951998, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, at 1067-73 (2004),
http://www1.udel.edu/SynClim/BAMS_Ebi_Kalkstein.pdf (last visited Aug. 26, 2016) (estimating that 117 lives
were saved as a result of the institution of a warning system for dangerous heat waves in Philadelphia in 1995).
375

See National Weather Service, Summary of Natural Hazard Statistics for 2015 in the United States (2016),
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats/sum15.pdf (last visited Aug. 25, 2016) (including among “severe weather”
(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

Investigation’s (FBI) National Crime Information Center Missing Person File, there were 466,949 entries
made for missing children in 2014.376 NCMEC indicates that it “has issued more than 200 Wireless
Emergency Alert activations on behalf of AMBER Coordinators” and WEA AMBER Alerts in particular
have been credited with the safe return of 19 children since the system’s deployment in 2012.377
90.
In order to quantify the life-saving value of WEA during these emergencies, we assign a
dollar value to reductions in the risk of losing human lives, the “Value of a Statistical Life” (VSL).378
VSL describes “the additional cost that individuals would be willing to bear for improvements in safety
(that is, reductions in risks) that, in the aggregate, reduce the expected number of fatalities by one.”379 We
estimate that the dollar value of VSL in 2016 is $9.5 million.380 While it would be impossible to
determine with any specificity the exact number of fatalities that the improvements we adopt for WEA
today would prevent, VSL offers a relevant, quantitative metric for expressing the minimum benefit our
rules could produce.381 Hence, if the improvements we adopt to WEA today save only three among the
(Continued from previous page)
events convection [lightning, tornado, thunderstorm wind, hail], extreme temperatures, flood, marine, tropical
cyclones, winter and other). Death and injury totals for 2015 in the United States due to severe weather were
representative of totals in proceeding years. See, e.g., National Weather Service, Summary of Natural Hazard
Statistics for 2014 in the United States (2015), http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats/sum14.pdf (last visited Aug.
25, 2016) (reporting 388 deaths, 2,203 injuries); National Weather Service, Summary of Natural Hazard Statistics
for 2013 in the United States (2014), http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats/sum13.pdf (last visited Aug. 25, 2016)
(reporting 446 deaths, 2,767 injuries); National Weather Service, Summary of Natural Hazard Statistics for 2014 in
the United States (2015), http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/hazstats/sum12.pdf (last visited Aug. 25, 2016) (reporting
538 deaths, 2,653 injuries).
376

See FAQs: Missing Children, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children,
http://www.missingkids.com/Missing/FAQ (last visited Jul. 1, 2016); citing NCIC Missing Person and Unidentified
Person Statistics for 2014 Pursuant to Public Law 101-647, 104 Statute 4967, Crime Control Act of 1990
Requirements, National Crime Information Center, The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ncic/ncic-missing-person-and-unidentified-person-statistics-for-2014 (last visited
Jul. 1, 2016).
377

See NCMEC May 5, 2015 Ex Parte at 1.

378

See, e.g., Alerting Paradigm NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 604-605, para. 14; Review of the Emergency Alert System,
EB Docket No. 04-296, Sixth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 6520, 6545, n.178 (2015).
379

See Memorandum from Polly Trottenberg, Under Secretary for Policy, Office of the Secretary for Transportation,
and Robert S. Rivkin, General Counsel, Department of Transportation, Guidance on Treatment of the Economic
Value of a Statistical Life in U.S. Department of Transportation Analyses (Feb. 28, 2013),
http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/VSL Guidance_2013.pdf (last visited Oct. 6, 2014).
380

See id. (calculating VSL as $9.1 million using a base year of 2012); Department of Transportation Analysis –
2015 Adjustment, Memorandum from Kathryn Thomson, General Counsel, to Secretarial Officers and Modal
Administrators (Jun. 17, 2015), https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/VSL2015_0.pdf (last visited
Aug. 16, 2016). Income elasticity of 1.0 should be used to project VSL to future years, and estimating based on
wage forecasts from the Congressional Budget Office that there will be an expected 1.07 percent annual growth rate
in median real wages over the next 30 years). These estimates imply that VSL in future years should be expected to
grow by 1.07 percent per year before discounting to present value.” See Memorandum from Polly Trottenberg,
Under Secretary for Policy, Office of the Secretary for Transportation, and Robert S. Rivkin, General Counsel,
Department of Transportation, Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life in U.S.
Department of Transportation Analyses (Feb. 28, 2013), http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/VSL
Guidance_2013.pdf (last visited Oct. 6, 2014). Where $9.1 million multiplied by 1.07 for each of the years between
2012 and 2016 to account for wage increases equals $9,496,000, or approximately $9.5 million.
381

This reasoning is an example of a “breakeven analysis” recommended by the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in cases where precise quantification and monetization of benefits is not possible. See
Office of Information and Regulatory Analysis (OIRA), Regulatory Impact Analysis: A Primer,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/regpol/circular-a-4_regulatory-impact-analysis-a(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

hundreds of lives lost in the United States every year due to severe weather – an expectation we find
reasonable – their benefits would be approximately $28.5 million, an amount that would outweigh their
one-time implementation cost in just the first two years.382 Indeed, even if only one life were saved each
year, the implementation costs would be fully offset within five years and, in subsequent years, the $9.5
million benefit (i.e., VSL for one life) would far exceed the $2.3 million annual cost for recordkeeping.383
91.
Real world natural disasters indicate that advanced alert and warning can have a positive
impact on public safety outcomes. A comparative analysis of the number of fatalities resulting from
tsunamigenic events of similar magnitude in Japan (a country with an advanced alert and warning system
at the time of the event) and Indonesia (a country with no alert and warning infrastructure at the time of
the event) magnify our conclusion that the improvements we adopt for WEA have life-saving benefits.
Specifically, on December 26, 2004, a 9.1 magnitude earthquake occurred in the Indian Ocean off of the
coast of Sumatra, Indonesia.384 No early detection, alert and warning systems were able to give people an
opportunity to take protective action.385 The resulting tsunami left 166,700 dead in Banda Aceh,
Indonesia alone (75 percent of the population).386 By comparison, on March 11, 2011, an 8.9-magnitude

(Continued from previous page)
primer.pdf (last visited Aug. 16, 2016) (urging agencies to ask, “[h]ow large would the value of the non-quantified
benefits have to be for the rule to yield positive net benefits?”).
382

See supra note 375 (reporting the total number of deaths caused by severe weather in the United States since
2012); see also supra para. 373 (expressing record support for the proposition that the improvements we adopt to
WEA today are likely to save lives); supra para. 89 (stating that WEA AMBER Alerts alone have been credited with
the safe return of 19 children since the system’s deployment in 2012). Where $9.496 million x 3 = $28,488,000, an
amount that, when accrued over the course of two years, would outweigh the one-time cost of compliance with our
rules, $40 million.
383

See infra para. 101 (discussing recordkeeping costs).

384

See Tsunami of 2004 Fast Facts (updated Dec. 16, 2015), http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/23/world/tsunami-of2004-fast-facts/ (last visited Aug. 18, 2016).
385

See Shuan Sim, 2004 Indian Tsunami 10 Years Later, International Business Times (Dec. 24, 2014),
http://www.ibtimes.com/2004-indian-ocean-tsunami-10-years-later-warning-system-installed-after-disaster-has1763662 (last visited Aug. 18, 2016); Lori Valigra, Indian Ocean’s Tsunami Early Warning System Taking Shape,
National Geographic News (Dec. 23, 2005),
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1223_051223_tsunami_warning.html (last visited Aug. 18,
2016); cf. Jim Giles, Emma Marris, Indonesian Tsunami Monitoring System Lacked Basic Equipment, Nature,
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041229/full/news041229-4.html (last visited Aug. 18, 2016) (“A network of
seabed pressure sensors and seismographs, run by the United Nations, can detect Pacific Ocean tsunamis within
minutes. The system issued a warning about the 26 December earthquake just 15 minutes after it was detected, but
the network is designed to serve countries around the Pacific Ocean, such as the United States and Australia.
Officials in charge were unable to reach authorities in Indian Ocean nations.”).
386

See Global Earthquake Model, Earthquake Consequences Database, Banda Aceh, Sumatra Indonesia (2004),
http://gemecd.org/event/25 (last visited Aug. 18, 2016). Banda Aceh, Indonesia, the city with the highest number of
casualties resulting from the Indonesian tsunami, had a population of approximately 223,446 before the December
2004 tsunami. See City Population, Indonesia: Urban Population of Cities, http://www.citypopulation.de/IndonesiaMU.html?cityid=998 (last visited Aug. 8, 2016) (estimating material damages as high as $574 billion). The total
number of people reported missing or presumed dead is 227,898, with over 500,000 injured. See Tsunami of 2004
Fast Facts (updated Dec. 16, 2015), http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/23/world/tsunami-of-2004-fast-facts/ (last visited
Aug. 18, 2016). Where 166,700/223,446 = .746, or 75 percent, as rounded to the nearest whole number. See also
The Boxing Day Tsunami Facts and Figures, The Bolton Council of Mosques,
http://www.thebcom.org/ourwork/reliefwork/96-the-boxing-day-tsunami-facts-and-figures.html?showall=1 (last
visited Aug. 18 2016) (estimating $9.9 billion in material losses).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

earthquake triggered a tsunami off of the eastern coast of Japan.387 Nine minutes later (fifteen minutes
prior to the arrival of the tsunami) residents of affected prefectures received an early warning about the
imminent threat.388 The death toll in Fukushima as a direct result of the tsunami was 1,607 (less than one
percent of the population).389 Sources credit Japan’s early earthquake warning system, along with its
earthquake-ready infrastructure, with helping to lessen the impact of this tragedy.390
92.
An event of similar magnitude could occur in the United States. For example, United
States Geological Survey researchers identify the Semidi seismic zone along the Aleutian Islands as a
potential source of a tsunami that could impact Hawaii and central California.391 These researchers
estimate that a particular segment of the seismic zone ruptures once every 180 to 270 years, with the last
rupture occurring 228 years ago in 1788, and that such an earthquake could cause a tsunami as large as
the 2011 tsunami which struck Japan.392 This potential tsunami triggered by an earthquake in the Aleutian
Islands is only one example.393 Extending this analysis nationwide would increase the potential benefits
that would arise from improved emergency alerting, as natural disasters can affect large territories. While
the probability of a natural disaster and the corresponding number of lives saved by emergency alerts is
unknown, we expect our rules to prevent more deaths and injuries than would otherwise occur from
natural disasters.
93.
In addition to saving lives, the improvements to WEA that we adopt today will contribute
to WEA’s ability to prevent injuries. Like fatalities, the specific number of injuries that the improvements
to WEA we adopt today will prevent is difficult to predict. Like VSL, however, the value of injury
387

See Francine Uenuma, 8.9 Magnitude Earthquake Triggers Tsunami in Japan, Hundreds Killed (Mar. 11, 2011),
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/89-magnitude-earthquake-triggers-tsunami-in-japan-kills-at-least-40/ (last
visited Aug. 8, 2016).
388

See Fukushima Deaths Now Higher than Tsunami, SkyNews, http://news.sky.com/story/fukushima-deaths-nowhigher-than-in-tsunami-10416612 (last visited Aug. 8, 2016). The population of the city of Fukushima before the
tsunami was 297,894. See City Population, Japan: Urban Population of Cities,
http://www.citypopulation.de/php/japan-admin.php?adm2id=07201 (last visited Aug. 8, 2016). The total number of
reported deaths resulting from the tsunami is 16,273, with 3,061 missing and 27,074 injured. See also
EarthquakeReport, http://earthquake-report.com/2012/03/10/japan-366-days-after-the-quake-19000-lives-lost-1-2million-buildings-damaged-574-billion/ (last visited Aug. 8, 2016) (estimating material damages as high as $574
billion).
390

See Lucy Birmingham, Japan’s Earthquake Warning System Explained, Time (Mar. 11, 2011),
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2059780,00.html (last visited Aug. 8, 2016) (“the nationwide
earthquake early-warning system has helped to lessen this unimaginable tragedy”;
https://sites.google.com/site/japantsunamivsindiantsunami/ (crediting differences in housing with controlling
damage totals); see also Michael Dumiak, Make of Breaker: Can a Tsunami Warning System Save Lives During an
Earthquake, Scientific American (Apr. 14, 2011), http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-tsunami-warningsystem-save-lives-eartquake/?WT.mc_id=send-to-friend (last visited Aug. 23, 2016).
391

See Christopher Joyce, Aleutian Quake Zone Could Shoot Big Tsunamis to Hawaii, California, NPR, All Things
Considered (Jan. 12, 2016, 7:08 PM EST), http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwoway/2016/01/12/462708068/aleutian-quake-zone-could-shoot-big-tsunamis-to-hawaii-california (last visited Sep.
14, 2016).
392

See id.

393

See, e.g., Facts About the New Madrid Seismic Zone, Missouri Department of Natural Resources,
https://dnr.mo.gov/geology/geosrv/geores/techbulletin1.htm (last visited Aug. 18, 2016) (further estimating that a
7.6 magnitude earthquake along the New Madrid Seismic Zone could result in the death of .2 – 2 percent of the
population being killed in counties around New Madrid).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

prevention provides an independent, quantitative metric to express the minimum benefit our rules could
produce.394 According to the Department of Transportation, “[n]onfatal injuries are far more common
than fatalities and vary widely in severity, as well as probability.”395 The Department of Transportation
uses the standardized Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) to express the monetary value of preventing
expected injury outcomes as a proportion of VSL.396 The AIS scale groups injuries according to their
severity (Minor, Moderate, Serious, Severe, Critical, or Unsurvivable), and yields coefficients that can be
applied to VSL to assign each injury class a value corresponding to a fraction of fatality.397 Pursuant to
this approach, we reason that the public benefit of the rules we adopt today would outweigh their cost
even if they didn’t save a single life, so long as they prevented a sufficient number of injuries. For
example, National Weather Service data for deaths and injuries in the United States caused by severe
weather since 2012 reveal that approximately five injuries occur for each death during severe weather
events.398 If, as we reason above, these improvements to WEA save three lives during their first year of
implementation, they would also likely prevent 15 injuries of various severities during their first year of
implementation.399 The prevention of these injuries would produce a minimum public value of
$437,320,400 and a maximum public value of $84.5 million if all injuries were critical.401 While it is
394

Department of Transportation Analysis – 2015 Adjustment, Memorandum from Kathryn Thomson, General
Counsel, to Secretarial Officers and Modal Administrators (Jun. 17, 2015),
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/VSL2015_0.pdf (last visited Aug. 16, 2016) (stating that,
pursuant to this approach, each type of injury is rated on a scale of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in
comparison with the alternative of perfect health); see also Department of Transportation, TIGER Benefit-Cost
Analysis (BCA) Resource Guide (2014) (expressing a conversion table for the KABCO scale, a method of
measuring injury prevention normally used by law enforcement, to the AIS scale). The AIS scale is one of the most
widely used methods of describing the severity of traumas. See, e.g., Daniel Davis, et al., The Impact of Hypoxia
and Hyperventilation on Outcome after Paramedic Rapid Sequence Intubation of Severely Head-injured Patients,
The Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Care, (2004); Demetrios Demetriades et al., Mortality
Prediction of Head Abbreviated Injury Score and Glasgow Coma Scale: Analysis of 7,764 Head Injuries (2004).
397

See Department of Transportation Analysis – 2015 Adjustment, Memorandum from Kathryn Thomson, General
Counsel, to Secretarial Officers and Modal Administrators (Jun. 17, 2015),
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/VSL2015_0.pdf (last visited Aug. 16, 2016). The following
coefficients are applicable to injuries of various severities listed in ascending order (Minor, .003), (Moderate, .047),
(Serious .105), (Severe .266), (Critical, .593), (Unsurvivable, 1.000). See id.
398

See supra note 375 (reporting the total number of injuries caused by severe weather in the United States since
2012 as 9,766 and the total number of deaths as 1,814, a ratio of 5.2 to 1).
399

See supra para. 90 (reasoning that if the improvements to WEA we adopt today save only three lives, their
benefits would outweigh their costs).
400

The prevention of 15 injuries would produce a public benefit of $437,320 where all injuries were considered to
be “Minor” on the AIS scale. See supra note 397 (using a coefficient of .003 of VSL for injuries considered to be
“Minor”).
401

The prevention of 15 injuries would produce a public benefit of $84,466,920 where all injuries were considered
to be “Critical” on the AIS scale. See supra note 397 (using a coefficient of .593 of VSL for injuries considered to
(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

difficult to predict the severity of the injuries that would be prevented by the improvements to WEA we
adopt today, this analysis illustrates that injury prevention alone might produce benefits that outweigh
those one-time costs within their first year of implementation. In fact, if these rules prevented only eight
critical injuries, their benefits would outweigh their one-time costs.402
94.
The improvements to WEA we adopt today will also have the benefit of generating
savings for taxpayers by creating opportunities for emergency management agencies to avoid response
costs. Barry Ritter, Executive Director of the Indiana Wireless 911 Board, states that he expects our
WEA improvements will lead to response cost avoidance benefits similar to what he has seen with respect
to our text-to-911 rules.403 If an individual calls 911 and then hangs up before they can communicate
whether emergency assistance is required, and a PSAP is not able to confirm the caller’s status, the PSAP
will deploy resources to the caller’s location to ensure that emergency assistance is available if needed.404
PSAPs are frequently unable to confirm with 911 callers that hang up whether they actually need
emergency assistance through a return phone call.405 According to the Indiana Statewide 911 Board,
texting a 911 caller results in more frequent return communications from the call than a return phone call,
allowing PSAPs to avoid response costs where appropriate.406 We anticipate that improved emergency
alerting – in terms of both the improved relevance and content that would result from our rules – will help
keep people safe from harm during emergencies.407 Further, the improvements to WEA that we adopt
today, such as the classification of Public Safety Messages, will also help those that are in emergency
situations to find shelter, and take measures to protect themselves without calling 911 to request
assistance from public officials. Finally, the improvements to WEA we adopt today, such as expanding
the maximum character limit, classifying an additional Alert Message type, allowing embedded
references, etc., will enable individuals that do need to call 911 to be more informed about the dangers
that they face, and may be more able to help 911 call-takers to deploy proper resources.408 When people
are able to avert situations where they need emergency assistance and therefore do not need to call 911,
PSAPs are able to avert the cost of resource deployment.409 According to ABC News, it costs $3,500
(Continued from previous page)
be “Critical”). We decline to consider “Unsurvivable” injuries in this analysis as they would be included in our
analysis of WEA’s ability to save lives, above. See supra para. 90.
402

Where $9,496,000 (VSL) x .593 (the VSL coefficient for a critical injury) x 8 = $45,049,024, an amount greater
than the $40 million one-time cost of compliance with our rules.
403

Letter from Barry Ritter, Executive Director, Indiana Statewide 911 Board, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC,
PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed Aug. 23, 2016) (Indiana Statewide 911 Board Aug. 23, 2016 Ex Parte); accord
APCO Comments at 6; Austin HSEM Comments at 2.
404

See, e.g., Emergency Communications Frequently Asked Questions, Shenandoah County,
http://shenandoahcountyva.us/emergency-communications/home/frequently-asked-questions/ (last visited Aug. 16,
2016) (stating that “[i]f a caller to 911 hangs up without stating the problem, the caller must be contacted in order to
ensure that no actual emergency exits. This may involve the dispatching of a law enforcement officer to your home
or place of business in order to ensure that a problem does not exist.”).
405

See Indiana Statewide 911 Board Aug. 23, 2016 Ex Parte at 1.

406

See id.

407

See supra para. 89 (describing extent of damage caused by events WEA is designed to mitigate, and the record
demonstrating that WEA saves lives and prevents injuries); see also Indiana Statewide 911 Board Aug. 23, 2016 Ex
Parte at 1 (stating that “[i]t is my opinion that an expanded use of Emergency Alert Systems will have the same
results” as reverse text-to-911).
408

See supra para. 15 (describing the benefits of expanding the maximum character length); see also APCO
Comments at 6; Austin HSEM Comments at 2.
409

See Indiana Statewide 911 Board Aug. 23, 2016 Ex Parte at 1. For example, the record shows that improvements
to geo-targeting will help to reduce milling, and hasten protective action taking during emergencies. See supra para.
55 (describing the benefits of improved geo-targeting).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

every time a fire truck pulls out of a fire station in Washington DC, and “on any given day, they’ll
respond to about 25 calls in a 24-hour period.”410 If we take the number of firefighter deployments per
day in Washington DC as the floor for the number of times per day that first responders are deployed in
each day in each state,411 it would be reasonable to conclude that first responders in the United States are
deployed at least 456,250 times annually, at a cost to taxpayers of $1.6 billion.412 If the improvements to
WEA that we adopt today were to prevent just 2.7 percent of those deployments, their benefit would
outweigh their cost in their first year of implementation, even if they prevented no deaths or injuries.413
95.
In demonstrating the value proposition of WEA and growing the market opportunity for
advanced alert and warning, we also anticipate that some emergency management agencies will choose to
use WEA as enhanced by the rules we adopt today, instead of other mass notification services, which
could lead to significant cost savings. For example, according to Joseph McConnell, Navy Program
Manager for Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection, the United States Navy contracted to pay $2.25 million to a
mass notification provider in Fiscal Year 2015 for an alerting and warning service to cover 375,000
service members.414 The improvements to WEA that we adopt today have the potential to make WEA an
even more effective service for federal, state, local, tribal and territorial governments, presenting a costeffective early alert and warning solution capable of meeting evolving emergency management needs.
Further, WEA is the only mass notification service for commercial mobile service to which all
Participating CMS Providers’ subscribers are opted in by default, and that is interoperable across
emergency management jurisdictions nationwide.415 Becoming authorized as a WEA alert originator is
free of charge.416 We recognize that WEA is voluntary and, as such, may not provide sufficient assurance
for some enterprise users that all intended recipients will receive an Alert Message, and therefore may not
be suitable for all enterprises. Nevertheless, with the improvements we adopt today, we anticipate that
some enterprises may choose to use WEA instead of a separate mass notification service. This analysis
supports our conclusion that the benefits of the rules we adopt today would exceed their costs, consistent
with our overarching approach to this break even analysis.

410

See Alex Tabarrok, Firefighters Don’t Fight Fires, MarginalRevolution (Jul. 18, 2012),
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/07/firefighters-dont-fight-fires.html (last visited Aug. 23,
2016) citing John Donovan, Fire Department Takes Medical Calls in Stride, ABCNews (Mar. 24, 2010),
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/firefighters-medical-calls-health-costs/story?id=10181852#.UABoKB3yw1e (last
visited Aug. 23, 2016).
411

This would likely represent a floor on the number of times first responders are deployed to as scene nationwide,
as Washington DC, if it were a state, would be the smallest state in the United States.
412

Where the average number of firefighter deployments per day in Washington DC (25), multiplied by the number
of days in a year (365), multiplied by the number of states in the United States (50) is 456,250, and the cost per
deployment is $3,500. 25 x 365 x 50 x $3,500 = $1,596,875,000.
413

Where first responders are deployed at least 456,250 times per year in the United States, 1.7 percent of that is
7756.25, and 7756.25 x $3,500 = $27,146,875, greater than the one-time cost of compliance our rules $27 million.
414

See E-mail from Joe McConnell, Navy Program Manager for Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection, to Debra Jordan,
Deputy Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, FCC (Aug. 18, 2016) (on file with the Commission);
Solicitation/Contract/Order for Commercial items, N66001-14-C-0014, SPAWAR Systems Center Pacific, Jesse
Martinez (2014) (on file with the Commission).
415

See, e.g., ECN, ECN Client Receives Innovation Award for Implementation of CodeRED Weather Warning
(Aug. 29, 2012) (describing CodeRed as an alerting service to which consumers are, by default, opted out).
416

See IPAWS Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Application, OMB Control No. 1660-0140,
http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1456953838440-0dfe80f6595d6e593b5a36ffbe65fe08/FEMAForm007-025_8-10-2015.pdf (last visited Aug. 16, 2016).

Federal Communications Commission
b.

FCC 16-127

Costs

96.
We anticipate that Participating CMS Providers will incur three types of costs as a result
of this proceeding: the one-time cost of time and labor spent developing technical standards and
specifications that Participating CMS Providers state are necessary to comply with our rules, the one-time
cost of one-time updates to network and mobile device software; and the one-time and ongoing cost of
recordkeeping requirements. Each of these cost categories is a foreseeable consequence of the WARN
Act’s direction to the Commission to promulgate technical requirements for WEA.417 In this Report and
Order, we take appropriate steps to ensure that those costs are not unduly burdensome.418 At the same
time, as we observed in the WEA NPRM, CMS Providers’ participation in WEA is voluntary.419 Any
Participating CMS Provider that does not wish to comply with the rules we adopt today may withdraw
their election to participate in WEA without penalty, and incur no implementation costs as a result.420 The
record shows, however, that Participating CMS Providers, including non-nationwide Participating CMS
Providers, will continue to participate in WEA as improved by the rules we adopt today in support of the
overall public interest and to continue to offer their subscribers competitive services.421 In this regard, as
a practical matter, Participating CMS Providers will incur implementation costs as a result of these rules.
We therefore provide the below analysis of the costs that Participating CMS Providers will likely incur in
order to maintain their election to participate in WEA consistent with our Part 10 rules, as amended by
this proceeding.
97.
We estimate the maximum reasonable cost burden our rules could present to all
Participating CMS Providers is $40 million as a one-time cost, and $2.3 million as an annual cost.422
These costs include, for one-time costs: $657,000 for updating standards and specification; $39,680,000
for new or modified software; and $6,300 for one-time record keeping costs. Annual costs include
$21,000 for logging messages and $2,281,000 for respond to requests for logs from state and local
emergency management agencies. The derivation of these numbers is in the following paragraphs.
98.
We reason that the cost ceiling for time and effort required to update relevant standards
and specifications would be $656,370.423 We quantify time costs using the hourly wage of a network
engineer likely to spend time and effort contributing to the work of standards-setting bodies, $93.50.424
417

See WARN Act § 602, 47 USC § 1202.

418

See infra Appx. C, Section E (Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Steps Taken to Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered).
419

WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13818, para 79.

420

See WARN Act § 602(b)(2)(D), 47 USC § 1202(b)(2)(D).

421

See, e.g., Letter from Pamela Gist, Counsel for Bluegrass Cellular, Inc., to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS
Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed Sept. 1, 2016) (explaining that Bluegrass Cellular “expects to be able to comply with
expanded WEA rules if provided adequate lead time, and if the required technology is available from key
providers”); Letter from Ben Moncrief, Vice President, Government Relations, C Spire, to Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 15-91 (filed Aug. 18, 2016) (C Spire Aug. 18, 2016 Ex Parte); Letter from Larry
Lueck, Associate Legal Counsel, Cellcom, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 15-91 (filed Aug. 22,
2016) (Cellcom Aug. 22, 2016 Ex Parte).
422

See supra note 367 (describing our method for calculating the one-time total cost imposed on Participating CMS
providers for standards development, software modification, and recordkeeping).
423

See infra note 420 (demonstrating that the cost to modify a single standard or specification is $72,930). Where
$72,930 x 9 = $656,370; see also infra note 428 (listing the nine unique standards that will need to be modified in
order to facilitate compliance with our rules).
424

The annual compensation for senior network engineers in the 90th percentile of the industry in 2016 is $124,486,
or $78.60/hr. See Payscale, Sr Network Engineer, http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Sr (last visited Aug.
2, 2016). Network_Engineer/Salary. While individuals other than Senior Network Engineers may participate in
standards-setting bodies relevant to WEA, we reason that the majority of participants would be senior network
(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

Commenters agree that expanding the maximum character limit,425 classifying an additional Alert
Message type,426 supporting embedded references,427 and establishing an opt-in framework for State/Local
WEA Testing will require changes to existing standards and specifications for the CMS Provider Alert
Gateway, CMS Provider cell broadcast infrastructure, and WEA-capable mobile devices.428 Both ATIS
(Continued from previous page)
engineers, and in any case, the compensation for such an individual represents a reasonable benchmark for the
compensation of other professionals with special skills that may be appropriate for this purpose, such as attorneys
and software engineers. These compensation numbers do not include benefits. According to Bureau of Labor
Statistics, benefits (including paid leave, supplementary pay, insurance, retirement and savings, and legally required
benefits) add 50% to compensation for the information industry as a whole, and for the category including
management, professional and related. See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation
Supplementary Tables March 2016, Table 8, page 9, http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsuptc38.pdf. We therefore add
$62,243 to the salary of $124,486, to arrive at a total compensation estimate of $186,729, which we round to
$187,000, or $93.50 per hour. Other estimates of compensation follow, all lower than the estimate we use for
analysis. Payscale.com is an organization committed to leveraging data and crowdsourcing to provide better
intelligence for companies and employees about compensation. See About Payscale,
http://www.payscale.com/about (last visited Jul. 29, 2016). Glassdoor analysis for a network engineer’s
compensation is based on 12,385 crowdsources reports. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/network-engineersalary-SRCH_KO0,16.htm (last visited Aug. 2, 2016).
425

See, e.g., AT&T May 5, 2015 Ex Parte at 1 (AT&T believes that [an increased message length] can be
accomplished in LTE Networks following the release of the ATIS feasibility study and the completion of
appropriate standards.”); T-Mobile Comments at 4 (“Because WEA message length will vary depending on whether
it is delivered over a legacy or an advanced network, standards and technical changes must be implemented before
expanded WEA messages are made available to prevent consumers from receiving multiple WEA messages in cases
where they travel from a 4G LTE network (triggering 360-character message) to an earlier generation network
(triggering a 90-character message).)”; FEMA Comments at 2 (“IPAWS PMO recommends that both a 90 character
and a 360 character message should be separately crafted so that each message contains all needed message
components presented in the proper order to encourage appropriate action in the public.”).
426

See, e.g., T-Mobile Comments at 5 (“In particular, new 3GPP standards would be needed to support wellorganized implementation of a new alert class. These standards are international in scope, and even in the best case
scenario it would take a minimum of 12-18 months to create such standards, followed by another approximate 12-18
months for implementation. Such a delay is easily avoided by clarifying that the existing Imminent Threat
classification may include shelter information, boil water, and other like advisories resulting from an imminent
threat to life and property.”); Sprint Comments at 6-7 (“Creation of any new categories would have significant
technical impacts and would trigger the need for development and implementation of new technical standards and
software and hardware changes.”); ATIS Comments at 9-10 (“The creation of new classes of alerts with unique
attention signal and vibration cadence may have significant technical impacts. To mitigate the impact of new
categories and reduce time needed for the development and implementation of new technical standards, software
and hardware, ATIS WTSC recommends that any new WEA categories should be supported within existing WEA
capabilities, event codes, alert classes, cell broadcast message IDs, and subscriber opt-out capabilities.”); CTIA
Comments at 10 (“CTIA would not recommend that the Commission create a new, separate alerting category that
entails new standards requirements.”).
427

See, e.g., Microsoft Reply at 3 (“Microsoft notes that standards around the logic of processes would have to be
established for these additional active items. For example, emergency alerts require user-initiated action to dismiss
before the next alert is presented. If multiple alerts are stacked and awaiting user engagement, clicking on an active
URL will dismiss the alert, but it is not clear whether the next alert waiting in the queue would preempt taking the
user to the linked website.”); ATIS Comments at 12 (“In addition to new and revised cybersecurity standards, other
industry standards would need to be revised before embedded URLs could be included as part of WEA
notifications.”).
428

See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 9 (stating that support for both 90 and 360-character messages will require
changes to standards for the C-interface, the CMSP network, and CMSP infrastructure.”); FEMA Comments at 2
(stating that expanding the maximum character length will also “require software modifications to CAP message
authoring tools, IPAWS OPEN, the “C” Interface to carriers and carrier systems as will any changes from the
existing standard.”); Microsoft Reply at 3 (discussing changes to mobile device standards that would be necessary to
(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

and TIA conduct the processes for developing, modifying and revising their individual and joint “J”
standards under the processes developed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for the
accreditation of American National Standards.429 As such, all the standards referenced here must follow
the ANSI process requirements for American National Standards.430 According to ATIS, when standards
need to be modified for WEA, it would be common practice for groups of approximately 30 individuals
with relevant technical expertise meet approximately bi-weekly for an hour to discuss the
modifications.431 Commenters assert that these standards-setting processes can be completed within 12
months, or 26 bi-weekly, one-hour meetings.432 Accordingly, we reason that the maximum cost of a
single standards-development process is approximately $73,000.433 Nine distinct standards will likely
need to be modified in order to enable compliance with our rules, so standards modifications will cost
nine times $73,000, or $657,000.
99.
We reason that the cost ceiling for the development and testing of new or modified
software required to comply with the rules we adopt today would be $39,680,000.434 Commenters assert
that compliance with our character length, embedded reference, alert logging and State/Local WEA
Testing rules could necessitate software upgrades the CMS Provider Alert Gateway, CMS Provider cell
broadcast infrastructure, and for WEA-capable mobile devices.435 Surveys of software developers and
(Continued from previous page)
accommodate embedded references); Verizon Comments at 13 (stating that mobile device standards and
specifications will need to be changed to allow the public to opt-in to State/Local WEA Tests). These standards
include ATIS-0700006 (CMAS via GSM/UMTS), ATIS-0700008 (Cell Broadcast Entity (CBE) to Cell Broadcast
Center (CBC) Interface Specification), ATIS-07000010 (CMAS via EPS Public Warning System Specification),
ATIS-0700014 (Implementation Guidelines for CMAS Handling of CMAS Supplemental Information Broadcast), JSTD-100 (Joint ATIS/TIA CMAS Mobile Device Behavior Specification), J-STD-101 (Joint ATIS/TIA CMAS
Federal Alert Gateway to CMSP Gateway Interface Specifications), J-STD-102 (Joint ATIS/TIA CMAS Federal
Alert Gateway to CMSP Gateway Interface Test Specification), 3GPP TS 23.041 - 3GPP Technical Realization of
Cell Broadcast Service (CBS), OASIS CAP v.1.2 IPAWS USA Profile v1.0 - IPAWS Profile for the OASIS
Common Alerting Protocol.
429

See American National Standards Institute (ANSI), ANSI Essential Requirements: Due Process Requirements for
American National Standards (2016),
https://share.ansi.org/shared%20documents/Standards%20Activities/American%20National%20Standards/Procedur
es,%20Guides,%20and%20Forms/2016_ANSI_Essential_Requirements.pdf (last visited Aug. 2, 2016).
430

See Letter from Tom Goode, General Counsel, ATIS, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 15-91,
at 1 (filed Sep. 6, 2016) (noting that, in some instances, meetings can last a full day).
432

See, e.g., T-Mobile Comments at 8 (stating that standards work will take “a minimum of 12-18 months”); cf.
Verizon Comments at 5 (stating that new technical standards typically take 12 months to establish).
433

This figure, $73,000 represents the total labor cost of 30 network engineers salaried at $93.50/hour dedicating an
average of one hour every other week for one year (26 meetings, for 26 total hours) to participation in standardssetting bodies dedicated solely to revising network and device standards for the purpose of complying with our
rules. (30 x $93.50 x 26 = $72,930, rounded to $73,000).
434

Where the cost of software modifications for each Participating CMS Provider ($146,000) + the cost of software
testing for each Participating CMS Provider ($350,000) = $496,000, and that figure, multiplied by the total number
of Participating CMS Providers (80) is $39,680,000.
435

FEMA Comments at 2 (stating that expanding the maximum character length will require “software
modifications to CAP message authoring tools, IPAWS OPEN, the “C” Interface to carriers and carrier systems”);
T-Mobile Reply at 6 (“By expanding the information that can be sent over existing WEA alert categories, the
Commission can eliminate this potential confusion while at the same time avoiding the need for time-consuming
new standards along with complex software development and testing.”); Sprint Comments at 6-7; ATIS Comments
(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

industry reports conclude that the maximum reasonable cost of designing a new mobile application is
approximately $500,000.436 We reason that the cost of developing a new mobile application could
represent a reasonable ceiling for the cost of any software modifications that may be implicated by the
rules we adopt today, as we confirm through the following analysis.437 We observe that software
engineers in the ninetieth percentile for their field are compensated at a rate of $175,000 per year.438
Crowdsourced reports demonstrate that individuals responsible for performance software updates for our
licensees are compensated at or around this range.439 Eighty CMS Providers have elected to participate in
WEA either in whole or in part,440 and each will need to employ software engineers to develop their own
software for each aspect of its infrastructure requiring an update. The record shows that software
modifications appropriate to enable compliance with the rules we adopt today must be developed, tested
and deployed, and that these processes can be completed within twelve months.441 NIST reports that the
various forms of software testing and debugging account for 10-35 percent of the software development
(Continued from previous page)
at 9-10; T-Mobile Reply at 4 (stating that software revisions must be developed in order to comply with our WEA
messaging requirements); Verizon Comments at 5 (stating that upgrades to the FEMA gateway, which service
providers do not control, will be necessary to initiate end-to-end testing and implementation. Software used by alert
originators will require new standards and upgrades to facilitate the FEMA alert gateway’s verification and
transmission of the message to service providers.”).
436

This figure represents the compensation for a software engineer compensated in the ninetieth percentile for their
field nationally ($175,000) working for the amount of time that it takes to develop software (10 months) =
($175,000 x 10/12 = $145,833, rounded to $146,000). See Clutch, Cost to Build a Mobile App: A Survey,
https://clutch.co/app-development/cost-build-mobile-app-survey (last visited Jun. 10, 2015) (concluding, based on
their study of mobile application developers, that the cost of developing a new application ranges from $37,913 to
over $500,000, depending on the complexity of the application); see also Kinvey, State of Enterprise Mobility, CIO
& Mobile Leader Survey (2014), http://resources.kinvey.com/docs/State+of+Enterprise+Mobility+Survey+2014++Kinvey.pdf (Sep. 6, 2016) (concluding that the average cost of developing and deploying one app is $270,000, with
71% spending up to $500,000); Otreva, https://www.otreva.com/calculator/stats.php (last visited Jun. 10, 2015)
(estimating that the average cost to develop a mobile app is $144,525); Alex Moazed, How Much Does it Cost to
Make a Mobile App?, Applico (May 23, 2016), http://www.applicoinc.com/blog/much-cost-build-app/ (last visited
Sep. 6, 2016).
437

See supra note 435 (quoting commenters stating that our proposed rules would necessitate “modifications” or
“revisions” to software, rather than the development of new software).
438

Total compensation based on salary of $116,704. See Payscale, Software Engineer,
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Software_Engineer/Salary (last visited Aug. 2, 2016). To this salary, we
add 50%, or $58,352 for benefits to arrive at a compensation rate of $175,056, rounded to $175,000. See supra note
424 (specifying guidance for the calculation of benefits); see also Software Engineer Salaries, Glassdoor.com,
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/software-engineer-salary-SRCH_KO0,17.htm (last visited Aug. 2, 2016)
(stating that the national average annual compensation for a software engineer is $95,195). Glassdoor calculated
average salary is based on 283,867 crowdsourced reports. Software Engineer Salaries, Glassdoor.com,
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/software-engineer-salary-SRCH_KO0,17.htm (last visited Aug. 2, 2016).
439

See Software Engineer Salaries, Glassdoor.com, https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/software-engineer-salarySRCH_KO0,17.htm (providing the following average compensations for companies likely to need to update
standards in order to comply with our rules (Google, $126,977, or 190,000 with benefits), (Apple, $122,067, or
$183,000 with benefits)).
440

See PS Docket No. 08-0146 (containing the WEA election letters of all Participating CMS Providers).

441

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

process (approximately two months).442 This would leave approximately 10 months for software
development and deployment, where software can be deployed through a simple push.443
100.
Accordingly, we estimate that the maximum cost of developing any software update
necessary to comply with the rules we adopt today for each Participating CMS Provider would be
$146,000 per update, the cost of compensating a full-time, senior software engineer for 10 months of
labor. The cost of testing these modifications (including integration testing, unit testing and failure
testing), which requires 12 software engineers working for two months, will be $350,000 for each
Participating CMS Provider, where this testing will be completed once for each Participating CMS
Provider and will include all required software modifications.444 Thus, the total cost of software
modifications for each Participating CMS Provider will be $496,000, and the total cost to industry will be
$39,680,000.445
101.
The final kind of cost that the rules we adopt today implicate is recordkeeping cost.
Specifically, we anticipate that our alert logging requirements will require Participating CMS Providers to
keep records of the CMAC attributes of the Alert Message that they process at their alert gateway, as well
as time stamps for the receipt and retransmission of those alerts, and to make their alert logs available to
emergency management agencies upon request.446 We anticipate that the total cost of compliance with
our alert logging rules due to recordkeeping burdens will be a one-time cost of $6,300 and an annual cost
of 2,302,000.447 The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has already approved a collection for
logging requirements at the Alert Gateway in connection with our requirement that Participating CMS
Providers log their receipt of WEA RMTs.448 OMB concludes that each RMT alert log will take 2.5
seconds to generate by an employee salaried at the rate of a GS-13, Step 5 .449 As of January 6, 2016,
emergency management agencies at the federal, state, and local levels had issued 22,232 Alert Messages

442

See Gregory Tassey, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), The Economic Impacts of
Inadequate Infrastructure for Software Testing, at 8-2 (2002),
https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/director/planning/report02-3.pdf (last visited Sep. 6, 2016).
Where 10 percent of a 12-month software development process would be 1.2 months, and 35 percent of a 12-month
software development process would be 4.2 months.
443

See Letter from Larry Lueck, Associate Legal Counsel, Cellcom, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket
No. 15-91 (filed Sep. 16, 2016) (“[I]f the FCC allows sufficient time for software updates to be bundled along with
other required software updated, then the incremental cost of software deployment is likely to be minimal”);
Microsoft, How to Deploy Software to Mobile Devices, https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb693693.aspx
(last visited Aug. 8, 2016).
444

Where the compensation for a software engineer compensated in the ninetieth percentile for their field nationally
($175,000) working for the amount of time that it takes to test software (2 months) is $29,167 ($175,000 x 2/12 =
$29,167, and multiplying by the 12 software engineers will be required to complete this task is ($350,004, rounded
to $350,000).
445

See supra notes 431 and 432 (describing our method of calculating the one-time total cost imposed on
Participating CMS Providers for software modifications and testing).
446

See supra Section III.B.1 (Logging Alert Messages at the Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateway).

447

See infra note 453 (describing our methodology for computing CMS Providers’ one-time costs associated with
alert logging totaling $6,300); see also infra notes 451, 457 (describing our methodology for computing CMS
Providers’ annual costs associated with alert logging). Where $21,000 (annual cost associated with alert logging) +
2,281,000 (annual cost of responding to requests for alert log data) = $2,302,000.
448

See 47 CFR § 10.350(a)(7); Commercial Mobile Alert System, 77 FR 41331 (2012).

449

Commercial Mobile Alert System, 77 FR 41331 (2012).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

at the rate of 4,851 per year.450 Anticipating that this trend will continue, we conclude that Participating
CMS Providers will need to log 4,851 WEA Alert Messages per year at a total cost of $21,000 to
industry.451 We also reason that Participating CMS Providers will incur a one-time recordkeeping cost to
establish this new capability at their Alert Gateway. In the Wireless E911 Location Accuracy
Requirements Fourth Report and Order, OMB approved our conclusion that it would take one engineer
one hour to install the capability to retain testing and live call data gathered pursuant to our
requirements.452 We therefore conclude that compliance with our alert logging requirement, like that for
our similar live call data requirement, will necessitate a one-time set up of this capability at the Alert
Gateway taking about one hour. Accordingly, we conclude that the maximum one-time recordkeeping
cost associated with our alert logging rules is $6,300.453
102.
We also require that Participating CMS Provider make their alert logs available to state
and local emergency management agencies upon request. In the Wireless E911 Location Accuracy
Requirements Fourth Report and Order, OMB estimated that it would take a clerical employee two hours
to respond to emergency management agencies’ requests for Participating CMS Providers’ logs of
uncompensated barometric data needed to support the 911 location accuracy z-axis requirement.454 We
reason that the ceiling on the number of requests for alert logs that a CMS Provider could receive would
be 782, where 782 is the total number of entities currently authorized as WEA alert originators.455 We
also reason that the average hourly salary of clerical employee ($18.23 per hour) is an appropriate metric
for assessing the value of time that Participating CMS Providers will need to spend to complete responses
to requests for alert log data because this task requires no special skills.456 Accordingly, we conclude that
450

See FEMA Comment at 1. Where 22,232 divided by the 55 months between January 2016 and the date of
WEA’s deployment in April 2012, multiplied by the 12 months in a year is 4850.618. We round this figure to the
nearest whole number, 4851.
451

For a wage rate, we use the most recent salary table for GS 13 Step 5 in locality pay area of WashingtonBaltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA, or $104,433 per year which is $52.22 per hour. We add 50% of this
wage, or $26.11 for benefits, for a compensation estimate of $78.33 per hour. To arrive at the cost of logging alert
messages we use: 2.5 seconds is.000694 hours, multiplied by the salary of the person responsible for compiling
these reports ($78.33), multiplied by the number of Participating CMS Providers (80), multiplied by the total
number of Alert Messages that each is expected to log per year (4851) = $21,096.42, rounded to $21,000.
452

See Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, 80 FR 45897 (2015) (announcing OMB approval of the
information collection underlying rules adopted in the Fourth Report and Order) citing Wireless E911 Location
Accuracy Requirements, Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 1259 (2015) (Wireless E911 Location Accuracy
Requirements Fourth Report and Order).
453

Where 80 Participating CMS Providers, multiplied by the salary of the individual responsible for maintaining
alert logs ($78.33/hr), multiplied by the number of hours setting up this capability is expected to take (1), equals
$6,266.40. We round this figure to $6,300.
454

See Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, 80 FR 45897 (2015); Wireless E911 Location Accuracy
Requirements Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 1261, para.6. Where, in the 911 context, these records
contained uncompensated barometric pressure data and were offered to PSAPs upon request, we reason that the logs
that we require Participating CMS providers to keep for WEA would likely include the same or less data, and would
elicit a similar number of requests.
455

See Organizations with Alerting Authority Completed, http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/14704184556233858964cd28632503e3333ef09ef9421/PAA_Complete_08052016.pdf (last visited Aug. 26, 2016).
456

We arrived at this hourly compensation by using, as a base, $12.15 per hour. See Payscale, Clerical Assistant,
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Clerical_Assistant/Hourly_Rate (last visited Aug. 2, 2016). We then
add 50% to that figure, or $6.08 per hour, to account for employee benefits, for a total of $18.23 per hour. See supra
note 456 (explaining this method of calculating benefits); see also Clerical Assistant, Glassdoor.com,
https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/clerical-assistant-salary-SRCH_KO0,18.htm (last visited Aug. 2, 2016) (stating
the national average compensation for a clerical assistant is $22,350). We use the best available crowdsourced data
to represent the likely compensation of a clerical employee responsible for this task, rather than, for example, the
(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

Participating CMS Providers will need to employ a clerk for 1,564 hours per year responding to
emergency management agencies requests for alert log data at a cost of $,2,281,000 per year.457
103.
We find that the expected benefit floor far exceeds the ceiling for costs imposed. Based
on the foregoing analysis, we find it reasonable to expect that at least three lives will be saved annually, at
a benefit of $28.5 million each year. This implies that the benefit floor will offset the $40 million onetime cost in just two years, and will far exceed the 2.3 million annually recurring cost. In addition to that
benefit floor, there are other benefits which we expect but cannot quantify. One of these is avoided
injuries. Because they typically exceed deaths by five to one in storms, they may have a benefit value
that approaches that of the lives saved. Total benefit will be further augmented by the reduced need to
deploy first responders and the reduced need for alternative systems that currently provide a similar
service at much greater cost.
IV.

FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

104.
In this Further Notice, we propose measures to continue to improve WEA, leveraging
advancements in technology as well as lessons learned from alert originators’ experience since WEA was
initially deployed. We also propose steps to improve the availability of information about WEA, both to
empower consumers to make informed choices about the emergency information that they will receive, as
well as to help promote transparency for emergency management agencies and other WEA stakeholders.
A.

Ensuring the Provision of Effective WEA Alert Messages
1.

Defining the Modes of Participation in WEA
a.

Background

105.
In the WEA Third Report and Order, the Commission required all CMS Providers to
notify the Commission of their election to participate in WEA. CMS Providers electing to participate
could do so either “in part” or “in whole.”458 Such election letters were required to include an attestation
that the CMS Provider “[a]grees to transmit such alerts in a manner consistent with the technical
standards, protocols, procedures, and other technical requirements implemented by the Commission,” and
“[c]ommits to support the development and deployment of technology for the “C” interface, the CMS
provider Gateway, the CMS provider infrastructure, and mobile devices with WEA functionality and
support of the CMS provider selected technology.”459 The Commission’s Part 10 rules do not define
participation “in whole” or “in part,” and do not specify the difference between them.460 CMS Providers
participating in part, however, must notify potential subscribers at the point of sale that “[w]ireless
emergency alerts may not be available on all devices or in the entire service area.”461 While the California
Public Utilities Commission argued at the time these rules were adopted that it was “essential” for states
to have access to more specific information through CMS Providers’ election letters about “the CMS
provider Gateway, the CMS provider infrastructure, the mobile device[s] with [WEA] functionality and
(Continued from previous page)
estimate utilized in the E911 Location Accuracy Requirements Fourth Report and Order, because the data we use is
more recent and reflective of actual compensation practices.
457

Where $18.23 (the national average total compensation for a clerk expressed in dollars per hour) x 2 (the number
of hours required to respond to requests for alert log data) x 782 (the number of requests for alert log data that
Participating CMS Providers are expected to receive, on average, each year) x 80 (the total number of Participating
CMS Providers) = $2,280,937.60, rounded to $2,281,000.
458

See WEA Third Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 12575, para. 32.

459

See id.; 47 CFR § 10.210.

460

See 47 CFR § 10.210. Nationwide CMS Providers, including AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon, participate
in WEA “in part.” See PS Docket No. 08-146.
461

See 47 CFR § 10.240(c).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

any geographic variations in the commitment to provide emergency alerts,”462 the Commission declined to
require that Participating CMS Providers disclose this information because, it reasoned, such a
requirement would be unduly burdensome and could force CMS Providers “to divulge competitively
sensitive information” that would be “inconsistent with the voluntary nature of the [WEA] program.”463 C
Spire now urges the Commission to “do more to clarify the difference between ‘in part’ and ‘in whole’
WEA participation.”464
b.

Discussion

106.
We propose to adopt definitions for participation in WEA “in whole” and “in part” based
on the attestations that CMS Providers are required to offer in their election letters, and on the
notifications that CMS Providers offer potential subscribers at the point of sale.465 Specifically, we
propose to define CMS Providers participating in WEA “in whole” as CMS Providers that have agreed to
transmit WEA Alert Messages in a manner consistent with the technical standards, protocols, procedures,
and other technical requirements implemented by the Commission in the entirety of their geographic
service area and to all mobile devices on their network. Similarly, we propose to define CMS Providers
participating in WEA “in part” as CMS Providers that have agreed to transmit WEA Alert Messages in a
manner consistent with the technical standards, protocols, procedures, and other technical requirements
implemented by the Commission in some, if not all of their geographic service area, and to some, if not
all of the mobile devices on their network.466 We seek comment on these proposed definitions for CMS
Provider participation in WEA. What are the technical prerequisites to offering WEA in a geographic
area where a commercial mobile service is available? What factors lead Participating CMS Providers to
offer WEA in a geographic area smaller than the area in which they offer commercial mobile service, or
to fewer than all mobile devices on their network?
107.
We also seek comment on our proposal to incorporate the extent to which CMS Providers
offer WEA on mobile devices on their networks into our definitions of participation in whole and in part.
Bluegrass Cellular states that “participation in whole has no bearing on the number or percentage of
devices on the network that are WEA capable.”467 If this were the case, however, could a CMS Provider
that offers WEA on only one mobile device qualify as participating in whole? Would this be consistent
with a common-sense interpretation of “in whole” participation, or with our requirement that only CMS
Providers participating in part must disclose at the point of sale that WEA may not be available on all
devices on this provider’s network?
108.
If participation in WEA in whole entails offering WEA on all mobile devices on the
network, we seek comment on how “mobile devices” should be defined.468 For purposes of WEA,

462

WEA Third Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 12574, para. 31.

463

Id. at 12575, para. 32.

464

C Spire Jun. 24, 2016 Ex Parte at 2.

465

See 47 CFR § 10.210(a)(1); 47 CFR § 10.240; see also infra Section IV.C.1 (Promoting Informed Consumer
Choice at the Point of Sale) (proposing to require CMS Providers to disclose sufficient information at the point of
sale to allow customers to make an informed decision about whether they would consistently receive WEA Alert
Messages if they were to become a subscriber).
466

These definitions also reflect the differences between participation in WEA in whole and in part as stated in the
point-of-sale notification of CMS Providers participating in part. See 10.240(c) (“Wireless emergency alerts may
not be available on all devices or in the entire service area”).
467

Bluegrass Cellular Jun. 29, 2016 Ex Parte at 4.

468

We note the complementary character of our efforts here, and comments we sought in the Alerting Paradigm
NPRM in these same dockets (15-91 and 15-94), specifically, whether we should consider tablets that consumers use
to access mobile services as “mobile devices” under our Part 10 WEA rules. See Alerting Paradigm NPRM, 31 FCC
(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

Section 10.10(j) defines “mobile devices” as “[t]he subscriber equipment generally offered by CMS
providers that supports the distribution of WEA Alert Messages.”469 This definition would encompass
any mobile device connected to a Participating CMS Providers’ network that is capable of receiving
WEA Alert Messages, including but not limited to LTE-enabled and future generation tablet computers,
and phablets. The record shows, however, that there is significant variation among Participating CMS
Providers with respect to mobile devices on their networks that support WEA capability. For example,
the Department of Homeland Security’s WEA Mobile Penetration Strategy Report shows that WEA is
already available on some tablets, including iPads running iOS 6 or greater,470 and emergency managers
agree that WEA should be made available to the public “by all available means,” including on tablets.471
On the other hand, CTIA suggests that while 4G-LTE tablets can be WEA capable, Wi-Fi-only tablets
cannot, and states that “even if there are LTE-enabled tablets with the capability to receive cell broadcast
messages through the network infrastructure, additional mobile device behavior standards and device
development are required to support the handling and presentation of WEA messages.”472 AT&T simply
concludes that they “do not believe customers could view WEA messages on their existing tablets.”473
We seek comment on the technical characteristics needed in a device to allow it to receive WEA Alert
Messages. Would it be advisable for us to revise our definition of the term “mobile device” in our Part 10
rules to reflect the technical prerequisites to supporting WEA service? Finally, we seek comment on
whether there are any barriers that may prevent the delivery of WEA to the full range of consumer
devices for which Participating CMS Providers may wish to provide emergency alerts, and which could
fall within the scope of the WARN Act.474
109.
In addition to defining participation in WEA in whole and in part with reference to the
extent to which Participating CMS Providers offer WEA in the entirety of their geographic service area
and to all mobile devices operating on their networks, we seek comment on whether these definitions
should include the extent to which Participating CMS Providers make WEA available using all available
network technologies. To what extent should Participating CMS Providers’ attestation that they will
“support the development and deployment of technology for the ‘C’ interface, the CMS Provider
Gateway, the CMS Provider infrastructure, and mobile devices with WEA functionality” be read as a
commitment to support WEA using all available network technologies?475 To what extent do
(Continued from previous page)
Rcd at 636, para. 93. Those comments inform our consideration in this proceeding, and we invite additional
comment as outlined in this section.
469

47 CFR § 10.10(1).

470

WEA Mobile Penetration Strategy at 124 (explaining that Apple iPads with an operating system of iOS 6 or
greater are WEA-enabled, while Android devices are not WEA capable).
471

Washington State SECC Comments, PS Docket Nos. 15-94 and 15-91, at 28 (May 19, 2016); see also
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials’ Comments, PS Docket Nos.15-94 and 15-91, at 5 (Jun. 8,
2016); New York City Emergency Management Department Comments, PS Docket 15-94 and 15-91, at 8 (Jun. 8,
2016); Alaska ABA, ASECC, DMVA, DHSEM Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91 and 15-94, at 11 (Jun. 8, 2016)
(“the more technologies and devices that support WEA reception, the higher the likelihood the alert will be received
by the maximum number of individuals”); cf. NWS Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91 and 15-94, at 4 (Jun. 3, 2016)
(“WEA should focus on cell phones, but the FCC should also be careful about trying to distinguish between tablet
and cell phones, given the convergence of the two in phablets.”).
472

Cellular Telephone Industries Association Comments, PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, at 10 (May 9, 2016).

473

AT&T Services Inc. Comments, PS Docket Nos. 15-94 and 15-91, at 9 (filed June 8, 2016).

474

WARN Act § 602(b)(1)(A), 47 USC § 1202(b)(1)(A) (directing the Commission to complete a proceeding “to
allow any licensee providing commercial mobile service (as defined in section 332(d)(1) of the Communications Act
of 1934 (47 USC § 332(d)(1))) to transmit emergency alerts to subscribers to, or users of, the commercial mobile
service provided by such licensee.”
475

See 47 CFR § 10.210(a)(2).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

Participating CMS Providers currently use available technologies, such as Wi-Fi and small cells, in
support of their WEA deployments? To the extent that Participating CMS Providers do not leverage all
available technologies to further their participation in WEA, we seek comment on any factors that have
contributed to this decision. We seek comment on any additional technologies already commercially
deployed in CMS networks that could be leveraged in support of WEA, and on any additional
functionalities that they may enable.476
110.
We seek comment on whether, in the event we adopt new definitions for participation in
WEA, it would be appropriate to require CMS Providers to refresh and renew their election to participate
in WEA. Further, notwithstanding whether we ultimately adopt new definitions for WEA participation,
have the nature of CMS networks (having evolved from 2 and 3G to 4G technologies) and the
requirements of Part 10 changed sufficiently since WEA’s deployment to merit a renewed election? How
frequently, if at all, should Participating CMS Providers be required to update their election in order to
provide the Commission and the public with an up-to-date account of their WEA service offerings?
Alternatively, should the occurrence of a certain event or events trigger a Participating CMS Provider’s
obligation to renew their election? If so, what specific event or events should give rise to a requirement
for a Participating CMS Provider to renew their election? We seek comment on steps that we can take to
mitigate any burden that disclosure of this information may present for Participating CMS Providers, and
especially non-nationwide Participating CMS (e.g., small, regional, and rural providers). To what extent
would any information that Participating CMS Providers may be required to disclose be considered
sensitive? As WEA has evolved into a vital and relied-upon component of the Nation’s public safety
infrastructure, has this information become necessary to understanding the Nation’s readiness in times of
disaster?477
111.
We anticipate that adopting these definitions for the modes of Participation in WEA
would improve long-term participation in WEA while incenting achievement of evolving WEA
objectives, consistent with Participating CMS Providers technology refresh cycle. We seek comment on
this analysis. What steps can we take to encourage Participating CMS Providers to increase their
engagement with WEA voluntarily? Further, we seek comment on whether clearly delineated modes of
participation in WEA, taken together with a renewed election requirement, would facilitate emergency
management agencies’ response planning efforts by evincing the extent to which WEA is available in
local communities. To what extent could information about each Participating CMS Provider’s WEA
service offerings by geographic area, device, and technology facilitate community reliance on WEA as an
emergency management tool? What steps can we take to make this information as useful as possible to
emergency management agencies while limiting burdens on Participating CMS Providers? Are there
alternative approaches that we could consider in order to accomplish our objective of incenting increased
engagement with WEA by Participating CMS Providers and emergency management agencies?
2.

Infrastructure Functionality
a.

Background

112.
Section 10.330 requires Participating CMS Providers’ infrastructure to distribute Alert
Messages to mobile devices, and to authenticate interactions with mobile devices.478 This functionality is
made dependent upon “the capabilities of the delivery technologies implemented by a Participating CMS
476

See infra Section IV.B.3 (Matching the Geographic Target Area) (seeking comment on the extent to which the
use of Wi-Fi or small cells could improve WEA geo-targeting).
477

This may be particularly important in light of the role that alerts and warnings have played in recent geo-political
events. See, e.g., Angelique Chrisafis, France’s Saip Emergency Smartphone App Failed During Nice Attack, The
Guardian (Jul. 16, 2016, 7:54 EDT), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/16/nice-terroist-attack-francesaip-emergency-smartphone-app-failed (last visited Jul. 29, 2016).
478

47 CFR. § 10.330.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

Provider.”479 Section 10.500 requires WEA-capable mobile devices to authenticate interactions with
CMS Provider infrastructure, monitor for Alert Messages, maintain subscriber alert opt-out selections and
language preferences, extract Alert Message content in the subscriber’s preferred language, present Alert
Message content to the device consistent with subscriber opt-out selections, and detect and suppress
duplicate Alert Messages.480 Similarly, compliance with these requirements is contingent upon “the
capabilities of a Participating CMS Provider’s delivery technologies.”481 Emergency managers state that
one of the primary obstacles to accelerating emergency management agencies’ authentication as WEA
alert initiators is a lack of clarity about the quality of service that WEA provides.482
b.

Discussion

113.
We propose to amend Sections 10.330 and 10.500 to delete parallel statements that
“WEA mobile device functionality is dependent on the capabilities of a Participating CMS Provider’s
delivery technologies” and that “[i]nfrastructure functions are dependent upon the capabilities of the
delivery technologies implemented by a Participating CMS Provider.”483 Since the time these provisions
were adopted, Participating CMS Providers have overwhelmingly elected to utilize cell broadcast
technology in fulfillment of their WEA election.484 Participating CMS Providers’ infrastructure has
proven to be universally capable of the basic functionalities described by Section 10.330 and 10.500.
Accordingly, we believe these provisions are no longer necessary. Moreover, removing these provisions
from our Part 10 rules would likely clarify for emergency management agencies considering whether to
become authorized as WEA alert initiators that the alerting service WEA offers is capable of providing
these critical functions, especially when taken together with the performance reporting and alert logging
requirements discussed below.485 We seek comment on this analysis.
114.
We seek comment on whether Providers CMS Providers, and particularly non-nationwide
CMS Providers (small, rural or regional Participating CMS Providers), continue to require the flexibility
that this language may provide.486 There is no record about why these caveats remain necessary given
changes in technology over the four years since WEA’s deployment. Does the flexibility that this
language may provide enable CMS Providers to participate in WEA that otherwise would be unable to do
so? We invite comment from any Participating CMS Provider that would no longer be able to participate
in WEA in whole or in part were we to remove this language from Sections 10.330 and 10.500. Such
commenters should specify the manner in which their WEA service would be unable to comply with the
requirements of Sections 10.330 and 10.500 were we to remove the prefatory language from those
Sections, while still being capable of providing the WEA service described elsewhere in Part 10.
Similarly, would removing this language make any WEA-capable mobile devices incapable of continuing
to support WEA? If so, why? We seek comment on whether, if we retain this language at all, it should
be modified to apply only to non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers.

479

Id.

480

47 CFR § 10.500.

481

Id.; see also CMSAAC Report at 12 (recommending this approach to offer Participating CMS Providers flexibility
so that they might take advantage of advances in technology).
482

See, e.g., Houston OPSHS Comments at 4; CCOEM Comments at 3; Jefferson Parish EM Comments at 4.

483

47 CFR § 10.330; 47 CFR § 10.500.

484

See CSRIC IV WEA Messaging Report at 7.

485

See infra Section IV.D (Improving WEA Transparency).

486

See supra note 15 (defining “nationwide” and “non-nationwide” Participating CMS Providers).

Federal Communications Commission
3.

FCC 16-127

Alert Message Preservation
a.

Background

115.
The Commission’s WEA rules do not address the manner in which WEA Alert Messages
should be treated after they are dismissed by the user. Emergency managers state that the ability to access
WEA Alert Messages that have already been viewed would be of significant benefit to the public,
particularly in light of our expansion of the maximum character limit and establishment of a new Alert
Message classification, Public Safety Messages.487 Commenters agree that, notwithstanding the benefits
of being able to recall WEA Alert Messages and the existence of an applicable mobile device behavior
specification,488 mobile device manufacturers take different approaches to preserving Alert Messages and
consumers have difficulty accessing them after they have been viewed and dismissed.489 ATIS states that
Alert Message preservation is dependent “upon vendor implementation, and is vendor-specific.”490 For
example, “BlackBerry 10 and Android both keep alerts in an ‘inbox’ which the user can access later,”491
whereas Alert Messages are preserved on Microsoft devices in the “Message History” folder.492 Harris
County OSHEM “expresses a need for all WEA Alert Messages to be archived at least until the warning
expires.”493 CSRIC V recommends the development of systems and standards to preserve message
content for reference by the user.494
b.

Discussion

116.
We propose to amend Section 10.500 to state that WEA-capable mobile devices must
preserve Alert Messages in an easily accessible format and location until the Alert Message expires. We
seek comment on this proposal. We seek comment on the various approaches that Participating CMS
Providers currently take to Alert Message preservation, and on any best practices that have emerged in
this area. We seek comment on whether we should standardize the manner in which Participating CMS
Providers preserve Alert Messages, informed by relevant best practices.
117.
We seek comment on the extent to which Participating CMS Providers currently offer
users the ability to access Alert Messages after they have been viewed and dismissed. Is Blackberry,
Android and Windows’ practice of providing access to dismissed Alert Messages in an “inbox” or in
“message history” consistent among all devices and providers?495 Section 10.420 specifies “Expiration
Time” as a required CAP element in WEA Alert Messages.496 Is it feasible to use this CAP element as a
basis for identifying the time at which an Alert Message should be discarded? If WEA Alert Messages
487

See APCO Mar. 22, 2016 Ex Parte at 2; NYCEM Mar. 8, 2016 Ex Parte at 5-6; FEMA Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte
at 4-5; Harris County OHSEM Mar. 7, 2016 Ex Parte at 5; Denver OEMHS Mar. 4, 2016 Ex Parte at 3.
488

The ATIS/TIA Mobile Device Behavior Specification specifies that “[m]obile devices should have the ability to
recall alert messages for review by the subscriber.” ATIS/TIA Mobile Device Behavior Specification at 10; see also
CMSAAC Report at 82 (specifying the method by which CAP messages should be converted into Commercial
Mobile Alert for C-interface (CMAC) format, including a parameter for message expiry that could potentially be
used to determine how long a WEA Alert Message should remain available to a consumer).
489

See NCMEC Mar. 2, 2016 Ex Parte at 3; Denver OEMHS Mar. 4, 2016 Ex Parte at 3; FEMA Mar. 17, 2016 Ex
Parte at 4; BRETSA Mar. 3, 2016 Ex Parte at 5.
490

ATIS Mar. 18, 2016 Ex Parte at 23.

491

BlackBerry Mar. 21, 2016 Ex Parte at 2.

492

Microsoft Mar. 9, 2016 Ex Parte at 2.

493

See Harris County OHSEM Mar. 7, 2016 Ex Parte at 5.

494

See CSRIC V WEA Geo-targeting Report at 32.

495

See Blackberry Mar. 21, 2016 Ex Parte at 2; Microsoft Mar. 8, 2016 Ex Parte at 1-2.

496

47 CFR § 10.420.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

are retained past this expiration time, Denver OEMHS expresses concern that users will view expired
Alert Messages and assume that they are current, causing confusion and panic.497 Where Alert Messages
are preserved for user review, for how long are they preserved? If Alert Messages continue to be
preserved after the underlying emergency condition has expired, are expired Alert Messages clearly
marked as such to prevent user confusion? To what extent do Participating CMS Providers’ existing
practices achieve our goal of providing subscribers with a straightforward method of accessing Alert
Messages until they expire?
118.
Based on the comments, we believe that having continued access to WEA Alert
Messages, including information regarding protective measures the public can take to protect life and
property, could promote superior public safety outcomes. NYCEM and APCO have already suggested
several use cases in which public response outcomes could be improved through easy access to active
Alert Messages, such as to review details about shelter locations and commodity distribution points, and
to recall complex information presented in longer WEA Alert Messages.498 Further, FEMA states that
requiring appropriate alert preservation “would reduce user confusion, make training easier, and would
require only one educational campaign if preservation was consistent across platforms.”499 FEMA further
states that requiring appropriate alert preservation “could alleviate some milling behavior, as some will
search for alerts on the internet once dismissed to find the content.”500 We seek comment on these
analyses, as well as on additional use cases in which access to pending Alert Messages could have public
safety benefits.
4.

Earthquake Alert Prioritization
a.

Background

119.
As we discussed in the Report and Order, Sections 10.320 and 10.410 of the
Commission’s WEA rules require Participating CMS Providers to program their Alert Gateways to
process Alert Messages on a FIFO basis, except for Presidential Alerts, which must be processed “upon
receipt,” before any non-Presidential Alert Messages that may also be queued for transmission.501 In the
WEA NPRM, we sought comment on whether we should amend Section 10.410 of the Commission’s
rules to address prioritization at the CMS Provider’s Gateway, in transit, and at the mobile device.502
Subsequently, the FY2016 Omnibus Appropriations Explanatory Statement directed the FCC to report to
the Appropriations Committee on all regulatory and statutory changes that would be necessary to ensure
that earthquake-related emergency alerts can be received by the public in fewer than three seconds using
IPAWS and its associated alerting systems, including WEA.503 Earthquake warnings are currently issued
as Imminent Threat Alerts, but it is unclear whether Participating CMS Providers’ WEA infrastructure is
497

Denver OEMHS Mar. 4, 2016 Ex Parte at 3, 4.

498

NYCEM Mar. 8, 2016 Ex Parte at 6; APCO Mar. 22, 2016 Ex Parte at 2.

499

FEMA Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte at 4.

500

Id. at 5.

501

47 CFR §§ 10.320(e)(3); 10.410; supra para. 58.

502

WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13817, para. 77.

503

See S. Rept. No. 114-097 (2015), included in the 2016 Appropriations Act by reference in the Explanatory
Statement Submitted by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, Chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations Regarding
House Amendment No. 1 to the Senate Amendment on H.R. 2029, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016; see
Congressional Record, 114th Congress, First Session, Issue: Vol. 161, No. 184, Daily Edition, December 17, 2015
(Explanatory Statement). Prior to reporting to the Appropriations Committee staff, the Public Safety and Homeland
Security Bureau determined that more data and information were necessary to properly address the issues raised in
the Explanatory Statement language. Accordingly, the Commission established PS Docket No. 16-32 and issued a
Public Notice on same. See Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Seeks Comment on Ways to Facilitate
Earthquake-Related Emergency Alerts, Public Notice, 31 FCC Rcd 3459 (2016).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

able to process and transmit these Alert Messages fast enough for them to provide timely warning to the
public, particularly to those that are closest to the epicenter.504 To be effective, it is crucial that these
messages are delivered as rapidly as possible because, in order to be effective, they must be delivered to
the public in advance of fast-travelling seismic waves.505 ATIS states that it would be technically feasible
to transmit earthquake-related Alert Messages from the Alert Gateway upon receipt in order to expedite
their transmission to the public.506 AT&T states, however that “[w]ithout a re-design of the entire system,
it is not possible to prioritize WEA messages on anything other than a FIFO basis.”507
b.

Discussion

120.
We propose to require Participating CMS Providers to deliver earthquake-related Alert
Messages to the public in fewer than three seconds, measured from the time an earthquake-related Alert
Message is created to when it is delivered and displayed at the mobile device. We seek comment on the
parameters for WEA to deliver earthquake alerts in less than three seconds, including any operational or
regulatory changes that may be necessary in order to achieve this objective. We seek comment on the
appropriate points by which to measure the applicable delivery timeframe. Should the applicable
timeframe be measured from the time the alert originator issues the earthquake alert to the time it arrives
at the end user device? In order to meet our end-to-end latency objective while respecting the limitations
of Participating CMS Provider infrastructure, should the delivery delay from the IPAWS Alert Gateway
to the end user be limited to two seconds? If Alert Messages are not received by all WEA-capable mobile
devices in the target area simultaneously, how should we determine whether earthquake alerts are being
delivered on time to meet our proposed requirement? We seek comment on these proposals, as well as
any potential alternatives. We also seek comment on their costs and benefits. In addition, we seek
comment on the implementation timeframe in which delivery of earthquake alerts in fewer than three
seconds could be achieved. Would this be achievable within the next thirty months? If not, how much
time would be needed?
121.
In order to help eliminate any delays that could unnecessarily affect the delivery of an
earthquake alert, we seek comment on whether we should require prioritization of earthquake-related
Alert Messages at the CMS Provider Alert Gateway by processing them “upon receipt,” before any nonPresidential Alert that may also be queued for transmission.508 We expect that prioritization at the CMS
Provider Alert Gateway would remove the possibility of any queuing delay that may occur due to
simultaneous arrival of multiple alerts. We seek comment on the extent to which prioritizing earthquake
alerts at the Alert Gateway would reduce their end-to-end latency in instances where the Alert Gateway is
processing more than one Alert Message at a time, as well as in other instances. We also seek comment
on whether it would be appropriate to prioritize earthquake alerts in transit over other Alert Messages or
control channel activity if giving them elevated priority at the Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateway
504

47 CFR § 10.400(b). “The objective of earthquake early warning is to rapidly detect the initiation of an
earthquake, estimate the level of ground shaking to be expected, and issue a warning before significant ground
shaking begins.” ATIS, Feasibility Study for Earthquake Early Warning System, ATIS 0700020, at 11 (2016) (ATIS
Feasibility Study for Earthquake Early Warning); see also id. at 12 (demonstrating how warning time increases with
distance from the epicenter); CTIA, Wireless Emergency Alerts, http://www.ctia.org/your-wireless-life/consumertips/wireless-emergency-alerts (last visited Jul. 23, 2016).
505

ATIS Feasibility Study for Earthquake Early Warning at 11 (“Seismic waves travel through the shallow earth at
speeds ranging from one to a few kilometers per second (0.5-3 miles/sec). This means that the shaking can take
some seconds or even minutes to travel from where the earthquake occurred to the alert area. . . . To maximize
warning time, the system must minimize delays in data processing, communication, and delivery of alerts.”).
506

Letter from Thomas Goode, ATIS General Counsel, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, PS Docket No. 16-32, at 2 (filed July 19, 2016).
507

AT&T Comments at 25.

508

In case of conflict, a Presidential Alert should have priority over an earthquake-related Alert Message.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

would not sufficiently reduce delivery latency for them to arrive on time to save lives. We note that WEA
Alert Message segments are transmitted by the Radio Access Network (RAN) every 80ms to 5.12
seconds.509 Could standardizing the transmission periodicity of WEA message segments reduce end-toend alert delivery latency for all WEA Alert Messages? What are the advantages and disadvantages of
shorter WEA transmission periods? Can they be changed dynamically? We seek comment on the extent
to which giving earthquake alerts priority at the Alert Gateway, in transit, and through other means could
enable earthquake-related Alert Messages to be delivered to the public in fewer than three seconds. Even
if prioritization of earthquake alerts at the Alert Gateway, by itself, would not be sufficient, should we
require such prioritization as an intermediate step towards this goal? We also seek comment on whether
any other types of events merit higher priority treatment because of their extreme time sensitivity (e.g.,
hurricane, tornadoes, bioterrorism, epidemic crises).
122.
We seek comment on any technical issues that prioritizing earthquake alerts in transit
might present for Participating CMS Providers, and on when this standard could feasibly be achieved. In
the alternative, we seek comment on whether a different Alert Message latency requirement would strike
a more appropriate balance between the costs of prioritization and the benefits of earthquake early
warning.510 With respect to AT&T’s perspective that changing the way that Alert Messages are
prioritized would require a “re-design of the entire system,”511 we seek comment on what, if any aspects
of the WEA system would need to be redesigned in order to allow earthquake alerts to be delivered to the
public in fewer than three seconds. Why, if at all, would changing the way that the Participating CMS
Provider Alert Gateway prioritizes WEA Alert Messages affect any aspect of the WEA system other than
the Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateway itself? From a technical standpoint, how is it currently
possible to prioritize Presidential Alerts but not other types of Alert Messages? We anticipate that
changing the manner in which this Gateway handles earthquake alerts would necessitate revisions to
Gateway software, and relevant standards. We seek comment on this analysis. Can the Participating
CMS Provider Alert Gateway’s standards and software be updated to allow it to distinguish earthquake
alerts from other Imminent Threat Alerts, for example, by reference to the its CAP “event code”
parameter?512 If not, what steps should we take to allow for earthquake-related alerts to be treated
differently from other Imminent Threat Alerts? We anticipate that reducing the end-to-end latency for
earthquake alerts will facilitate the use of WEA during such incidents, providing a unique mechanism in
the United States for warning the public about earthquakes before the damaging tremors occur. We
observe that Japan’s Earthquake and Tsunami Warning System (ETWS) is currently the only earthquake
early warning service in the world that integrates mass earthquake-related communications with cellular
networks.513 We anticipate that making WEA an effective platform for early earthquake warnings could,
in combination with other earthquake mitigation efforts,514 help to mitigate the $4.4 billion dollars in
earthquake-related losses FEMA estimates that the United States suffers annually,515 by saving lives and
509

See ATIS Feasibility Study for LTE WEA Message Length at 12.

510

See supra para. 91 (describing the benefits of earthquake early warning).

511

AT&T Comments at 25.

512

We note that the CAP standard that emergency managers use to initiate WEA Alert Messages contains a
parameter for an Alert Messages event code. See OASIS, Common Alerting Protocol Version 1.2, at 17. We also
note that “EQW” is a specified event code in our Part 11 Emergency Alert System (EAS) rules. See 47 CFR §
11.31.
513

See ATIS Feasibility Study for Earthquake Early Warning at 15.

514

See United States Geological Survey, ShakeAlert – An Earthquake Early Warning System for the United States
West Coast (2016), https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2014/3083/pdf/fs2014-3083.pdf (last visited Aug. 24, 2016).
515

See Bob Arguero, Annual U.S. Earthquake Losses Estimated at $4.4B, GovCon,
http://www.govcon.com/doc/annual-us-earthquake-losses-estimated-at-44b-0001 (last visited Jul. 23, 2016) (“[T]he
$4.4 billion estimate is extremely conservative and includes only capital losses ($3.49 billion) and income losses
(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

preventing and mitigating injuries, thereby reducing income loss and by helping to mitigate damage to
infrastructure by alerting members of the public who are in a position to take preparatory actions to
prevent damage in the event of an earthquake.516 We seek comment on this analysis, including to on the
extent to which such prioritization would mitigate earthquake-related losses and on the costs of any
related upgrades to WEA to permit such prioritization.
5.

Disaster Relief Messaging
a.

Background

123.
Commenters address several potential uses for WEA as a secondary messaging service,
i.e., a tool for communicating to the public emergency instructions intended to supplement information
provided in the initial (primary) message. For example, NYCEM, Ashtabula County EMA and the
California Governor’s OES observe that our new Alert Message classification, Public Safety Messages,
creates a framework for secondary messaging that can assist with disaster recovery efforts.517 In the
Alerting Paradigm NPRM as well as in the WEA NPRM, we sought comment on the extent to which
emergency managers leverage targeted community feedback during and after emergency situations to
disseminate and gather information.518 We observed that the Peta Jakarta initiative in Indonesia may
provide an example of how a government alert initiator can leverage crowdsourced data to increase the
overall effectiveness of alerts.519 While many emergency management agencies expressed concern about
the potential for an additional data stream for crowdsourced information to overwhelm already
understaffed Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs),520 “NYCEM strongly believes that the future of
(Continued from previous page)
($0.93 billion). This figure does not cover damage and losses to critical facilities, transportation and utility lifelines
or indirect economic losses); see also supra para. 91 (describing the benefits of earthquake early warning).
516

Such as notifying a gas pipeline operator to shut off the gas supply and thus potentially avert the potential for an
explosion.
517

NYCEM Comments at 5; Ashtabula County EMA Comments a 2; California Governor’s OES Comments at 3.

518

We seek comment on the technical feasibility of supporting crowdsourced community feedback using embedded
references in the WEA NPRM. WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13796, para. 28. In the Alerting Paradigm NPRM, we
seek comment on 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; on whether community
feedback via EAS or WEA could be used to prioritize emergency managers’ information gathering efforts; on
whether information about the extent of this practice should be included in State EAS Plans; and on whether this
capability could be affected by our cable forced tuning rules; and on whether new technologies could facilitate
consumer feedback on, and interaction with alert content. Alerting Paradigm NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 618-19, 621,
628, 632, 635, para. 45-46, 53, 73, 82, 91. We seek further comment on queueing many-back-to-one feedback in the
context of WEA here. We leave open the issue of how EAS can be used for this purpose.
519

See Alerting Paradigm NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 618-19, para. 46. The Peta Jakarta project piloted a program that
monitored Twitter for posts mentioning the word for “flood” during flooding season. See Peter Meier, Social Media
for Disaster Response Done Right, Emergency Journalism (Jul. 29, 2015), http://emergencyjournalism.net/socialmedia-for-disaster-response-done-right/ (last visited Jan. 25, 2016); see also Peta Jakarta,
https://petajakarta.org/banjir/en/ (last visited Jan. 27, 2016). 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.” See Peter Meier, Social
Media for Disaster Response Done Right, Emergency Journalism (Jul. 29, 2015),
http://emergencyjournalism.net/social-media-for-disaster-response-done-right/ (last visited Jan. 25, 2016). 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. See id.
520

See Named State Broadcasters Associations Comments, PS Docket Nos. 15-94 and 15-91, 13 (June 8, 2016);
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials Comments, PS Docket Nos.15-94 and 15-91, 4 (June 8,
2016); Denver OEMHS Mar. 4, 2016 Ex Parte at 3; Letter from Joseph Benkert, Counsel, Boulder Regional
(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

crowdsourcing is through leveraging individual consumer cellular phones by upgrading the Wireless
Emergency Alert System to support bidirectional, “many-to-one” communication.”521 CSRIC V finds that
the ability to gather information from the community (many-to-one communication) can make alerting
(one-to-many communication) more effective if “appropriately integrated into operations in a way that is
responsive to the context of operation.”522 CSRIC V identifies three use cases where many-to-one
communications could be a particularly beneficial supplement to one-to-many communications, gathering
targeted community feedback, assessing evacuation compliance, and during active shooter scenarios.523
CSRIC V recommends that “FEMA should investigate modifying IPAWS to support ‘[m]any to one’
communication and data collection,” that “ATIS should study the feasibility of mechanisms for the
delivery of “many to one” data to FEMA IPAWS,” and that the Commission should convene a panel of
relevant experts to promote data science literacy among emergency managers and establish best practices
for using data gathered from “social media” monitoring.524 NAB and NPR also encourage the
Commission to recognize the consumer benefits of Alert Messages that direct the public to turn on their
radios for additional information during disaster recovery efforts.525
b.

Discussion

124.
In light of the foregoing, we seek comment on the potential for WEA to serve as a
secondary messaging tool for emergency managers, specifically during disaster relief efforts.
Specifically, we seek comment on how to enhance WEA’s support for many-back-to-one communication
to facilitate emergency managers’ response planning efforts, and on whether WEA can be made a more
useful tool during and after emergencies by facilitating its ability to interface other authoritative sources
of information. Are there existing needs or gaps in the public communications tools currently available to
(Continued from previous page)
Emergency Telephone Service Authority (BRETSA), to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 3 (filed Mar. 4, 2016) (BRETSA Mar. 4, 2016 Ex Parte).
521

New York City Emergency Management Department Comments, PS Docket 15-94 and 15-91, 3 (June 8, 2016);
NYCEM Comments at 17; see also NWS Mar. 9, 2016 Ex Parte at 4.
522

CSRIC V, Working Group Two, Social Media & Complementary Alerting Methods – Recommended Strategies
& Best Practices, Final Report 37 (2016) (CSRIC V Complementary Alerting Methods Report).
523

CSRIC V WEA Geo-targeting Report at 26-27 (stating that collecting targeted community feedback could be
helpful during disaster recovery efforts where emergency management agencies could ask individuals in the area to
describe the damage they see by selecting a number that corresponds to one of four predefined fields); see also id.
(stating that “many-to-one” communication could be helpful in ensuring evacuation compliance issuing successive
messages, determining how many mobile devices received each message, and gauging evacuation compliance with
reference to whether the number of devices that receive the message is shrinking); id. (stating that “many-to-one”
communication could be helpful during an active shooter scenario to determine the number of survivors remaining).
524

CSRIC V WEA Geo-targeting Report at 34; but see id. (stating that this concept should be further studied outside
of the WEA regulatory framework because it falls outside of current obligations of Participating CMS Providers
under the WARN Act).
525

See NAB and NPR Comments at 2, 5; see also IAFC Comments at 1 (stating that radio-linked alert messages
could relieve the burden on cellular networks and could reduce impacts on device battery life during post-disaster
relief efforts where such factors may be particularly important). Major CMS Providers are committed to enabling
FM chips embedded in their smart devices. See Jennifer Walsh, Sprint Customers to Enjoy Local FM Radio on
Smartphones via FM Radio Chip, Sprint Newsroom (Jan. 8, 2013), http://newsroom.sprint.com/newsreleases/sprint-customers-to-enjoy-local-fm-radio-on-smartphones-via-fm-radio-chip.htm (last visited Mar. 18,
2016); Paul McLane, AT&T to “Light Up” FM Chips in Android Phones, Radio World (Jul. 28, 2015),
http://www.radioworld.com/article/att-to-light-up-fm-chips-in-android-phones-/276704#.dpuf (last visited Mar. 18,
2016); T-Mobile Throws Support Behind FM Radio Chipsets, Following Sprint and AT&T, Fierce Wireless (Aug.
17, 2015), http://www.fiercewireless.com/story/t-mobile-throws-support-behind-fm-radio-chipsets-following-sprintand-att/2015-08-17 (last visited Mar. 18, 2016).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

emergency managers for use during disaster relief efforts that WEA can fill? What, if any, critical
capacities does WEA lack that could inhibit its utility for post-disaster communications?
125.
We seek comment on improvements to WEA that we should consider in order to ensure
that it is optimized for this use, including by enabling WEA to be used as a tool for queueing the
collection of targeted community feedback during disaster recovery efforts, to measure evacuation
effectiveness, and during active shooter scenarios, as recommended by CSRIC V.526 We seek comment
on whether using WEA in this manner could assist emergency management agencies’ resource-need
pairing during emergencies, and on any additional use cases where “many-to-one” feedback could
improve emergency response. We seek comment from technology vendors who have developed
innovative solutions to aggregating and analyzing public response on the potential for implementation of
those technologies in the emergency management context. We seek comment on whether best practices
based in data science literacy are available to facilitate emergency managers’ skillful use of targeted
community feedback, and if not, on whether we should direct the Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau to convene a panel of experts to produce recommendations for this purpose, as recommended by
CSRIC V.527 We also seek comment on the extent to which WEA can be used to funnel milling behavior
towards other authoritative sources of information, such as radio or television, that may be better fit to
provide critical information to the public in certain circumstances. Would such an approach make WEA
more useful to emergency managers in disaster relief situations?
B.

Incorporating Future Technical Advancements to Improve WEA
1.

Multimedia Alerting

126.
As noted above, we are committed to allowing the public to realize the benefits of
multimedia content in WEA, and we propose that an appropriate path to achieve this goal would be to
require support for certain multimedia content, including thumbnail-sized images and hazard symbols, in
Public Safety Messages on 4G LTE and future networks.528 We recognize that Participating CMS
Providers have concerns about message delivery latency and network congestion that may result from
including multimedia in WEA Alert Messages.529 Further, we acknowledge the record indicates that
further standards development is necessary to support multimedia capabilities in WEA.530 As we discuss
in further detail below, we believe these issues can be addressed given an appropriate regulatory
framework and timeframe for compliance. Accordingly, we seek to develop the record on data
constraints and technical parameters that should be associated with developing and implementing this
functionality, and on a reasonable timeframe within which to require Participating CMS Providers to
support it. Pursuant to the approach we propose to adopt, emergency management agencies could use
Public Safety Messages to transmit thumbnail-sized images of evacuation routes in connection with
Imminent Threat Alerts, an image of the face of a missing child after an AMBER Alert, or specific
instructions for protective action to the access and functional needs community through the use of hazard
symbols. We invite commenters to offer additional use cases where this functionality could help meet the
public’s need for actionable, multimedia-enabled content during emergencies.
127.
With respect to the potential for alert delivery latency, we observe that, according to the
ATIS Feasibility Study for LTE WEA Message Length, WEA Alert Message segments can be transmitted
526

CSRIC V Geo-targeting Report at 26-27.

527

CSRIC V Complementary Alerting Methods Report at 37-38.

528

See supra Section III.A.3 (Supporting Embedded References and Multimedia).

529

See AT&T Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte at 3; Verizon Comments at 2; T-Mobile Comments at 6; Microsoft Reply at
4; ATIS Comments at 14; CTIA Comments at 11-12.
530

See supra note 108 (describing comments from AT&T, ATIS, and CTIA stating that additional standards efforts
are necessary for eMBMS to support WEA).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

every 80 milliseconds to 5.12 seconds.531 We reason, therefore, that a thumbnail-sized image could be
transmitted over WEA cell broadcast in between 0.88 seconds and 56.32 seconds.532 We would not want
the transmission of multimedia content to delay receipt of the most time-sensitive Alert Message text. At
the same time, however, we also believe that there are circumstances where the public would benefit from
the receipt of multimedia content over WEA cell broadcast, even if they have to wait a minute to receive
it. We therefore propose to require support for multimedia content only in Public Safety Messages, which
may contain information that is not as time-sensitive as other types of Alert Messages. As Alert
Messages in the Public Safety Message classification are designed for issuance for in connection with
Alert Messages of other types, we believe they would provide an appropriate vehicle for multimediaenabled content even when they cannot be delivered until minutes after the initial Imminent Threat or
AMBER Alert delivers the primary, text-based Alert Message.533 We seek comment on this analysis.
128.
We seek comment on any appropriate technical constraints that should apply to the
multimedia content that Participating CMS Providers would be required to support. We anticipate that
constraints on the permissible size of multimedia data files would also help Participating CMS Providers
to manage network loading. The ATIS Feasibility Study for WEA Supplemental Text shows that
transmitting a thumbnail-sized photo over WEA cell broadcast would require the transmission of at least
eleven WEA binary messages.534 The ATIS Feasibility Study for WEA Supplemental Text considers a
“thumbnail-sized photo” to be approximately 1.5 x 1.5 inches, to have a resolution of 72 dots per inch
(DPI), and to be presented as using 120 x 120 pixels.535 ATIS reasons that a thumbnail-sized image
would be 14,400 bytes in size if an 8-bit color scale is used, and would require the broadcast of 3600
octets, assuming 25 percent compression.536 We seek comment on whether that 14,400 bytes would be an
appropriate maximum size for any multimedia content that a Participating CMS Provider could be
required to transmit, as well as on any additional technical specifications or parameters that could
facilitate multimedia transmission. We seek comment on any other implications or considerations we
should take into account.
129.
With respect to the integration of support for hazard symbols into WEA’s core
functionality, CSRIC IV and CSRIC V recommend further study.537 The ATIS Feasibility Study for WEA
Supplemental Text recommends that a study of the “User Experience Design” covering the “humancomputer interaction” between mobile users and hazard symbols should be undertaken by the WEA

531

ATIS Feasibility Study for LTE WEA Message Length at 12.

532

Where transmitting 11 WEA Alert Messages, one every 80 milliseconds would result in an 880 millisecond delay
(0.88 seconds) and transmitting 11 WEA Alert Messages, one every 5.12 seconds would result in a 56.32 second
delay).
533

This is why, in the Order, we allow industry prototyping of this functionality as of the effective date of our
Public Safety Message requirement. See supra para. 37.
534

Id.

536

Id.

537

See CSRIC IV WEA Messaging Report at 46; CSRIC V Complementary Alerting Methods Report at 35 (“The
adopted symbols should be aligned with the DHS Geospatial Management Office’s existing symbology efforts to
ensure alignment and community acceptance across local, state, tribal, and Federal levels in coordination with the
National Alliance for Public Safety GIS Foundation’s national symbol set and guideline.”).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

stakeholders followed by global standardization.538 According to ATIS, standards would be needed to
identify the specific hazard symbols appropriate for this use, and to describe hazard warning icon delivery
to the mobile device, either via mobile device software or cell broadcast.539 We seek comment on this
analysis. Would it be feasible to integrate support for hazard symbols into WEA using the GSM-7
character set or a Unicode character set?540 If so, would this approach offer a less burdensome alternative
to supporting hazard symbols in all Alert Messages?
130.
With respect to concerns in the record regarding the possibility for increased network
load, we propose to allow Participating CMS Providers to use network congestion mitigation strategies to
feasibly and timely deliver multimedia-enabled Public Safety Messages. For example, we seek comment
on whether staggering transmission of multimedia message segments could facilitate delivery of this
content to subscribers, while mitigating potential network congestion concerns. Would it make sense to
constrain any requirement to support multimedia to devices operating on 4G LTE and future networks?
We seek comment on best practices that emergency management agencies could implement with respect
to multimedia messaging if the transmission of such content implicated greater delay than text-only Alert
Messages, and if Alert Messages that contained multimedia content could not be received by members of
their communities on legacy networks or that are using legacy devices that no longer accept software
updates. Recognizing the limitations of cell broadcast technology, to what extent would a requirement to
support thumbnail-sized images and hazard symbols spur Participating CMS Providers to integrate new
technologies into their WEA systems that could improve their ability to support the low-latency
transmission of high-quality multimedia content? For example, commenters agree that Multimedia
Broadcast Multicast Service (eMBMS) would permit the broadcast of “large amounts of data, including
multimedia content.”541 We seek comment on the technical steps that would be required to integrate
technology that supports the transmission of multimedia content into WEA.
131.
Allowing multimedia content in WEA Alert Messages would have tremendous public
safety benefits. NYCEM, FEMA and TDI, for example, believe that allowing multimedia content in
WEA Alert Messages would significantly contribute to Alert Message comprehension, particularly for
individuals with disabilities,542 and FEMA adds that the use of graphical symbols could improve Alert
Message interpretation by individuals with limited English proficiency.543 NCMEC states that multimedia
content would “greatly enhance the immediate usefulness of AMBER Alerts.”544 San Joaquin County
OES adds that multimedia content in WEA Alert Messages would hasten protective action taking and
reduce milling.545 We seek comment on these analyses, as well as on any additional public safety benefits
that multimedia messaging may enable. Even though Chester County EMA and The Weather Company
suggest the inclusion of multimedia would be unnecessary in light of the availability of embedded
references and “third party apps and television that users normally use,”546 we find that unique benefits
538

ATIS Feasibility Study for WEA Supplemental Text at 22.

539

Id. at 11.

540

See infra Section IV.B.2 (Multilingual Alerting) (seeking comment on whether additional character sets would be
needed to support Alert Messages written in ideographic languages).
541

ATIS Comments at 13; see also AT&T Comments at 16; AT&T May 5, 2015 Ex Parte at 2; CTIA Comments at
13.
542

See NYCEM Comments at 11; TDI Comments at 14; FEMA Jun. 18, 2015 Ex Parte at 2; see also DAC
Comments at 2-3 (noting that such content could provide information in American Sign Language as well as
messaging for people with limited English proficiency).
543

See FEMA Jun. 18, 2015 Ex Parte at 2.

544

See NCMEC Comments at 2.

545

San Joaquin OES Comments at 1.

546

The Weather Company Reply at 2; Chester County EMA Comments at 1.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

could result from including multimedia content in Alert Messages, especially as Participating CMS
Providers’ ability to support this functionality evolves along with advancements in technology. For
example, WEA Public Safety Messages could be used to push an authoritative interactive map to every
community member with a WEA-capable mobile device that shows the recipient’s location relative to
evacuation routes, shelter locations or resource distribution points. For communities struggling to recover
from natural disasters, for example, this functionality would hold tremendous public safety value above
and apart from multimedia-enabled emergency information available through other sources that in any
case may not be as readily available as a consumer’s mobile device.547 We also seek comment on whether
those benefits would be particularly acute when implemented in an authoritative alerting services such as
WEA that the public receives by default.
2.

Multilingual Alerting
a.

Background

132.
We observe that, according to commenters, expanding the language capabilities of WEA
has potential to yield particular benefits for those with limited English proficiency.548 The record
suggests, however, that the technical issues that prevented Participating CMS Providers from supporting
multilingual Alert Messages when WEA was first deployed continue to limit their ability to support Alert
Messages in languages other than English and Spanish.549 While FEMA states that IPAWS and CAP
have the capacity to support Alert Messages in languages other than English and Spanish,550 additional
languages are not currently supported in Participating CMS Provider networks.551 According to
Participating CMS Providers, significant standards-setting work and potentially support for new character
sets would be required in order to enable them to support WEA Alert Messages in languages other than
English and Spanish.552 Further, AT&T and Verizon observe that each additional WEA Alert Message
language option will require Participating CMS Providers to transmit an additional Alert Message, which
could threaten network capacity and risk alert delivery delays.553 In light of these ongoing issues and
additional data, we agree with T-Mobile that “[t]he Commission should promote further study of the
technical impact of multilingual WEA messages so that such messages can be incorporated into the WEA
system in the future without creating unintended, adverse impacts.”554
133.
Only 79 percent of individuals living in the United States that are 5-years old or older
speak only English at home.555 According to the ACS Language Report, the top ten most spoken
languages in the U.S. among individuals 5-years old or older are English,556 Spanish or Spanish Creole,557
547

See CSRIC V Geo-targeting Report at 32 (recommending the development of standards and systems to “[r]ender
the alert on the device in a manner that provides a high resolution map clearly illustrating the alert area, the location
of the device, and any additional relevant life-safety information” within 48 months of the report’s adoption).
548

See supra note 278 (listing emergency management commenters that agree that adding a multilingual alerting
capability to WEA would enable them to reach members of their communities that are currently inaccessible to
them).
549

See AT&T Comments at 18; CTIA Comments at 13; Verizon Comments at 7.

550

FEMA Jun. 18, 2015 Ex Parte at 2-3.

551

See T-Mobile Reply at 7; see also AT&T Comments at 18; Microsoft Reply at 4-5; ATIS Comments at 16.

552

See Id.

553

AT&T Comments at 18-19; Verizon Comments at 7.

554

T-Mobile Reply at 8.

555

Of the 291,524,091 people 5-years old or older living in the United States at the time of this survey, only
230,947,071 individuals speak only English at home. See Camille Ryan, Language Use in the United States: 2011,
American Community Survey Reports, at 3 (2013) (ACS Language Report).
556

See id.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

Chinese,558 French or French Creole,559 Tagalog,560 Vietnamese,561 Korean,562 Arabic,563 Russian,564 and
African languages.565 English-speaking ability varies greatly, even among speakers of the top ten
languages in the United States.566 According to recent census data, “less than 50 percent of those who
spoke Korean, Chinese, or Vietnamese spoke English ‘very well.’”567 According to the ACS Language
Report, “[p]eople who cannot speak English ‘very well’ can be helped with translation services,
education, or assistance in accessing government services.”568
b.

Discussion

134.
We seek comment on the potential benefits of requiring Participating CMS Providers to
support Alert Messages in languages other than English and Spanish. To what extent would emergency
management agencies initiate Alert Messages in languages in addition to English and Spanish were
Participating CMS Providers required to support them? To what extent would CMS Provider support for
additional languages incent emergency management agencies to further develop their capabilities in
initiating Alert Messages in those languages where relevant to their respective communities? What, if
any, additional steps can we take to support emergency management agencies’ efforts to develop
multilingual alerting capabilities? We expect that emergency management agencies already integrate
individuals who don’t speak English very well into their communities’ emergency response plans,569 and
(Continued from previous page)
557
37,579,787 individuals in the United States 5-years old or older speak Spanish or Spanish Creole at home (56.3
percent also spoke English “very well”). See id.
558

2,882,497 individuals in the United States 5-years old or older speak Chinese at home (only 44.3 percent also
spoke English “very well”). See id.
559

2,055,433 individuals in the United States 5-years old or older speak French or French Creole at home (79.6
percent of French speakers also spoke English “very well,” and 56.8 percent of French Creole speakers also spoke
English very well). See id.
560

1,594,413 individuals in the United States 5-years old or older speak Tagalog at home (67.2 percent also spoke
English “very well”). See id.
561

1,419,539 individuals in the United States 5-years old or older speak Vietnamese at home (only 39.8 percent also
spoke English “very well”). See id.
562

1,141,377 individuals in the United States 5-years old or older speak Korean at home (only 44.5 percent also
spoke English “very well”). See id.
563

951,699 individuals in the United States 5-years old or older speak Arabic at home (63.3 percent also spoke
English “very well”). See id.
564

905,843 individuals in the United States 5-years old or older speak Russian at home (52.2 percent also spoke
English “very well”). See id.
565

884,660 individuals in the United States 5-years old or older speak African languages at home (68.1 percent also
spoke English “very well”). See id.
566

See id. at 4.

567

See id. “The usefulness of the self-rated English-speaking ability question was established in the 1980s, when
research confirmed a strong relation between this rating and separate tests of ability to perform tasks in English.” Id.
citing Department of Education, Office of Planning Budget and Evaluation, Numbers of Limited English Proficient
Children: National, State and Language-Specific Estimated (1987); Robert Kominski, How Good is ‘How Well’?
An Examination of the Census English-Speaking Ability Question (1989), www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/language
/data/census/ASApaper1989.pdf).
568

See id. at 1.

569

We note that we recently adopted a requirement that EAS Participants provide to their respective SECCs, for
inclusion in their State EAS Plan, a description of any actions taken or planned by the EAS Participant to make EAS
alert content available in languages other than English to its non-English speaking audience; translation technologies
(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

we seek comment on whether increasing emergency management agencies’ multilingual alerting
capability could help to further improve disaster preparedness for these communities. How do emergency
management agencies currently expect individuals with limited English proficiency to receive and
respond to emergency information? Are the emergency management mechanisms currently in place
sufficient to safeguard those individuals during crises?
135.
If we were to adopt rules to deepen WEA’s language capabilities, we seek comment on
whether we should prioritize support for those languages predominantly spoken in communities where,
according to Census data, 50 percent or fewer speak English “very well” (e.g., Vietnamese, Chinese,
Korean).570 Is the area of greatest need with respect to WEA’s language capabilities ensuring that people
who struggle with English comprehension can understand emergency communications? In the
alternative, should we prioritize support for the largest language communities in the United States,
notwithstanding the tendency of individuals in those language groups to speak English “very well”? We
observe, for example, that, according to recent Census data, English and Spanish are by far the most
popular languages in the United States, with Chinese and French a distant third and fourth.571
136.
We seek comment on whether supporting Alert Messages written in ideographic
languages, such as Vietnamese, Chinese and Korean, would pose unique challenges for WEA
stakeholders, including Participating CMS Providers and emergency mangers. We note that WEA
messages use GSM 7-bit encoding, and that the 3GPP standard for cell broadcast allows switching to the
basic Unicode (UCS-2) character set, which includes all living languages, in order to provide support for
modern, ideographic languages such as Kanji.572 Do Participating CMS Providers’ WEA infrastructure
and WEA-capable mobile devices support this functionality? If not, what steps would be necessary to
incorporate Unicode into WEA? We also seek comment on whether emergency management agencies
would face particular difficulties in initiating Alert Messages in ideographic languages. Does alert
origination software currently support initiating Alert Messages in ideographic languages? If not, what
steps would be required in order to upgrade this software? Are there additional standards, protocols and
system updates that would be required to enable alerting in Vietnamese, Chinese and Korean in
particular? Further, we seek comment on whether WEA Alert Messages can be made available in
American Sign Language (ASL) for subscribers that are deaf or hard of hearing. How would the
provision of WEA Alert Messages in ASL allow for better accessibility to those who are ASL-fluent?
137.
In addition to any potential changes to the WEA character set that may be required, we
seek comment on any necessary preconditions to supporting additional languages in WEA in general, and
to supporting Korean, Vietnamese or Chinese Alert Messages in particular. We also seek comment on
whether support for additional languages would be burdensome for non-nationwide (e.g., regional, small,
and rural) Participating CMS Providers, and if so, whether there are steps that we can take to
accommodate these entities to make compliance more feasible. Would it be more appropriate for nonnationwide Participating CMS Providers to be required to support only the those particular languages,
other than English and Spanish, that are predominant in the particular areas in which they provide
service? We seek comment on any alternative approaches that would help achieve our objective of
promoting accessibility of WEA Alert Messages.
(Continued from previous page)
or other innovative approaches to providing non-English alerts and emergency information to the public. See
Review of the Emergency Alert System; Independent Spanish Broadcasters Association, the Office of
Communication of the United Church of Christ, Inc., and the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council,
Petition for Immediate Relief Randy Gehman Petition for Rulemaking, Order, 31 FCC Rcd 2414, 2426, para. 22
(2016) (on appeal).
570

See ACS Language Report at 4.

571

See U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2009-2013 (2015).

572

See ATIS Feasibility Study for LTE WEA Message Length at 3; see also 3GPP TS 23.041 (3GPP Technical
realization of Cell Broadcast Service (CBS).

Federal Communications Commission
3.

FCC 16-127

Matching the Geographic Target Area
a.

Background

138.
While our geo-targeting requirement, as amended above, will improve WEA geotargeting by facilitating the delivery of Alert Messages to a more granular polygon level, the limitations
of cell broadcast-based geo-targeting may result in continued over-alerting.573 According to CSRIC IV,
the “ideal case” from an alert originator perspective would be where “all WEA-enabled mobile devices in
the geographic area affected by an emergency event would receive the WEA Alert Message broadcast,
and no mobile devices outside the defined alert area would receive those particular WEA Alert Message
broadcasts.”574 “However,” CSRIC IV reports, “this ideal case cannot be realized using currently
deployed cell broadcast alone.”575 CSRIC V recommends that the Commission collaborate with WEA
stakeholders to develop standards and implement systems that support enhanced, device-based geotargeting.576 CSRIC V recommends that the Commission set a goal that Participating CMS Providers
geo-target Alert Messages in a manner that includes “100% of the targeted devices within the specified
alert area with not more than .10 mile overshoot,” and states that WEA stakeholders, including
Participating CMS Providers, “have committed to working to close the gap between current capabilities
and aspirational goals.”577
b.

Discussion

139.
As we emphasize above, more granular geo-targeting remains a critical need for both
consumers and emergency managers. Accordingly, we propose to require Participating CMS Providers to
match the target area specified by alert originators. We anticipate that this may require Participating
CMS Providers to leveraging the location sense of WEA-capable mobile devices on their networks. In
the following paragraphs, we seek comment on how we should define “matching” the target area for
purposes of any such requirement, as well as on steps that alert initiators and Participating CMS Providers
can take to minimize alert delivery latency and maximize the amount of data available for other Alert
Message content. We also seek comment on the readiness of innovations that could allow alert initiators
to geo-target more flexibly, and to smaller areas.
140.
As an initial matter, should a Participating CMS Provider be considered to have
“matched” the targeted area for the purpose of this requirement if, as recommended by CSRIC V, 100
percent of devices within the targeted area receive the Alert Message with not more than 0.1 mile
overshoot?578 In the alternative, if providers are leveraging the same technology in the WEA context that
is being used to provide indoor location, would it make sense to harmonize our geo-targeting accuracy
requirement for WEA with our wireless E911 indoor location accuracy requirements?579 If not, why not?
573

See supra Section III.B.2 (Narrowing Geo-targeting Requirements).

574

See CSRIC IV WEA Messaging Report at 17.

575

See id.

576

CSRIC V WEA Geo-targeting Report at 31-32 (including the identification of methods for transmitting polygon
coordinates to mobile devices; identification of changes to cell broadcast needed to enable received messages that
contain coordinates to be passed to mobile devices; understanding network impacts of a device determining its
location using A-GPS or other location technologies; use of the polygon of the alert area to help the device
determine if it is inside the alert area, and if so, to display it; specify behavior if the device is unable to obtain its
location; render the alert on compatible devices in a manner that provides a map clearly illustrating the alert area;
and provide a method of accessing the archived alert).
577

Id. at 31

578

Id.

579

See Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, Report and Order, PS Docket No. 07-114, 30 FCC Rcd
1259, 1324-25, paras. 103-04 (2015).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

Further, would an alternative accuracy requirement be appropriate for non-nationwide Participating CMS
Providers? We seek comment on any alternative approaches to defining “matching” for the purposes of
assessing compliance with our proposed requirement.580 In circumstances where Participating CMS
Providers are unable to match the target area, we propose that they should be required to provide their
best approximation of the target area, as we require in the Order. We seek comment on this approach.
141.
The record indicates that it will be technically feasible for Participating CMS Providers to
comply with our requirement that they geo-target Alert Messages to an area that matches the target area,
given appropriate time for the development of relevant standards and network modifications.581 We
expect that Participating CMS Providers will be able to geo-fence their transmission of Alert Messages by
transmitting target area coordinates to 100 percent of mobile devices in the target area, erring on the side
of over-inclusion where necessary.582 WEA-capable mobile devices would receive the Alert Message,
including the target area coordinates, and determine whether they are currently located within the area
those coordinates describe. If and only if the mobile device is within the target area, it would display the
Alert Message to the subscriber. Commenters indicate that the suppression of the Alert Messages on
mobile devices that are outside of the target area (geo-fencing) would allow Participating CMS Providers
to match the target area specified by alert originators.583 We seek comment on this analysis, including any
alternative approaches that Participating CMS Providers could use to match the target area or to
implement a device-based approach to geo-targeting. The record indicates that technical issues, such as
potential increases in message delivery latency, and reductions in the amount of data available for Alert
Message text, can be resolved.584 We seek comment on how Participating CMS Providers will address
these issues in conversation with other relevant WEA stakeholders. We seek comment on feasible
methods Participating CMS Providers could use to mitigate sources of alert delivery latency that may be
implicated by geo-targeting Alert Messages to an area that matches the target area specified by the alert
originator.585 Participating CMS Providers and ATIS agree that meeting such an accurate geo-targeting
standard could cause message delivery delay due to the device needing to determine its location before
displaying the message, and due to network constraints.586 ATIS states that “the only currently readily
580

We anticipate that variations in geo-targeting accuracy due to the size of the target area can be controlled through
alert originator best practices. For example, more coordinate pairs may be necessary to accurately describe a large,
complex polygon target area than would be needed to describe a small, square target area.
581

See, e.g., CSRIC V WEA Geo-targeting Report at 30-32 (recommending an appropriate timeframe for the
consideration of issues necessary for compliance with a geo-targeting requirement that relies on leveraging the
intelligence of mobile devices); Letter from John Carley, Director of Product Management, RxNetworks, to Marlene
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed Sep. 16, 2016); Letter from Keith Kaczmarek, inPhase
Wireless, Christopher Guttman-McCabe, CGM Advisors, LLC, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No.
15-91, at 1 (filed Sep. 15, 2016); Kim Robert Scovill, Vice President, Legal Regulatory and External Affairs,
Comtech Telecommunications Corp., to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed Sep. 11,
2016) (explaining how Comtech has “developed a hybrid geo-targeting solution that uses both a network based geotargeting algorithm(cell sector level accuracy) and a mobile device application (to determine its own location) to
perform precise geo-targeting for WEA alerts.”).
582

Using network-based geo-targeting approaches common today, Participating CMS Providers strip target area
coordinates from Alert Messages in the RAN in order to minimize the amount of data they must transmit.
583

See FEMA May 21, 2015 Ex Parte at 2; USGS Comments at 2; AWARN Coalition Comments at 6; NWS May
21, 2015 Ex Parte at 3; but see Sprint Reply at 6; Verizon Comments at 3.
584

See supra note 581.

585

See AT&T May 5, 2015 Ex Parte at 2 (“Any device-assisted method requires sending down the polygon
coordinates to the mobile device, delaying the notification and taking away from the characters used to inform the
citizens.”).
586

See AT&T Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte at 6 (“Geo-fencing would require all mobile devices to know the polygon
coordinates of the alert area, which is non-trivial. In addition, geo-fencing requires the mobile device to know its
location in relation to the polygon; since mobile device location awareness is network-assisted, when many mobile
(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

available technology [for device-based geo-fencing] is GPS/GNSS” and that, without network assistance,
the “time to acquire a GPS position can be over 13 minutes from a cold start . . . and up to 30 seconds for
a warm start.”587 To what extent could Assisted GPS reduce these times and to what extent would the
CMS network be burdened by providing this assistance?588 Further, we seek comment on how long the
mobile device should wait while attempting to determine its current location (e.g., acceptable Time-ToFirst-Fix (TTFF))? We note that, in the 911 context, we have established a maximum TTFF latency
standard of 30 seconds for outdoor calls.589 Would that same standard be appropriate for geo-targeting to
an area that matches the target area in light of our concerns about alert delivery latency?590 Finally, what
should be the action of the mobile device if the mobile device location cannot be determined or cannot be
determined within the time limit, for example, if a mobile device is turned off, or if its location services
are turned off? Should the default setting be to display the Alert Message?
142.
We seek comment on the extent to which polygon compression techniques and alert
originator best practices could maximize the amount of data that remains for Alert Message content if
Alert Message coordinates are transmitted along with content to WEA-capable mobile devices. ATIS
concludes that each coordinate pair would require data equivalent to that needed to display thirteen
characters using current methods.591 However, researchers have examined methods of compressing
coordinate data to consume between 9.7 percent and 23.6 percent of this data.592 We seek comment on
(Continued from previous page)
devices are attempting to determine their location simultaneously, this will put an extreme load on the networkbased location platforms.”); Verizon Comments at 3; Sprint Reply at 6; ATIS Comments at 16-17; Apple Mar. 21,
2016 Ex Parte at 2; Blackberry Mar. 21, 2016 Ex Parte at 1-2 (stating that “it can be from seconds to up to a minute
to lock position, depending on how far the device has changed from its last position and what location
references/network assistance are required”); Microsoft Mar. 8, 2016 Ex Parte at 2.
587

ATIS WEA Geo-targeting Feasibility Study at 49 (stating that a “cold start” implicated that there is no, or expired
GPS-related data in the mobile device, and a “warm start” implicates that some such information is available).
588

Assisted GPS, also known as A-GPS or AGPS, improves the location performance of mobile devices in two
ways: 1) A-GPS acquires and stores information about the location of satellites via the cellular network so the
information does not need to be downloaded via satellite by helping obtain a faster "time to first fix" (TTFF); and 2)
A-GPS uses proximity to cellular towers to calculate position when GPS signals are not available by helping
position a phone or mobile device when GPS signals are weak or not available. See GPS.About.com,
http://gps.about.com/od/glossary/g/A-GPS.htm (last visited Jun. 21, 2016).
589

Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, Report and Order, PS Docket No. 07-114, 30 FCC Rcd 1259,
1324, para. 174 (2015).
590

Similarly, in the 911 context, we required a uniform confidence level of 90 percent for the location fix a CMS
Provider offers to a Public Safety Answering Point. What are the minimum accuracy and confidence level values
for a mobile device location calculation to be used for mobile-device-assisted geo-targeting? What should be the
default action of the mobile device if this threshold is not met?
591

ATIS, Feasibility Study for WEA Cell Broadcast Geo-targeting, ATIS-0700027 at 44 (2015) (ATIS WEA Geotargeting Feasibility Study) (assuming northern latitudes, and a delimiter character is needed between each pair).
592

See Abhinav Jauhri, Martin Griss and Hakan Erdogmus, Carnegie Mellon University, Silicon Valley Campus,
Small Polygon Compression for Integer Coordinates (2015),
https://ams.confex.com/ams/43BC3WxWarn/webprogram/Paper273645.html; see also W. Song, J. W. Lee, and H.
Schulzrinne, Polygon Simplification for Location-based Services Using Population Density, ICC (2011); ATIS WEA
Geo-targeting Feasibility Study at 47; Letter from Matthew Straeb, Executive Vice President, Global Security
Systems, LLC (GSS), to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at
2 (filed Apr. 24, 2015) (GSS Apr. 24, 2015 Ex Parte) (identifying best practices for transmitting complex polygon
coordinates); Cellular Emergency Alert Service Association of Civil Societies, PS Docket No. 15-91, 1 (Dec. 4,
2015) (Cellular Emergency Alert Service Association Comments); TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., PS Docket
No. 15-91, 2 (Feb. 10, 2016) (TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. Reply) (stating that they have completed phase one
of a study that demonstrates a superior approach to algorithm-based facility selection that can regularly target to
areas smaller than a single cell site); Hisham Kassab, On Exposing WEA to Third-Party Developers, at 1, 2 (2012)
(continued….)

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

feasible methods of leveraging polygon compression techniques in WEA. Should such techniques be
used to set a maximum on the amount of data that can be consumed by polygon coordinates?593 Further,
we seek comment on appropriate best practices for the number of decimal places to which a coordinate
should be specified in order to conserve Alert Message space for text. CSRIC V recommends that alert
originators determine the granularity of alert areas using vertices with two to five decimal places,
depending on the nature of the hazard.594 CSRIC V finds that this would allow alert originators to target
Alert Messages to with precision from 1.1 km to 1.1 meters.595 We seek comment on this
recommendation and analysis. We note that, under current standards, a valid polygon consists of onehundred coordinate pairs or fewer.596 Would rules or best practices be appropriate to determine the
maximum number of coordinate pairs that should be included in an Alert Message? We seek comment on
any additional technical challenges that Participating CMS Providers may face in complying with a more
accurate geo-targeting standard, and on feasible methods of overcoming them.597
143.
While we believe that a device-based approach is most likely to enable Participating
CMS Providers to match the target area, we seek comment on whether continued focus on network-based
approaches could enable Participating CMS Providers to meet this accuracy requirement. For example,
could geo-targeting be improved by leveraging the relatively smaller coverage areas of network-based
technologies, such as small cell technology, distributed antenna systems (DAS),598 Wi-Fi access points,599
beacons,600 commercial location-based services (cLBS),601 institutional and enterprise location systems, or
(Continued from previous page)
(urging that a third-party-assisted solution could achieve device-based geo-fencing without imposing additional
burdens on CMS Providers if CMS Providers were to open up the WEA app to third-party developers through an
Application Programming Interface (API)).
593

See Sprint Comments at 11-12; ATIS WEA Geo-targeting Feasibility Study at 14.

594

CSRIC V WEA Geo-targeting Report at 31; cf. ATIS WEA Geo-targeting Feasibility Study at 46 (recommending
that no more than three decimal places should be used to specify polygon coordinates).
595

CSRIC V WEA Geo-targeting Report at 9-10.

596

ATIS WEA Geo-targeting Feasibility Study at 21.

597

Sprint Comments at 11-12 (stating that device-based geo-targeting may “undermine network performance during
emergencies,” and also may present issues with subscriber privacy and Participating CMS Provider liability).
598

A DAS is “[a] network of spatially separated antenna nodes connected to a common source via transport medium
that provides wireless service within a geographic area or structure.” DAS Forum, “Distributed Antenna Systems
(DAS) and Small Cell Technologies Distinguished,” http://www.thedasforum.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/07/DASand-Small-Cell-Technologies-Distinguished_HNForum.pdf (last visited Jan. 21, 2015).
599

Cisco already utilizes Wi-Fi access points to provide indoor location data, and is in discussions with competitors
Aruba and Ruckus on how all three vendors – which comprise nearly 80 percent of the Wi-Fi market – can work
together to provide a robust indoor location solution using Wi-Fi access points. See Cisco/TCS Sept. 12, 2014 Ex
Parte, PS Docket No 07-114, at 17.
600

Beacons are Bluetooth hardware devices that can be detected by and wirelessly exchange data with other
Bluetooth-enabled devices, all of which are part of a Bluetooth network “stack.” See Android, “Bluetooth,”
available at http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/connectivity/bluetooth.html (last visited Jan. 21, 2015).
601

Commercial location-based services (cLBS) are applications that providers load, or consumers download, onto
their phones to provide location services. Third Further Notice, 29 FCC Rcd at 2320-21, para. 127. cLBS are
currently implemented in all major commercial mobile operating systems with multiple independent Wi-Fi access
location databases, maintained by Google, Apple, and Skyhook, among others. See, e.g., Google, “Configure access
points with Google Location Service,” https://support.google.com/maps/answer/1725632?hl=en (last visited Jan. 21,
2015); Cox, John, “Apple Leverages Wi-Fi location with latest acquisition,” Network World, Mar. 25, 2013,
available at http://www.networkworld.com/news/2013/032513-apple-wifislam-268054.html (last visited Jan. 21,
2015); Skyhook, Coverage Area, available at http://www.skyhookwireless.com/locationtechnology/coverage.php
(last visited Jan. 21, 2015).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

smart building technology?602 We observe that these network-based technologies are widely deployed
across the United States, and particularly in urban areas.603 Are CMS Provider networks configured to be
able to send a WEA Alert Message over the control channel to these network-based technologies? What
steps would be necessary to enable these technologies to assist in geo-targeting? Since the radio
frequency propagation areas of these technologies are significantly smaller than the propagation areas for
large cell sites, do they hold potential to improve geo-targeting? If not, why not? We also seek comment
on the reliability of network-based technologies relative to the larger transmission facilities Participating
CMS Providers traditionally use for WEA cell broadcast. Would relying on these technologies as a path
forward to further improving geo-targeting leave the system vulnerable to becoming far less accurate
when its accuracy is needed most, including during Imminent Threat Alerts?
144.
Finally, we seek comment on whether additional, incremental improvements to geotargeting could be achieved through standards updates that could allow Participating CMS Providers to
support “nesting polygons.”604 Nesting polygons describe overlapping geographic areas where one
polygon is situated, or “nests,” at least in part, within the boundaries of another, larger polygon.605 We
seek comment on the extent to which existing network technologies can be leveraged to support nesting
polygons, provided that relevant standards are updated to support them. We anticipate that a scenario
602

“Smart buildings” integrate hardware like Wi-Fi antennas, beacons, motion and light sensors, and corresponding
wiring into a building’s infrastructure, and shares information from each source to optimize building system
function with respect to, inter alia, heating and ventilation, power consumption, equipment maintenance, and
security. See Institute for Building Efficiency, “What is a Smart Building?”, http://www.institutebe.com/smart-gridsmart-building/What-is-a-Smart-Building.aspx (last visited Jan. 21, 2015). See also, e.g., Monica Alleven, Sprint
CEO Presses Speedier Small Cell Deployment, FierceWireless, http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/story/sprint-ceopresses-speedier-small-cell-deployment/2015-12-11 (last visited Mar. 30, 2016).
603

Nearly all wireless phones are now equipped with Bluetooth and Wi-Fi capabilities, though some standardization
work remains. See Apple, iPhone Tech Specs, http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html (last visited Jan. 21, 2015);
Android, Developers, Connectivity, http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/connectivity/bluetooth.html (last
visited Jan. 21, 2015); Bluetooth, “Mobile Telephony Market” (2014), http://www.bluetooth.com/Pages/MobileTelephony-Market.aspx (last visited Jan. 21, 2015); Michael Panzarino, The Open Secret Of iBeacon: Apple Could
Have 250M Potential Units In The Wild By 2014, TechCrunch (Dec. 7, 2013),
http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/07/the-open-secret-of-ibeacon-apple-could-have-250m-units-in-the-wild-by-2014/
(last visited Jan. 21, 2015). Small cells are increasingly deployed in urban areas, and all four nationwide CMRS
providers currently sell or plan to sell in-home consumer products designed to provide improved wireless coverage
indoors. See Verizon Network Extended (SCS-2U01), http://www.verizonwireless.com/accessories/samsungnetwork-extender-scs-2u01/ (last visited Jul. 19, 2016); Sprint Airave FAQs,
http://support.sprint.com/global/pdf/user_guides/samsung/airave/airave_by_sprint_faq.pdf (last visited Jul. 19,
2016); AT&T MicroCell, http://www.att.com/standalone/3gmicrocell/?fbid=W5aTdQD6xi9 (last visited Jul. 19,
2016); T-Mobile ASUS-made Personal Cellspot Planned as New LTE Cel-Fi Booster Appears Again,
http://www.tmonews.com/2014/09/t-mobile-asus-personal-cellspot-lte-cel-fi/ (last visited Jul. 19, 2016). Bluetooth
beacons and Wi-Fi hotspots are increasingly deployed in public spaces. See Letter from H. Russell Frisby, Counsel,
TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS
Docket No. 07-114 (filed Jan. 16, 2015), Attachment at 28. TeleCommunications Systems, Inc. is now ComTech
TCS. See Michael Porcelain, Comtech Telecommunications Corp. Completes Acquisition of TeleCommunication
Systems, Inc., BusinessWire (Feb. 23, 2016),
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160223007049/en/Comtech-Telecommunications-Corp.-CompletesAcquisition-TeleCommunication-Systems (last visited Sep. 6, 2016).
604

See ATIS WEA Geo-targeting Feasibility Study at 20. “Nesting polygons” describes a scenario where one WEA
Alert Message is to be broadcast within Polygon A, and a different WEA Alert Message is to be broadcast within
Polygon B, which surrounds, but does not include Polygon A. In this case, two separate WEA Alert Messages must
be used, one within the area defining Polygon A, and the second defining the area for Polygon B minus the area of
Polygon A. See id. According to ATIS, updates to the OASIS CAP standards, and to WEA standards would be
necessary to achieve this level of geo-targeting. See id.; CSRIC V WEA Geo-targeting Report at 15.
605

See ATIS WEA Geo-targeting Feasibility Study at 20.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

where nesting polygons could be useful would be where one WEA Alert Message is appropriate for
broadcast in the area where an incident, such as a chemical spill, has occurred (e.g., an instruction to
shelter in place), and another WEA Alert Message is appropriate for broadcast in the surrounding area
(e.g., an instruction to evacuate). We seek comment on this example, and invite commenters to specify
additional use cases where it would be useful to be able to specify nesting polygons as a target area.
According to ATIS, current standards support geo-targeting Alert Messages to multiple polygons, but
existing standards would interpret multiple, overlapping polygons as the union of those polygons.606
Nesting polygons, on the other hand, would require CMS networks to sometimes interpret overlapping
polygons as providing an instruction to “subtract” the internal polygon from the external polygon.607
According to ATIS, this functionality would require an update to J-STD 101 as well as to the CAP
standard.608 Would additional updates to alert origination software be required to support sending
different messages to nested polygons?
145.
We reason that achieving a geo-targeting standard whereby Participating CMS Providers
can match the target area specified by an alert originator, either through device- or network-based
techniques, would have tremendous benefits for public safety, and would eliminate the current dangers of
poor geo-targeting that deter many emergency managers from becoming authorized as WEA alert
originators.609 As discussed above, alert originators continue to demand more accurate geo-targeting from
WEA before they will rely on it for emergency messaging in situations where it could be dangerous for
individuals in areas adjacent to the target area to receive instructions intended only for individuals within
the target area.610 Further, each incremental improvement that Participating CMS Providers can make to
geo-targeting incrementally reduces alert fatigue,611 and increases the public’s trust in WEA as an alerting
platform, thereby reducing milling and,612 potentially, network congestion. We seek comment on this
reasoning. Finally, we note that the ATIS Feasibility Study for Supplemental Text observed that
delivering target area coordinates to the mobile device consistent with a device-based approach to geotargeting would be the first step towards enabling WEA Alert Messages to support high-information
maps, an improvement that emergency managers universally endorse.613 We seek comment on this
observation. We also seek comment on alternative approaches we can take to improving WEA geotargeting that would meet emergency managers’ objectives while presenting lesser cost burdens to
Participating CMS Providers.
4.

WEA on 5G Networks

146.
As we noted in our Spectrum Frontiers proceeding in July 2016, 5G networks “will
enable valuable new services, and accelerating the deployment of those services is a national priority.”614
606

See id.

607

See id.

608

See id.

609

See Houston OPHS Comments at 3.

610

See id.; Austin HSEM Comments at 3.

611

See, e.g., NPSTC Comments at 5; AC&C Nov. 12, 2015 Ex Parte at 1; APCO Comments at 7; Wireless RERC
Comments at 25; CTIA Reply at 11.
612

Dennis Mileti Apr. 7, 2016 Ex Parte at 3.

613

See ATIS Feasibility Study for WEA Supplemental Text at 7-8.

614

See Spectrum Frontiers, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, XX FCC Rcd XXXX,
XXXX, para. 254 (2016); see also GSMA Intelligence, Understanding 5G: Perspectives on Future Technological
Advancements in Mobile (2014),
https://www.gsmaintelligence.com/research/?file=c88a32b3c59a11944a9c4e544fee7770&download (last visited
May 5, 2016) (stating that 5G networks offer “enormous” potential benefits).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

As 5G networks and devices are developed, we expect WEA capabilities to evolve as well, consistent
with Congress’ vision in enacting the WARN Act.615 Given the importance of our Nation’s public alert
and warning systems to promoting emergency response readiness, we must ensure that WEA Alert
Messages continue to provide the public with vital and necessary information to take appropriate action to
protect their families and property.
147.
While we understand that specific WEA capabilities for 5G networks and devices are not
yet developed, we believe it is appropriate to seek comment on those capabilities now in light of the
importance of designing these networks and devices with WEA capabilities in the early stages of
development and throughout their development process. We disagree with CTIA that “it is premature at
this time to address specific WEA capabilities that 5G might enable.”616 Participating CMS Providers are
already examining how best to integrate 5G technologies into their networks and industry stakeholders are
currently working to shape the strategic development of the 5G ecosystem.617 We observe that Verizon is
expected to begin 5G field trials in the next few months,618 and most experts predict that 5G will be
widely available as soon as 2020.619 Further, the record suggests that technological upgrades can be
costly and time-consuming, and we reason that including WEA alerts and warnings in 5G from the
beginning can reduce total costs for Participating CMS Providers and hasten the deployment of
improvements to WEA that could benefit the public.620 We therefore seek to initiate a dialogue that will
foster a better understanding of how Participating CMS Providers intend to incorporate WEA capabilities
into their 5G offerings, as well as to identify areas where we can help provide regulatory clarity, where
needed, that can drive design and investment. For example, AT&T opines that “[w]ith the standards for
5G now under development, it is important to have agreement that 360 characters is the maximum length
for 4G and future services.”621
148.
In light of the foregoing, we seek comment on how to best incorporate alerts and
warnings into the development of 5G technologies, and on how 5G technologies may enable further
enhancements to WEA. What additional measures could the Commission take to facilitate the
incorporation of WEA capabilities into 5G as these networks and devices are being designed? We seek
comment on what, if any, steps the Commission should take to continue to ensure that WEA evolves
along with advancements in technology in the 5G environment. What standards need to be developed or
what other mechanisms need to be in place to ensure that WEA will be incorporated, and what actions are
providers undertaking already? Elsewhere in this Further Notice, we seek comment on how
improvements in technology can help improve WEA, in terms of microtargeting delivery of Alert
Messages to a precise geographic location, incorporating multimedia capabilities to improve message
content, and facilitating swifter delivery of critical early earthquake alerts where every second counts. Is
615

See WARN Act § 604, 47 USC § 1204.

616

See Letter from Brian Josef, Assistant Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No 15-91 (filed Apr. 20, 2016) (CTIA Apr. 20 Ex Parte).
617

See Michael Nunez, What is 5G and How Will it Make my Life Better?, Gizmodo (Feb. 24, 2016, 12:25pm),
http://gizmodo.com/what-is-5g-and-how-will-it-make-my-life-better-1760847799 (last visited May 5, 2016).
618

See Roger Cheng, Verizon to be First to Field-Test Crazy-Fast 5G Wireless, CNET (Sept. 8, 2015, 5:00am PDT),
http://www.cnet.com/news/verizon-to-hold-worlds-first-crazy-fast-5g-wireless-field-tests-next-year/ (last visited
May 5, 2016).
619

See Michael Nunez, What is 5G and How Will it Make My Life Better?, Gizmodo (Feb. 24, 2016, 12:25pm),
http://gizmodo.com/what-is-5g-and-how-will-it-make-my-life-better-1760847799 (last visited May 5, 2016); see
also Dino Flore, Tentative 3GPP Timeline for 5G, 3GPP (Mar. 17, 2015), http://www.3gpp.org/news-events/3gppnews/1674-timeline_5g (last visited May 6, 2016).
620

See supra Section III.E (Benefit-Cost Analysis) (discussing the costs of standards modifications and software
updates necessary to comply with the rules we adopt in the Report and Order).
621

AT&T Comments at 7.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

it anticipated that there will be additional space for WEA in 5G system information blocks than is
currently allocated on the 4G control channel? To what extent will 5G introduce new capabilities that
will permit additional life-saving enhancements to WEA? Are there any existing rules governing WEA
that would be inapplicable to 5G or that would otherwise require adaptation to address 5G capabilities?
We seek comment on how to enable further enhancements to WEA in 5G technologies, and on the
obligations that CMS Providers that elect to provide WEA on 5G networks should incur, including related
costs and benefits.
C.

Developing Consumer Education Tools
1.

Promoting Informed Consumer Choice at the Point of Sale
a.

Background

149.
In the WEA Third Report and Order, the Commission adopted certain disclosure
requirements in order to ensure that CMS Providers “convey sufficient information” to the public about
the nature of their participation in WEA.622 CMS Providers electing in whole to transmit WEA Alert
Messages are not required to provide notification of their participation at the point of sale.623 CMS
Providers participating in part, on the other hand, are required to provide clear and conspicuous notice to
new subscribers of their partial election at the point of sale.624 Specifically, CMS Providers participating
in part must, at a minimum, state the following:
[[CMS provider]] has chosen to offer wireless emergency alerts within portions
of its service area, as defined by the terms and conditions of its service
agreement, on wireless emergency alert capable devices. There is no additional
charge for these wireless emergency alerts.
Wireless emergency alerts may not be available on all devices or in the entire
service area, or if a subscriber is outside of the [[CMS provider]] service area.
For details on the availability of this service and wireless emergency alert
capable devices, please ask a sales representative, or go to [[CMS provider’s
URL]].625
150.
Similarly, CMS Providers electing not to transmit WEA Alert Messages are required to
offer, at a minimum, the following point-of-sale notification, “[[CMS provider]] presently does not
transmit wireless emergency alerts.”626 We noted that our decision allowed, but did not require the
disclosure of additional information regarding the technical limitations of the WEA service offered by a
Participating CMS Provider.627
b.

Discussion

151.
We propose to require CMS Providers to disclose sufficient information at the point of
sale to allow customers to make an informed decision about whether they would consistently receive
WEA Alert Messages if they were to become a subscriber. To what extent do CMS Providers voluntarily
provide additional information at the point of sale regarding the nature of their WEA participation beyond
622

WEA Third Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 12567, para. 13 (stating that this language will “serve as the
minimum standard for clear and conspicuous notice under the WARN Act”).
623

See id.

624

47 CFR § 10.240(a).

625

47 CFR § 10.240(c).

626

See 47 CFR § 10.240(d).

627

See WEA Third Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 12568, para. 16.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

any disclosure required by our rules? Is our existing requirement, which requires CMS Providers
participating in part to inform consumers at the point of sale that WEA “may not be available on all
devices or in the entire service area,” sufficient to inform potential subscribers of whether they will
receive a potentially life-saving alert through the Participating CMS Provider’s network? If this point-ofsale notification is insufficient to support educated consumer choice among providers, what additional
information would help to inform this choice and allow market forces to more aptly influence further
improvements to WEA?
152.
If we base our proposed definitions of modes of participation in WEA on the devices a
Participating CMS Provider makes WEA capable, the extent to which WEA is offered in their geographic
service area, and the technologies they commit to use in support of their WEA service, would it be
reasonable to require corresponding adjustments to consumer disclosures?628 We propose that, as a
baseline, CMS Providers should provide information regarding the extent to which they offer WEA (in
what geographic areas, and on what devices) at the point of sale. Would this information be sufficient to
promote informed consumer choice? Should we also require CMS Providers to disclose at the point of
sale the specific network technologies that they commit to use in offering WEA? We seek comment on
the extent to which knowledge of the specific technologies that competing CMS Providers will use to
support WEA would promote more informed consumer choice between CMS Providers. Should this
disclosure also include the extent to which the Participating CMS providers’ networks are able to offer
full 360-character Alert Messages? Would it be sufficient for Participating CMS Providers to provide
potential subscribers with a link to a website describing their WEA capability at the point of sale, and
would this approach help Participating CMS Providers to control costs associated with this proposal?
With respect to CMS Providers who elect not to participate in WEA, should they be required to make any
additional disclosures at the point of sale to ensure that consumers are aware that they will not be able to
receive any potentially life-saving alerts through service with this carrier? We seek comment on the
potential benefits and costs that might be associated with additional point-of-sale disclosures.
2.

Promoting Informed Consumer Choice about the Receipt of WEA Alert
Messages
a.

Background

153.
Section 602(b)(2) of the WARN Act provides that “any commercial mobile service
licensee electing to transmit emergency alerts may offer subscribers the capability of preventing the
subscriber’s device from receiving such alerts, or classes of such alerts, other than an alert issued by the
President.”629 Section 10.500 of the Commission’s rules requires Participating CMS Providers’ WEAcapable mobile devices to maintain consumers’ opt-out preferences and display alerts to the consumer
consistent with those selections.630 Pursuant to Section 10.280, a Participating CMS Provider may
provide their subscribers with the option to opt out of Imminent Threat and AMBER Alerts, and must
present the consumer “with a clear indication of what each option means, and provide examples of the
types of messages the customer may not receive as a result of opting out.”631 The Commission adopted
these requirements in the First Report and Order and the Third Report and Order, respectively, in order
to allow Participating CMS Providers to accommodate variations in their infrastructures.632 In the WEA
NPRM, we sought comment on the factors that lead consumers to opt out of receiving certain Alert
Messages, including whether the manner in which Participating CMS Providers present their customers
628

See supra Section IV.A.1 (Defining Modes of Participating in WEA).

629

WARN Act § 602(b)(2)(E), 47 USC § 1202(b)(2)(E).

630

47 CFR. § 10.500.

631

47 CFR. § 10.280.

632

WEA First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 6153-54, para. 19; WEA Third Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at
12578, para. 41.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

with opt-out choices impacts customer participation.633 We sought comment on whether Participating
CMS Providers could offer customers a more nuanced opt-out menu in order to improve consumer
choice.634
154.
Apple states that “enabling users to opt out of certain alerts at particular times or under
specified conditions (such as when Do Not Disturb mode is turned on) would likely increase end-user
participation.”635 Microsoft agrees that consumers should have control over what types of alerts are
received, and when.636 NWS observes that opt-out choices are currently presented in an inconsistent
manner across devices and operating systems, and recommends standardizing the presentation of opt-out
choices.637 On the other hand, ATIS expresses concern that “adding complexity to the opt-out options
may actually increase the number of subscribers choosing to opt-out of WEA,”638 and Blackberry urges us
to leave opt out functionality such as “scheduling” and “time of day” features to device manufacturers’
discretion.639 CSRIC V recommends that Commission collaborate with WEA stakeholders to create a set
of “minimum specifications for an enhanced, secured and trusted, standards-based, CMSP-controlled
WEA mobile device based application . . . in order to ensure high level support.”640
b.

Discussion

155.
We propose to require Participating CMS Providers to implement changes to the WEA
application that would provide the public with more granular options regarding whether they receive
WEA Alert Messages. In essence, Participating CMS Providers should provide consumers with tools that
allow them to receive the alerts that they want to receive, in the manner they wish to receive them, and
during the times they wish to receive them.
156.
First, we propose to amend Section 10.280(b) to require that Participating CMS Providers
offer their subscribers more informed choices among the Alert Message classifications that they wish to
receive. We seek comment on the approaches that Participating CMS Providers currently take to
“provide their subscribers will a clear indication of what each [Alert Message] option means,”641 and on
specific improvements that they could make to the WEA application to enable consumers to make more
informed choices among the different types of WEA Alert Messages they will receive. As demonstrated
in Appendix F, some Participating CMS Providers offer their subscribers the option to choose whether to
receive “Extreme” and “Severe” Alert Messages, as well as AMBER Alerts.642 Are these options
sufficiently clear to empower consumers to make informed choices among Alert Messages? Would it be
more clear if the options that Participating CMS Providers offered their subscribers tracked our alert
message classifications (i.e., “AMBER Alerts,” “Imminent Threat Alerts,” and “Public Safety
Messages”), or would other names or phrases be more effective in promoting clear consumer choice about
the types of Alert Messages they will receive? Would it be helpful to offer consumers a full explanation
of the kinds of emergency situations about which they will receive information by virtue of remaining
opted in to receive Alert Messages of that category? For example, should consumers be informed that by
633

WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13813, paras. 63-65.

634

Id. at 13813, para. 65.

635

Apple Mar. 22, 2016 Ex Parte at 1.

636

Microsoft Comments at 4.

637

NWS Comments at 1.

638

ATIS Comments at 20-21.

639

BlackBerry Mar. 21, 2016 Ex Parte at 2.

640

CSRIC V WEA Geo-targeting Report at 33-34.

641

See 47 CFR § 10.280(b).

642

See infra Appx. F (Model Opt-out Menu).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

remaining opted in to receive Imminent Threat Alerts they will receive information about imminent
threats to their life and property, including significant or extraordinary threats that have either been
observed in their area or likely to occur in the near future? Should consumers be informed that by
remaining opted in to receive AMBER Alerts they will receive information that will empower them to
assist law enforcement in locating abducted, lost, or otherwise missing children in their area that may be
in imminent danger? We seek comment on best practices that have been developed with respect to the
WEA interface that offer consumers a clear and easy-to-navigate menu of choices about whether and how
to receive emergency alerts.
157.
We also propose to require that Participating CMS Providers enhance their subscribers’
ability to personalize how they receive the Alert Messages of their choosing. In the Report and Order we
allow Participating CMS Providers to offer their consumers the option to change the attention signal and
vibration cadence for Public Safety Messages, and to receive Public Safety Messages only during certain
hours.643 We also allow Participating CMS Providers to provide their customers with the option to
specify how the vibration cadence and attention signal should be presented when a WEA Alert Message is
received during an active voice or data session.644 We seek comment on whether we should require
Participating CMS Providers to offer their subscribers a more granular suite of choices for Imminent
Threat Alerts and AMBER Alerts as well, including but not limited to the options that we allow
Participating CMS Providers to offer to their subscribers for Public Safety Messages, and including the
ability to modify the attention signal and vibration cadence that is presented when an Alert Message is
received when the phone is idle.. For example, would it be feasible to require Participating CMS
Providers to allow users to limit the hours within which they receive WEA AMBER Alerts (e.g.., only
between 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM)? Would it make more sense to offer consumers the option to modify or
mute the attention signal and vibration cadence for Imminent Threat Alerts at night than to offer them the
option to not receive Imminent Threat Alert during the night?645 In the alternative, we seek comment on
whether we should require Participating CMS Providers to offer their subscribers the option to cache
Alert Messages, rather than simply to opt in or out. Cached Alert Messages could be received without the
associated attention signal and vibration cadence, and stored in a “WEA Inbox.” We seek comment on
this approach. Taken together with our proposal that Alert Messages be appropriately preserved for user
review,646 would providing users with the option to receive and cache Alert Messages provide many
consumers with an appropriate balance between their perceived need to receive critical information
during emergencies, and their desire to minimize the intrusiveness of the WEA attention signal and
vibration cadence? We seek comment on the most common reasons why consumers opt out of receiving
WEA AMBER Alerts and Imminent Threat Alerts, and on any additional steps that we can take to reduce
these pain points through changes to the WEA opt-out menu.
158.
In the alternative, we seek comment on whether to require all Participating CMS
Providers to adopt a standardized opt-out menu, as recommended by NWS, and in a manner consistent
with CSRIC V’s recommendation.647 In particular, we seek comment on the model opt-out menu
produced by NWS that we attach as Appendix F.648 Would the subscriber choices modeled here be
appropriate to standardize among Participating CMS Providers and device manufacturers? Would a
standardized opt-out menu facilitate familiarity with emergency alerts across service providers, promote
643

See supra para. 24 (allowing Participating CMS providers to offer their consumers the option to change the
attention signal and vibration cadence for Public Safety Messages, and to receive Public Safety Messages only
during certain hours).
644

See supra para. 61.

645

Cf. 47 CFR § 10.280(a) (stating that consumers may opt out of Imminent Threat Alerts entirely).

646

See supra Section IV.A.3 (Alert Message Preservation).

647

NWS May 3, 2016 Ex Parte at 2; see also supra para. 154.

648

See infra Appx. F (Model Opt-out Menu).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

personalization and improve the consumer experience with WEA? We seek comment on how we could
design a model WEA opt-out menu in a manner that would improve personalization without significantly
increasing user-facing interface complexity? 649 Would it be appropriate for the Commission to host a
workshop for this purpose? We encourage commenters to submit visual representations of ideal WEA
interfaces into the record to facilitate discussion and review of alternatives to this model opt-out interface.
We anticipate that requirements for subscriber opt-out choices would implicate changes to the ATIS/TIA
Mobile Device Behavior Specification and to WEA application software.650 We seek comment on this
analysis. In our consideration of whether to require a standardized WEA opt-out menu, should we make
any particular accommodations for non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers (e.g., small, regional,
and rural providers)?
D.

Improving WEA Transparency
1.

Annual WEA Performance Reporting
a.

Background

159.
The Commission’s Part 10 WEA rules do not establish a procedure for Participating
CMS Providers to report the results of any required tests to alert originators or to government entities. As
such, there is no available method for analyzing the success of C-interface, Required Monthly, or
State/Local WEA Tests. In the WEA NPRM, we sought comment on whether we should formalize a test
reporting procedure for WEA and, if so, on the format and specific information that we should require
Participating CMS Providers to report.651
160.
Hyper-Reach and the majority of public safety commenters support requiring
Participating CMS Providers to report the extent of alert delivery latency,652 the accuracy of geotargeting,653 and the availability and reliability of their WEA network because it would improve
transparency and understanding of IPAWS/WEA among emergency managers,654 and because this
transparency, in turn, could increase WEA adoption by non-participating emergency managers.655 CSRIC
V states, for example, that “confidence in WEA among [Alert Originators] is dampened by perceived
unpredictability of WEA geo-targeting,” and building confidence “will require a means by which they can
know that the polygon provided is what is actually delivered at the towers for distribution.”656
Accordingly, CSRIC V recommends that ATIS and CTIA study methods of passively collecting and
sharing data on the accuracy of geo-targeting with emergency management agencies.657 As demonstrated
in Appendix G, NYCEM already independently generates performance reports on WEA geo-targeting,
649

ATIS Comments at 16.

650

See BlackBerry Mar. 21, 2016 Ex Parte at 2.

651

WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13811, paras. 58-59.

652

See Jefferson Parish EM Comments at 4.

653

See Indiana DHS Comments at 5; Chester County EMA Comments at 3; Ventura County Sheriff EMS
Comments at 5; NYCEM Comments at 14; Peoria ECC Comments at 1 (requesting data on the number of devices
that received the alert); Douglas County EMA Comments at 2; Beaufort County Emergency Management, Fire
Marshal & Emergency Services Comments at 4; Jefferson Parish EM Comments at 4.
655

See, e.g., Hyper-Reach Comments at 5; Chester County EMA Comments; Ventura County Sheriff EMS
Comments at 6; Peoria ECC Comments at 1; APCO Comments at 9.
656

See CSRIC V WEA Geo-targeting Report at 21.

657

Id. at 34.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

latency and reliability from actual Alert Messages issued in New York City.658 These tests demonstrate
that some mobile devices in the target area do not receive WEA Alert Messages that are intended for
them, and that some mobile devices do not receive Alert Messages intended for them until almost an hour
after they are initially transmitted.659 APCO and Pinellas County EM urge the Commission to adopt
reporting requirements specific enough to result in the production of uniform reports to emergency
management agencies.660 While AT&T would support a requirement for Participating CMS Providers to
report the results of RMTs,661 Sprint states that the kind of information we proposed to gather through test
reporting (i.e., the extent of geo-targeting and alert delivery latency) is not technically feasible to
deliver.662 Sprint and ATIS state that test reporting should be FEMA’s responsibility.663
b.

Discussion

161.
We propose to amend Section 10.350 to require Participating CMS Providers to submit
annual reports to the Commission that demonstrate the following system performance metrics for their
nationwide WEA deployment (Annual WEA Performance Reports).


Geo-targeting. The accuracy with which the Participating CMS Provider can distribute WEA
Alert Messages to a geographic area specified by an alert originator.



Latency. An end-to-end analysis of the amount of time that it takes for the Participating CMS
Provider to transmit a WEA Alert Message.



Availability and Reliability. The annual percentage of WEA Alert Messages that the Participating
CMS Provider processes successfully, and a summary of the most common errors with Alert
Message transmission.

We seek comment on these reporting elements and on the assessment methodologies Participating CMS
Providers could use to produce Annual WEA Performance Reports below.
162.
First, we seek comment on whether an annual requirement would achieve the right
frequency of reporting. We reason that WEA performance data recorded over a period of one year would
be sufficient to provide a statistically significant sample of data to inform Annual WEA Performance
Reports. We seek comment on this rationale. We note that the record reflects concern that reporting
requirements will “result in an increased burden for carriers participating in the service on a voluntary
basis,” 664 as well as concern that there is currently no method available to alert originators to verify
system availability and reliability except anecdotally.665 Does our proposed approach strike the
appropriate balance between these concerns? If not, we invite commenters to recommend alternative
periodicities within which such reports should be required.
163.
In the alternative, would a single performance report to become due on a date certain,
rather than an annual requirement, suffice to inform emergency managers and the public about WEA’s
capabilities? What types of changes, if any, would be substantive enough to warrant additional reporting
658

See infra Appx. G (NYCEM Local WEA Geo-targeting and Latency Test Reports).

659

See id.

660

APCO Comments at 9; Pinellas County EM Comments at 8.

661

AT&T Comments at 23.

662

Sprint Reply at 8.

663

Id. at 9; ATIS Comments at 20.

664

See, e.g., Sprint Reply at 7.

665

See, e.g., Matanuska-Susitna Borough Comments at 2. State/Local WEA Tests, as adopted in the Report and
Order, may facilitate the collection of anecdotal WEA performance data. See infra Section III.C.1 (Supporting
State/Local WEA Testing and Proficiency Training Exercises).

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

beyond the initial report? For example, as Participating CMS Providers make material upgrades to their
networks to incorporate new or updated technologies (e.g., 5G network technologies), would additional
performance reporting be appropriate to demonstrate that WEA continues to satisfy its performance
requirements, or to highlight the extent to which any system improvements may improve a Participating
CMS Providers’ WEA service? Would it be appropriate to adopt an alternative, less frequent reporting
requirement for non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers?
164.
We seek comment on the methodology by which Participating CMS Providers may
develop Annual WEA Performance Reports. We anticipate that State/Local WEA Tests would be an
effective method of collecting annual report data since they are test messages that may be used by state
and local emergency managers to evaluate system readiness, and are required to be processed consistent
with our Alert Message requirements.666 We seek comment on this analysis. Would a different
classification of WEA Alert Message be more appropriate for use to collect performance data, be more
likely to produce results that are representative of Alert Message delivery under actual emergency
conditions, or be less burdensome to implement? For example, AT&T states that Participating CMS
Providers’ reporting obligations should be limited to RMTs.667 We observe that Section 10.350 does not
require Participating CMS Providers to deliver RMTs to mobile devices,668 and allows RMTs to be
distributed “within 24 hours of receipt by the CMS Provider Gateway unless pre-empted by actual alert
traffic or unable due to an unforeseen condition.”669 Given these limitations, we seek comment on the
value of RMTs as the basis for collecting Annual WEA Performance Report data. For example, could it
be less burdensome and comparably effective for Participating CMS Providers to collect geo-targeting
data from cell sites to which RMTs are delivered, as opposed to from mobile devices to which State/Local
WEA Tests are delivered? To what extent could an analysis of the radio frequency propagation
characteristics of the particular constellation of cell sites and cell sectors chosen to geo-target an RMT be
used as an accurate proxy for the geographic area to which an Alert Message with the same target area
would actually be delivered? Further, we seek comment on whether RMTs could provide meaningful
data about alert delivery latency, given that Participating CMS Providers are allowed to delay up to 24
hours before retransmitting them. For example, would it be less burdensome and comparably effective to
allow Participating CMS Providers to schedule performance analyses during times when network usage is
light? Would it be feasible and desirable to “pause the timer” on any applicable latency measurement at
the CMS Provider Alert Gateway until such a time within 24 hours as becomes convenient to distribute
the test message? Would such an approach undermine the representativeness of the latency data collected
because actual Alert Messages are not held for any period of time in order to await more ideal network
conditions?
165.
We seek comment on the specific data that Participating CMS Providers would be
required to gather in order to complete statistically significant reports on the accuracy of WEA geotargeting, the extent of alert delivery latency, and system availability and reliability. Would determining
the accuracy of geo-targeting require either a measurement of the contours of the geographic area within
which WEA-capable mobile devices receive the message, or an estimation of the radio frequency
propagation contours of the cell broadcast facilities selected to geo-target the Alert Message? Would it
require comparing the target area to the alert area? Would an average deviation from the target area be an
adequate measure of the accuracy of geo-targeting, or would emergency managers benefit from a report
on the specific percentage of instances in which a Participating CMS Provider is able to meet our geotargeting standard? Further, we seek comment on whether there are WEA geo-targeting scenarios that
666

See supra para. 65 (requiring that State/Local WEA Tests be processed consistent with the Commission’s Alert
Message requirements).
667

AT&T Comments at 23 (“WEA reporting should be required only for RMTs, not localized tests.”).

668

47 CFR § 10.350(a)(6).

669

47 CFR § 10.350(a)(5).

100

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

pose particular challenges to Participating CMS Providers. If so, should Participating CMS Providers be
required to collect, analyze and report on geo-targeting under those specific circumstances? In any case,
should Participating CMS Providers be required to collect, analyze and report on their ability to geo-target
Alert Messages to geocodes, circles, and polygons of varying complexities, and in varying geographic
morphologies? How many samples of each type would be necessary to produce a statistically significant
report on the accuracy of a Participating CMS Providers’ WEA geo-targeting capability nationwide?
166.
Further, we seek comment on the specific data points that Participating CMS Providers
would be required to gather in order to measure alert delivery latency. Would it be satisfactory to simply
measure the amount of time that elapses from the moment that an alert originator presses “send” using
their alert origination software to the moment that the Alert Message is displayed on the mobile device?
Would this single measurement suffice to give an alert originator an informed perspective on when the
public could reasonably be expected to receive an Alert Message that they may send in a time-sensitive
crisis? Would it also provide sufficient insight into system functionality to allow us to diagnose and
address specific causes of alert delivery latency? Alternatively, would it be advisable to collect latency
data at points in addition to the time of initial transmission and the time of receipt on the mobile device?
For example, would it be advisable to analyze time stamps for Alert Messages received and transmitted at
each of the A-E interfaces that comprise the WEA system in order to diagnose specific causes of latency,
and to promote sufficient transparency to facilitate Commission action in the public interest?670 We seek
comment on whether there are any particular circumstances in which Alert Messages are delivered more
slowly than others. If so, should Participating CMS Providers be required to collect, analyze and report
on alert delivery latency under those specific circumstances? In any case, should Participating CMS
Providers be required to collect, analyze and report on alert delivery latency in varying geographic
morphologies? How many independent measurements would be necessary to produce a statistically
significant report on the degree of alert delivery latency at each WEA interface?
167.
Similarly, we seek comment on the specific data points that Participating CMS Providers
would be required to collect in order to satisfactorily measure the regularity of system availability and
reliability. Would the alert logging requirement that we adopt today suffice to determine the WEA
system’s rate of success at delivering Alert Messages? Where do errors with Alert Message transmission
tend to occur? If at junctures other than the C-interface, does this militate for the collection of system
availability data at each interface in the alert distribution chain in addition to the CMS Provider Alert
Gateway? If less than 100 percent of WEA-capable mobile devices in the target area receive a WEA
message intended for them, would this implicate shortcomings in system availability or reliability? If so,
should Participating CMS Providers also be required to collect data on the percentage of WEA-capable
mobile devices for which an Alert Message is intended that actually receive it, and to report this data to
the Commission as a fundamental aspect of system availability and performance? Would this more
nuanced approach be necessary in order to allow Participating CMS Providers to diagnose and correct any
issues in alert distribution that may arise, and to promote sufficient transparency to facilitate Commission
action in the public interest? Would an average measure of the rate of system availability be sufficient to
grow emergency managers’ confidence that the system will work as intended when needed, or do
emergency managers require more granular data? Would it be necessary for Participating CMS Providers
to log and report the CMAC attributes of each Alert Message at each of the C-E interfaces in order to
establish whether the WEA system is able to deliver Alert Messages with “five nines” of reliability (i.e.,
to establish whether 99.999 percent of WEA Alert Messages are delivered successfully)?671 Is this an
appropriate standard of reliability for the WEA system? If not, why not?
168.
We seek comment on whether emergency managers need any additional information
beyond the accuracy of geo-targeting, the extent of alert delivery latency, and the regularity of system
670

See supra Figure 1 (WEA Infrastructure).

671

See supra Figure 1 (WEA Infrastructure).

101

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

availability and reliability in order to understand the strengths and weaknesses of WEA as an alert
origination tool. What, if any, additional data could Participating CMS Providers collect without
incurring additional cost burdens, if we were to require them to collect each of the aforementioned data
points? In the alternative, we seek comment on whether, and if so, to what extent making alert logs
available upon emergency management agencies’ request could satisfy their need for this information.672
Further, in addition to the possibility of requiring performance reports less frequently from nonnationwide Participating CMS Providers, we seek comment on whether such Participating CMS Providers
should also be allowed to collect less granular data on system performance in order to reduce any cost
burdens entailed by these proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
169.
We seek comment on whether we should defer to Participating CMS Providers regarding
how they collect annual report data. Does such an approach provide Participating CMS Providers with
increased flexibility that will reduce the burdens of these recordkeeping and reporting requirements?
Would this approach only be appropriate for non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers? We seek
comment on whether one effective and efficient method of generating national data for annual submission
to the Commission might be through the use of a representative sample of the different real world
environments in which the WEA system would be used (e.g., the dense urban, urban, suburban and rural
morphologies defined by the ATIS-0500011 standard).673 We anticipate that the use of a representative
sample of geographic morphologies could reduce any burdens that may be associated with providing
Annual WEA Performance Reports by allowing Participating CMS Providers to collect less data. We
seek comment on this analysis.
170.
In the alternative, we seek comment on whether our State/Local WEA Testing model
provides a framework to emergency managers that is sufficient to enable them to collect localized geotargeting, latency, and system availability data without requiring additional involvement from
Participating CMS Providers. We observe that, even in the absence of State/Local WEA Tests, NYCEM
deployed a network of volunteers using mobile device offered by an assortment of Participating CMS
Providers to collect data on WEA geo-targeting and latency in New York City.674 We applaud NYCEM
for their voluntary effort to improve awareness about WEA system performance. We seek comment on
whether such tests demonstrate that it would be feasible for any emergency management agency that
wishes to gather performance statistics about WEA to do so for themselves. We seek comment on
whether NYCEM’s tests were able to produce statistically significant results, and if not, we seek
comment on whether emergency managers would be willing to voluntarily collaborate and share test
results with one another such that their findings could be aggregated into a statistically significant sample
size.
171.
We propose to treat Annual WEA Performance Reports submitted to the Commission as
presumptively confidential, as we have reports in the E911, Emergency Alert System (EAS), and
Network Outage Reporting System (NORS) contexts.675 Similarly, we propose to require that
Participating CMS Providers grant emergency management agencies’ requests for locality-specific
672

See supra Section III.B.1 (Logging Alert Messages at the Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateway).

673

CSRIC III Test Bed Report at 11; ATIS, Define Topologies & Data Collection Methodology Technical Report
(ATIS-0500011) at 1 (2007) (ATIS Define Topology Report).
674

See infra Appx. G (NYCEM Local Geo-targeting and Latency Test Reports).

675

See Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, PS Docket No. 07-114, Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd
1259, 1308, para. 131 (2015) (declining to require CMRS providers to make public the details of test results for
technologies that have been certified by the independent test bed administrator); Sixth Report and Order, 30 FCC
Rcd at 6533, para. 27 (stating that test reports collected by ETRS will be treated as presumptively confidential); see
also New Part 4 of the Commission’s Rules Concerning Disruptions to Communications, ET Docket No. 04-35,
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 16830 (2004) (2004 Part 4 Report and
Order and 2004 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, respectively).

102

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

versions of these performance metrics if and only if the requesting entity agrees to provide confidentiality
protection at least equal to that provided by FOIA.676 Would the production of the proposed performance
metrics require Participating CMS Providers to disclose information that they consider to be proprietary?
Would offering such aspects of Annual WEA Performance Reports presumptively confidential treatment
and only requiring that that Participating CMS Providers share them with entities that agree to provide
confidentiality protection at least equal to that provided by FOIA ameliorate any concerns about the
disclosure of potentially sensitive competitive information? Further, we seek comment on steps that
Participating CMS Providers can take to protect consumer privacy if producing reliable performance data
requires information to be extracted from end user mobile devices. We observe that we are not requesting
data at the end user/mobile device level, and therefore assume that any such information would be
aggregated or, at a minimum, de-identified.
172.
We anticipate that requiring Annual WEA Performance Reports would be likely to
benefit emergency managers and the public. For example, we agree with Jefferson Parish EM that
performance reports would help to improve system transparency with respect to “how long it took for the
alert to reach the public,” whether there was “under alerting or overlap of the alerts,” and how often there
are network conditions in which “Emergency Managers . . . could not send alerts.”677 We also agree with
NYCEM that “[a]s with any other mission-critical system, mobile service providers should be required to
capture and report system errors” in order to improve the system’s security posture.678 Further, FEMA
and other commenting emergency management agencies agree that reporting geo-targeting, latency and
system availability and reliability data could provide a compelling demonstration of WEA’s capacity to
deliver timely, geo-targeted Alert Messages to specific areas and localities on a national scale, which
could potentially increase WEA adoption by non-participating emergency managers who are “reluctant to
activate WEA” without demonstrations of “coverage and delivery latency within their jurisdiction.”679
676

See 5 USC § 552 (2006), amended by OPEN Government Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-175, 121 Stat. 2524
(stating the FOIA confidentiality standard, along with relevant exemptions). See also, e.g., Ventura County Sheriff
Office of Emergency Services Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 6 (Dec. 21, 2015) (Ventura County Sheriff EMS
Comments) (“Cell carries should provide the report to the alerting authority that sent the WEA message.”); Pinellas
County Emergency Management Comments, PS Docket 15-91, 8 (Jan. 13, 2016) (Pinellas County EM Comments)
(“Reporting information should be shared between applicable cell carriers, the FCC, State Emergency Management
agencies and the local alert originators.”); Beaufort County Emergency Management, Fire Marshal & Emergency
Services Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 4 (Jan. 12, 2016) (Beaufort County Emergency Management, Fire
Marshal & Emergency Services Comments) (“Also the information should only be made available to the individuals
authorized at the local level to initiate WEA messages. That ensures the data is used for the intended purpose and
not given to unauthorized personnel.”). Compare Sixth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 6536, para. 32 (“It is not
feasible to provide [State Emergency Coordination Committees (SECCs)] with such access without compromising
the confidentiality of EAS Participant's filings, or risking that the SECC might unintentionally delete or corrupt a
filing. Rather, we will, upon request from an SECC, provide the SECC with a report of their state's aggregated
data.”) with CSRIC III Working Group 3, Indoor Location Test Bed Report, 12 (Mar. 14, 2013),
http://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/pshs/advisory/csric3/CSRIC_III_WG3_Report_March_%202013_ILTestBedReport
.pdf (last visited Apr. 19, 2016) (CSRIC III Indoor Location Test Bed Report) (“To all other parties only summary
data will be made available”).
677

Jefferson Parish EM Comments at 4; see also, e.g., Houston OPHS Comments at 4 (“Adding a reporting feature
to the existing WEA requirements would help to inform local originators about the efficacy of the system on a
variety of levels. Having access to this information would help identify gaps in information delivery and message
effectiveness . . . Reporting would allow alert originators to better understand the reach of WEA.”).
678

NYCEM Comments at 14.

679

FEMA Comments at 3; see also Beaufort County Emergency Management, Fire Marshal & Emergency Services
Comments at 4 (“We believe these reports would be of great benefit to the Emergency Services agencies at the local
level. We could see what the success rates of the alerts were in terms of messages sent and received. We could
compare that statistical data with our third party vendor data for similar messages and look for comparisons. We do
extensive geo-targeting in our messaging and it the data could be of additional importance in this area.”); Pinellas
(continued….)

103

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

We seek comment on this assessment. We also seek comment on whether the greater transparency
promoted by Annual WEA Performance Reports would better support alert originator and emergency
operations center response planning. At the same time, we anticipate that regular performance reporting
requirements may also be useful to us in our efforts to bring to light and address potential areas for
improvement in the WEA system nationwide.680 Regardless, we seek comment on whether increases in
system transparency created by Annual WEA Performance Reports would be likely to improve our ability
to act in the public interest to remediate any issues that the reports may reveal.681 We seek comment on
our analysis of these potential benefits, and on any other benefits that Annual WEA Performance Reports
may provide.
2.

Alert Logging Standards and Implementation

173.
As discussed above, we require Participating CMS Providers to log their receipt of Alert
Messages at their Alert Gateway and to appropriately maintain those records for review.682 We now seek
comment on whether and, if so, how to create a uniform format for alert logging, and on how the
collection of more detailed system integrity data could be integrated into Annual WEA Performance
Reports. We seek comment on the extent to which emergency managers would benefit from
standardization of the format of Participating CMS Providers’ alert logs. Emergency managers confirm
that there is value in log keeping by Participating CMS Providers,683 but CMS Providers confirm there is
significant variation among them with respect to log keeping.684 Absent standardization of alert logging
capabilities, would emergency managers be forced to contend with this variation in a manner that may
significantly decrease the value of alert logs? Does this support the value proposition of a uniform
standard consistently applied to Participating CMS Providers’ log keeping? Would the creation of a
uniform format require the modification of standards relevant to Alert Gateway functionality? Would
updates to Alert Gateway software also be required?
174.
We also seek comment on whether the logging requirements we adopt today should
extend beyond the CMS Provider Alert Gateway to the RAN and to WEA-capable mobile devices in
furtherance of our goal of improving WEA transparency. We anticipate that alert logging beyond the
Alert Gateway will continue to improve the transparency of the WEA system, will contribute to
emergency managers’ confidence that the system will work as intended when needed, and will improve
our ability to detect and remediate any latent issues. We seek comment on this analysis. Will requiring
Participating CMS Providers to log error reports and the CMAC attributes of Alert Messages at the CMS
Provider Alert Gateway, as we do today, be sufficient to safeguard the integrity of WEA? If not, would it
be advisable to require that Participating CMS Providers log this information at each of the C-E
interfaces?685 We also seek comment on whether data other than, or in addition to error reports and
(Continued from previous page)
County Emergency Management Comments at 8 (stating that test reporting is “needed to confirm the system is
accurate and working effectively”); Chester County EMA Comments at 3 (“Reporting would benefit alert
originators in that it would provide documentation that the carrier did or did not send out the alert and at what time
and date the alert was sent. This confirmation is needed to substantiate to the public that government is indeed
attempting to provide public safety messages to them.”).
680

See infra Appx. G (NYCEM Local WEA Geo-targeting and Latency Test Reports).

681

See Calcasieu Parish Police Jury Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness Comments at 1
(stating that knowing what errors need to be fixed would be very beneficial).
682

See supra Section III.B.1 (Logging Alerts at the Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateway).

683

See Verizon Comments at 13; T-Mobile Reply at 9.

685

See supra Figure 1 (WEA Infrastructure).

104

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

CMAC attributes can be utilized as indicia of system integrity. Do Participating CMS Providers currently
safeguard WEA system integrity through mechanisms other than, or in addition to alert logging? Further,
we seek comment on whether requiring Participating CMS Providers to log data relevant to the accuracy
of geo-targeting, the extent of alert delivery latency, and the system availability and reliability could
contribute to the collection of data for Annual WEA Performance Reports? For example, if we were to
require Participating CMS Providers to log alert receipt and transmission time stamps at each of the C-E
interfaces, would that data contribute to their ability to report on specific sources of alert delivery latency?
E.

Compliance Timeframes

175.
The rules we propose in this Further Notice would leverage commercially available
technologies to improve public safety. In this regard, we take notice of the current state of technology,
and propose timeframes that are informed by the processes and procedures that Participating CMS
Providers and mobile device manufacturers state are necessary to implement changes to their WEA
service.686 For ease of reference, the table below sets forth proposed timeframes for compliance with our
proposed rules. We also seek comment on timeframes within which we could reasonably expect
Participating CMS Providers to reach other policy objectives we discuss in this Further Notice.
RULE AMENDMENT

COMPLIANCE TIMEFRAME

Defining the Modes of Participation in WEA

Within 120 days of the rules’ publication in the
Federal Register

Infrastructure Functionality

Within 30 days of the rule’s publication in the
Federal Register

Alert Message Preservation

Within 30 months of the rule’s publication in the
Federal Register

Earthquake Alerting

Within 30 months of the rules’ publication in the
Federal Register

Multimedia Alerting

Within 30 months of the rules’ publication in the
Federal Register

Multilingual Alerting

We seek comment on reasonable timelines for
Participating CMS Providers to support the
transmission of WEA Alert Messages in various
languages

Matching the Geographic Target Area

Within 42 months of the rules’ publication in the
Federal Register, or within 24 months of the
completion of all relevant standards, whichever is
sooner

Promoting Informed Consumer Choice at the
Point of Sale

Within 120 days of the rules’ publication in the
Federal Register

Promoting Informed Consumer Choice
through the WEA Interface

Within 30 months of the rules’ publication in the
Federal Register

Annual WEA Performance Reporting

Within 30 months of publication in the Federal
Register of a notice announcing the approval by

686

See, e.g., AT&T Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte at 2-3.

105

Federal Communications Commission
RULE AMENDMENT

FCC 16-127

COMPLIANCE TIMEFRAME
the Office of Management and Budget of the
modified information collection requirements687

Alert Logging

We seek comment on reasonable timeframes for
Participating CMS Providers to improve their
tracking of system performance through alert
logging
Figure 4: Proposed Compliance Timeframes

176.
We propose a 30-month compliance timeframe for each proposed rule where compliance
would be expected to require updates to standards and system specifications, as well as software updates
for various components of the WEA system. These proposals include requiring Participating CMS
Providers make changes to the WEA interface to promote informed consumer choice, requiring them to
expedite delivery of earthquake-related Alert Messages, requiring them to provide a method of accessing
pending Alert Messages, requiring support for multimedia content in Public Safety Messages, and
requiring them to track and report on critical system performance metrics.688 We seek comment on this
approach and analysis. In the Report and Order, we concluded that 30 months was an appropriate
timeframe within which to require Participating CMS Providers to comply with rules that required
updates to software and standards because it takes twelve months for appropriate industry bodies to
finalize and publish relevant standards,689 another twelve months for Participating CMS Providers and
mobile device manufacturers to develop and integrate software upgrades consistent with those standards
into embedded plant and to complete required “technical acceptance testing,”690 and then six more months
for Participating CMS Providers and mobile device manufacturers to deploy this new technology to the
field.691 We seek comment on whether, unlike changes to WEA Alert Message content we adopt in the
Report and Order, our WEA interface and Alert Message preservation proposals will likely only require
687

As described below, the first annual WEA performance report will be due 12 months from the date of required
compliance (i.e., within 42 months of publication in the Federal Register of a notice announcing the approval by the
Office of Management and Budget of the modified information collection requirements). See infra para. 156.
688

See, e.g., ATIS Mar. 18, 2016 Ex Parte at 23 (observing that standardizing Alert Message preservation will
require changes to the ATIS/TIA Mobile Device Behavior Specification and updates to software consistent with that
standard); BlackBerry Mar. 21, 2016 Ex Parte at 2 (requesting that if the Commission were to adopt consumer optout menu requirements, it do so in such a manner that allows all mobile device manufacturers to implement changes
to mobile devices in the same way); Sprint Reply at 9 (stating that there are no standards available to support the test
reporting and alert logging requirements that we proposed in the WEA NPRM).
689

See T-Mobile Comments at 8; Verizon Comments at 5; ATIS Comments at 21-22.

690

See Verizon Comments at 5; ATIS Comments at 21-22 cf. Microsoft Reply at 3 (recommending 24 months from
the completion of standards for software testing and deployment).
691

106

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

changes to WEA-capable mobile devices, not Participating CMS Providers’ networks. If so, would
mobile device manufacturers be able to integrate these enhanced capabilities into their mobile devices on
a faster timeline than we allow for compliance with rules that implicate more systemic changes?
177.
With respect to our proposal to require Participating CMS Providers to produce and share
critical system performance metrics, we anticipate that compliance would require updates to software and
standards, as well as the coordinated efforts of professionals employed by Participating CMS Providers in
order to design and implement appropriate data collection and sharing mechanisms. We seek comment
on this reasoning. We seek comment whether compliance with this proposal would require updates to
software and standards akin to those required by rules we adopt in the Report and Order, and, relatedly,
on whether we could reasonably expect Participating CMS Providers to complete these updates within
thirty months.692 We anticipate that some portion of the design planning required to determine the types
of data and data collection methodologies appropriate for this task will take place during the course of this
proceeding as industry stakeholders consider what compliance with our proposal would require of them.
We also anticipate that this work could continue in parallel with the development of appropriate standards
that describe this data collection task. Accordingly, we do not anticipate that any unique project planning
component of this proposal will militate for allowing Participating CMS Providers additional time within
which to comply, but we seek comment on this analysis. We also propose to provide Participating CMS
Providers with a period of one year from the date of required compliance to produce their first annual
WEA performance report (i.e., within 42 months of publication in the Federal Register of a notice
announcing the approval by the Office of Management and Budget of the modified information collection
requirements).693 We anticipate that one year will be sufficient for Participating CMS Providers to
schedule any required data collections, and to aggregate that data into useful reports. We seek comment
on this analysis.
178.
We propose to require Participating CMS Providers to match the target area specified by
alert originators within 42 months of the rules’ publication in the Federal Register, or within 24 months
of the completion of all relevant standards, whichever is sooner. This is consistent with CSRIC V’s
recommendations that we allow 18 months for the development of standards “in consideration of device
compatibility, potential privacy issues, network congestion and consumer impacts due to increased data
plan usage,”694 and that “[o]nce the standards work is complete, full system deployment including new
handsets should be deployed within no more than 24 months.”695 We seek comment on this proposal. We
also seek comment on whether and how this timeframe could be expedited, given the critical public need
to employ more precise geo-targeting standards. Rather than adopting a single implementation
timeframe, should we benchmark compliance timeframes based on a percentage of Alert Messages that
meet the standard (e.g., 40 percent of Alert Messages within two years, 80 percent of Alert Messages
within six years)? Could this approach enable compliance for a percentage of Alert Messages in a shorter
timeframe by enabling Participating CMS Providers to implement improvements to geo-targeting by
facilitating implementation on a rolling basis and without waiting for industry standardization? We note
that Participating CMS Providers voluntarily improved geo-targeting relative to our foregoing countylevel requirement without industry standardization. We seek comment on why standards would be
necessary to support a “matching” requirement where they do not seem to have been needed to support a
“best approximate” requirement. Further, CSRIC V finds that Participating CMS Providers would need
36-48 months to support nesting polygons, where 18-24 months is allocated to the modification of
appropriate standards, and 18-24 months is allocated for development and implementation in Participating

692

See supra Section III.D (Compliance Timeframes).

693

See infra Section IV.D.1 (Annual WEA Performance Reporting).

694

See id. at 32.

695

CSRIC V WEA Geo-targeting Report at 30, 32

107

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

CMS Providers’ networks.696 We seek comment on this analysis. Why would enabling geo-targeting to
nesting polygons require more time than the record shows is necessary to modify standards and software
to support rules we adopt today? We seek comment on a reasonable timeframe within which to integrate
additional network-based technologies, such as small cells, into the WEA infrastructure in order to
achieve incremental improvements to WEA geo-targeting. Could such an integration take place within a
shorter timeframe that that which we may allow for the integration of eMBMS or another ulterior
technology into WEA because the network components that we consider above are already integrated into
Participating CMS Providers 4G-LTE networks?697
179.
We propose to require compliance with our proposed point-of-sale notification
requirements, and with our new definitions of the modes of participation in WEA insofar as they
necessitate a renewed obligation to file election letters within 120 days of the rule’s publication in the
Federal Register. We anticipate that compliance with these proposed rules would require time and effort
on the part of attorneys and communications professionals employed by Participating CMS Providers in
order to update any required point-of-sale notifications, and potentially to update Participating CMS
Providers’ election letters on file with the Commission. We seek comment on this analysis, and relatedly,
we seek comment on whether 120 days would be a sufficient period of time within which to expect
Participating CMS Providers to complete this task. We observe that in the Ensuring the Continuity of 911
Communications Report and Order, the record supported allowing Participating CMS Providers 120 days
to update their point-of-sale notification to advise consumers of the availability of a backup power
solution that provides 911 access during a commercial power loss.698 We seek comment on whether 120
days would also be adequate in this context, and if not, we invite commenters to provide specific details
as to how our proposal presents unique challenges. We also seek comment on whether we could
reasonably expect Participating CMS Providers to file any required update to their election letter within
this 120-day timeframe, noting that in the WEA Third Report and Order, we required CMS Providers to
file their election letter within 30 days.699
180.
We propose to require compliance with our WEA infrastructure functionality proposal
within 30 days of the rules’ publication in the Federal Register. We do not anticipate that Participating
CMS Providers would need to take any action to achieve compliance with this proposed rule, if adopted,
because, as we reason above, Participating CMS Providers do not rely on the language we propose to
remove.700 We seek comment this analysis. If the deletion of this language would require CMS Providers
otherwise in compliance with our Part 10 rules to take action in order to continue to participate, what
specific steps would be necessary to comply with these rules as revised? How much time would those
steps take to complete? If any Participating CMS Provider were to fall within this category, would it
likely be a non-nationwide Participating CMS Provider? If so, would it be appropriate to make any
special accommodations for non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers to facilitate their continued
participation?
181.
We also seek comment on reasonable timeframes in which to expect Participating CMS
Providers to be able to reach the other policy objectives that we discuss above, including developing a
uniform standard for alert log formatting and developing additional alert logging capabilities throughout
the WEA system and deepening WEA’s language support capabilities. With respect to alert logging, we
696

CSRIC V WEA Geo-targeting Report at 15.

697

See supra para. 142 (discussing whether it is possible to leverage technologies such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and
small cells already integrated into Participating CMS Providers’ networks in support of WEA to improve geotargeting).
698

See Ensuring the Continuity of 911 Communications, Report and Order, PS Docket No. 14-174, 30 FCC Rcd
8677, 8716, para. 96 (2015).
699

WEA Third Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 12575, para. 32.

700

See supra Section IV.A.2 (Infrastructure Functionality).

108

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

seek comment on whether one year would be sufficient for industry to complete a standard to describe a
uniform alert log format that will facilitate comparison of Participating CMS Providers’ WEA services, as
we concluded would be appropriate for standards necessitated by rules we adopt in the Report and
Order.701 We also seek comment on whether 30 months would be an appropriate period of time within
which to require logging at additional junctures in the WEA system.702 Would software updates be
required to implement this change?
182.
We seek comment on a reasonable timeframe within which to require Participating CMS
Providers to support transmission of Alert Messages in languages in addition to English and Spanish.
Could standards appropriate to support additional languages in WEA, including ideographic languages, be
completed or otherwise integrated into WEA within one year, consistent with our reasoning about the
time that it takes to complete standards in the Report and Order.703 We seek comment on whether
software would need to be updated in order to support additional languages as well given the two-year
timeframe that we allow Participating CMS Providers to update software to support a language in
addition to English (i.e., Spanish) in the Report and Order. 704 Would it be possible for Participating CMS
Providers to bundle software upgrades enabling support for additional languages into any software
upgrades that they may undertake in order to comply with our Spanish-language requirement? If not,
why not?
183.
Finally, we seek comment on a reasonable implementation timeframe for our proposal to
prioritize earthquake-related Alert Messages at the Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateway. Would
Participating CMS Providers be able to implement this change on the same 30-month timeframe that we
allow for other proposals anticipated to necessitate changes to software and standards? Could any
changes to the prioritization of earthquake-related Alert Messages in transit be completed within the same
timeframe? If not, what additional considerations should we take into account in our analysis of what
changes in Alert Message prioritization in transit will require? We seek to implement each of our
proposed rules in as swift of a timeframe as possible, while ensuring that our proposed rules do not pose
undue burdens for Participating CMS Providers, recognizing the current state and technology. We invite
commenters to offer into the record any additional considerations relevant to compliance with our
proposed rules.
F.

Benefit-Cost Analysis

184.
We seek comment on the minimum benefit expected to result from the policy changes we
examine in this Further Notice, and on the cost that Participating CMS Providers would incur in order to
achieve compliance. In the Report and Order, we leverage market-driven advances in technology that
offer opportunities to improve WEA and produce significant public benefit without imposing undue
burdens on Participating CMS Providers.705 In this Further Notice, our goal is to continue that approach.
We observe that CMS Provider participation in WEA is voluntary,706 and that any Participating CMS
Provider that does not wish to comply with the rules we adopt today, or proposed rules herein that may be
adopted in the future, may withdraw their election to participate in WEA without penalty, and incur no
compliance costs as a result.707 We seek comment on steps that we can take to tailor implementation of
701

See T-Mobile Comments at 8; Verizon Comments at 5; ATIS Comments at 21-22.

702

See supra para. 79 (describing the 30-month approach to complying with rules that require updates to standards
and software that the record supports).
703

See Verizon Comments at 5 (stating that new technical standards typically take 12 months to develop).

704

See supra para.81 (stating that, consistent with the record we allow Participating CMS Providers two years to
complete any software updates that may be necessary to integrate existing Spanish-language standards).
705

See supra para. 88.

706

See WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13818, para 79.

707

See WARN Act § 602(b)(2)(D), 47 USC § 1202(b)(2)(D).

109

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

each of our proposals to accomplish our goals of ensuring the provision of effective Alert Messages that
provide the public with an alert and warning service commensurate with technical capabilities, and to
improve consumer education tools and WEA transparency consistent with the WARN Act.
185.
We seek comment on whether the policy changes we examine in this Further Notice,
taken alone or together, would decrease the risk of death or injury otherwise implicated by severe weather
events and child abductions – emergencies that WEA is designed to mitigate that result in hundreds of
casualties and thousands of injuries in the United States each year.708 We note that, in its brief history,
WEA has been cited as a leading factor in the prevention of such losses.709 To what extent would the
measures on which we seek comment in this Further Notice increase the scalability of WEA’s life-saving
impact? Specifically, we seek comment on situations where, were the improvements to WEA on which
we seek comment today in place, causes of death and injury could have been prevented or mitigated. We
also seek comment on any enhancements to our proposals that would make WEA more likely to save
lives and prevent injury. We reason that VSL should continue to be our chosen method to quantify the
public value of improvements to public safety that reduce the expected number of fatalities by one, and
that the AIS scale should continue to be our chosen method of quantifying the value of injury
prevention.710 We seek comment on these choices, as well as on any alternative modes of quantifying
benefits that may strengthen our analysis and conclusions. What other types of public benefits would
commenters expect to result from our adoption of rules requiring Participating CMS Providers to comply
with the policy changes we examine here? Would adoption of our proposed rules generate cost avoidance
for emergency management agencies and therefore the public, provide a free alternative for government
agencies’ mass notification needs, or lead to cost reductions for subscription-based alert systems?
Further, to the extent that adoption of our proposed rules could reduce network congestion by minimizing
milling, we seek comment on how to quantify the value to Participating CMS Providers of decreases in
network load.
186.
We also seek comment on the costs that Participating CMS Providers would expect to
incur as a result of required compliance with the policy changes we examine in this Further Notice. We
anticipate that these policy changes could lead Participating CMS Providers to incur costs associated with
modifying standards and software, and recordkeeping and reporting costs. We seek comment on the
specific sources of cost or burden involved in each. Are there any other types of costs that we should
consider as relevant to our analysis? We seek comment on steps that we can take to tailor implementation
of any rules we may adopt as a result of this proceeding to avoid imposing undue costs on Participating
CMS Providers, and on steps that we can take to provide appropriate allowances for non-nationwide
Participating CMS Providers that facilitate their ongoing participation. Further, for each cost implicated,
we seek comment on the factors that contribute to that cost, such as hours of labor, special skills, training,
and obseletion.
187.
We anticipate that our proposed alert preservation and WEA interface rules would
implicate changes to standards and specifications for WEA-capable mobile devices, and that our Annual
WEA Performance Reporting requirements and changes to earthquake alert prioritization would implicate
changes to a more inclusive set of standards and specifications describing CMS Providers’ WEA
708

See supra note 375 (reporting the total number of deaths caused by severe weather in the United States since
2012); see also FAQs: Missing Children, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children,
http://www.missingkids.com/Missing/FAQ (last visited Jul. 1, 2016); citing NCIC Missing Person and Unidentified
Person Statistics for 2014 Pursuant to Public Law 101-647, 104 Statute 4967, Crime Control Act of 1990
Requirements, National Crime Information Center, The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ncic/ncic-missing-person-and-unidentified-person-statistics-for-2014 (last visited
Jul. 1, 2016).
709

See supra para. 89 (describing the benefits of WEA and the incremental benefits of the improvements to WEA
that we adopt today); see also NCMEC May 5, 2015 Ex Parte at 1.
710

See supra note 397 (defining the AIS scale).

110

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

infrastructure. We seek comment on the specific constellations of standards and specifications needed to
standardize performance of these functions. Should we continue to view updates to standards and
specifications as necessary prerequisites to compliance? We seek comment on the total number of labor
hours that revising these standards and specifications would take. Would this standards-revision process
take 30 individuals 26 hours over the course of one year, as we conclude would be the case for standards
implicated by the rules we adopt in the Report and Order?711 What kinds of professional expertise would
be necessary for this purpose, and what would be an appropriate method to quantify the value of these
individuals’ time and effort? Would it continue to be appropriate to use the salary of a senior network
engineer compensated in the 90th percentile for their field as the basis for valuing the time of individuals
that participate in the process of amending standards and specifications relevant to WEA?712 Should we
continue to follow the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ recommended approach and use fifty percent of salary
as the basis for calculating employee benefits (including paid leave, supplementary pay, insurance,
retirement and savings, and legally required benefits) as an additional cost of employee compensation?713
What other types of employees’ services might be needed to facilitate these improvements, and how much
might their time cost? We seek comment on any additional or alternative method of quantifying the costs
of the standards-setting process that would produce a more accurate estimate for the total burden
presented by this aspect of compliance. Would other policy changes we examine in this Further Notice
lead industry to modify standards or specifications? For example, what standards or specifications would
need to be modified to comply with the policy changes we discuss for multimedia, multilingual and
disaster relief messaging, further improvements to geo-targeting, Annual WEA Performance Reporting,
and for alert logging at each of the C-E interfaces?714 What would be the incremental cost of building
alert and warning capabilities into the development of standards for 5G networks? Are there alternative
methods of achieving our goals in these areas that would present Participating CMS Providers with lesser
burdens? If so, we seek comment on costs associated with these alternative methods.
188.
We anticipate that our proposed alert preservation and WEA interface rules would also
implicate changes to software for WEA-capable mobile devices, and that our Annual WEA Performance
Reporting requirements and changes to earthquake alert prioritization would implicate changes to a
software throughout the WEA infrastructure. We seek comment on this assessment, and on the specific
interfaces where software updates would be required. We anticipate that these software updates would
present a similar level of complexity as those we adopt in the Report and Order.715 Should we continue to
consider separately the costs of software development and testing? With respect to software
development, should we continue to reason that these modifications can be completed by one senior
software engineer compensated in the 90th percentile for his field over the course of ten months?716 In the
alternative, should we quantify the cost of software modifications with reference to the Constructive Cost
Model II (COCOMO II) as we did in the Text-to-911 Bounce Back Message Order?717 What specific
711

See supra para. 98.

712

See supra para. 99.

713

See supra note 424.

714

See supra Figure 1 (WEA Infrastructure).

715

See supra paras. 99, 100 (discussing software costs of the rules we adopt in the Report and Order).

716

See supra note 439(substantiating our analysis of the compensation of software engineers likely responsible for
this task).
717

The COCOMO II web-based tool requires one to enter the total new source lines of code and the cost per personmonth in dollars and to set a number of software scale and cost drivers at subjective levels (e.g., very low, low,
nominal, high, very high, extra high). See COCOMO II, Constructive Cost Model,
http://csse.usc.edu/tools/COCOMOII.php (last visited Aug. 9, 2016). See also Text-to-911 Bounce Back Message
Order, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 7556, 7565, para. 24, n. 58 (2013) (estimating that 10 new lines of code
would need to be created in order to comply with a requirement that CMS Providers send a bounce-back text when
someone texts to 911 but text-to-911 service is not available).

111

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

software programs would need to be modified in order to enable compliance with these rules and how
many lines of code would need to be changed to affect the modifications? With respect to software
testing, should we continue to reason that it would require the labor of as many as 12 software engineers
working together of the course of as many as two months?718 Further, we seek comment on whether these
rule amendments implicate changes to mobile device operating systems, the WEA application, or both.
We seek comment on whether and how changes to operating system and application software may
implicate distinct issues for Participating CMS Providers. We seek comment on the specific changes to
software that would be required in order to enable compliance with our proposed rules as they could be
implemented in the varied mobile device environments used to support WEA. What other types of
employees’ services might be needed to facilitate these improvements, and how much might their time
cost? Would other policy changes we examine in this Further Notice lead Participating CMS Providers
to modify software? For example, what, if any, software modifications would be implicated by the policy
changes we examine with respect to multimedia, multilingual, or disaster relief messaging, further
improvements to geo-targeting, and for alert logging at each of the C-E interfaces?719 Are there
alternative methods of achieving our goals in these areas that would present Participating CMS Providers
with lesser burdens? If so, we seek comment on costs associated with these alternative methods.
189.
We seek additional comment on the changes to Participating CMS Provider infrastructure
that would be required in order to generate, analyze and share information critical to their participation in
WEA pursuant to our proposed performance reporting rule because the record reflects concern about the
IT-related requirements that such obligations might impose.720 We continue to be sensitive to this issue,
and so we seek comment on cost-effective mechanisms that Participating CMS Providers could use in
order to collect, aggregate and transmit data in fulfillment of these proposed requirements. For example,
could the collection, aggregation and transmittal of such data be automated? How should we quantify the
paperwork burden of producing performance reports if the production of such reports is automated? We
seek comment above on whether an alternative, potentially less frequent reporting period would meet
emergency managers’ need for information about how well WEA works.721 If so, to what extent would
less frequent reporting reduce costs for Participating CMS Providers? Would software modification be
required in order to implement any necessary data collection mechanisms? If so, would it be reasonable
to expect any required software to be developed and deployed within the same 30-month timeframe as
adopted above for rules that will require Participating CMS Providers to develop upgrades to existing
software and to modify relevant standards, and would such software updates implicate similar costs?
190.
We also seek comment on reporting and recordkeeping costs implicated by the policy
changes we examine in this Further Notice. Would Participating CMS Providers incur such costs in
connection with the Annual WEA Performance Reporting, election and point-of-sale notification
requirements we consider? With respect to the recordkeeping and reporting costs associated with our
proposed annual performance reporting requirements, we seek comment on whether the cost burdens that
Participating CMS Providers will confront in order to comply with these rules would be analogous to
those OMB concluded that CMS Providers would confront in order to establish, analyze and report on the
results of E911 location accuracy test beds.722 In the E911 Location Accuracy Requirements Fourth
Report and Order, the Commission adopted requirements for all CMS Providers to improve the accuracy
of 911 location information from wireless devices delivered to PSAPs.723 Specifically, OMB concluded
718

See supra para. 99.

719

See supra Figure 1 (WEA Infrastructure).

720

See, e.g., Sprint Reply at 7; ATIS Comments at 20; San Joaquin OES Comments at 2; CTIA Comments at 13, 14;
Cochise County OEM Comments at 2.
721

See supra para. 163.

722

See E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, OMB 3060-1210, 80 FR 30235 (2015).

723

See supra note 4.

112

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

that the establishment of a location accuracy test bed would require each nationwide CMS Provider to
spend a sum of 1,000 hours between two engineers and one attorney. By analogy, we seek comment on
whether it would take each Participating CMS Provider 1,000 hours between two network engineers and
one attorney to establish a collection mechanism appropriate for gathering and analyzing data relevant to
Annual WEA Performance Reports where establishment of a method to analyze and report on network
performance using a representative sampling of devices and geographic areas may be one cost-effective
mode for Participating CMS Providers to comply with this reporting requirement. Further, in the E911
location accuracy context, OMB concluded that it would take two hours for an engineer to generate,
format and submit live call data to the Commission.724 Similarly, we posit it would reasonably take each
Participating CMS Provider two hours to generate, format and submit data for each of the three key
performance metrics for which reporting is proposed (geo-targeting, latency, reliability) for a total of six
hours per report per CMS Provider. We seek comment on this position. We seek comment on any steps
that we can take to minimize reporting burdens on Participating CMS Providers in connection with our
annual performance reporting proposal that would still increase transparency into WEA geo-targeting,
latency, and availability and reliability.725 With respect to costs that Participating CMS Providers would
incur in order to comply with these proposals, if adopted, we note that NYCEM already performs regional
tests of the extent of system reliability, alert delivery latency, and the accuracy of geo-targeting.726 We
seek comment on the costs that emergency management agencies would be required to incur in order to
perform testing that is comparable to that performed by NYCEM, and to share and analyze test report data
among themselves. We seek comment on whether it makes more sense for state and local emergency
management agencies to bear these costs than Participating CMS Providers. In any case, we reason that
NYCEM’s success demonstrates that it is feasible to collect data on WEA system performance. We seek
comment on this analysis.
191.
We seek comment on the costs that Participating CMS Providers would incur in order to
modify their point-of-sale notifications to more accurately reflect their WEA service offerings. In
response to the WEA Third Report and Order, OMB approved our assessment that 1,253 CMS Providers
might need to produce one record annually in order to comply with our point-of-sale notification
requirements, and that each report would require 10 hours to complete by an individual salaried at
$28.85/hr.727 Accordingly, OMB agreed with the Commission that the total annual cost of our point-ofsale notification requirement was $361,490.728 We seek comment on whether we should revise this
assessment in light of our proposal. Specifically, has the total number of entities this recordkeeping
obligation may affect changed since we first adopted this rule? In light of the fact that CMS Providers
participating in part or not at all in WEA are required to provide notifications to consumers at the point of
sale, but not CMS Providers participating in whole, we seek comment on the number of entities our
proposed point-of-sale notification requirements are likely to impact. Should the obligation to update this
point-of-sale notification continue to be considered as an annual requirement? Would Participating CMS
Providers need more than ten hours to update their point-of-sale notifications pursuant to our proposed
724

See id.

725

See, e.g., supra paras. 163 (seeking comment on whether it would be appropriate to adopt a less frequent
reporting requirement for non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers), 168 (seeking comment on whether nonnationwide Participating CMS Providers should also be allowed to collect less granular data on system performance
in order to reduce any cost burdens entailed by these proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements), 169
(seeking comment on whether to be implementation agnostic with respect to how Participating CMS Providers
collect performance data, and on whether such an approach would provide Participating CMS Providers, and
especially non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers, with increased flexibility that would reduce the burdens of
these recordkeeping and reporting requirements).
726

See infra Appx. G (NYCEM Local Geo-targeting and Latency Test Reports).

727

See OMB 3060-1113 (2011) (totaling a 12,530 hour burden).

728

Where $28.85 x carriers x 1,253 report/annually x 10 hours per report = $361,490.00.

113

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

approach, and if so, how much time would they need?729 Does $28.85/hr. continue to be a reasonable
valuation for the employee time needed for this task? If not, what would be a reasonable valuation of
employee time required to update CMS Providers’ point-of-sale notifications? We seek comment on
whether allowing Participating CMS Providers to update their point-of-sale notification using a hyperlink
to a website would help to control the costs of maintaining this consumer notification. How much
employee time, if any, would Participating CMS Providers need to dedicate to maintaining up-to-date
information about the extent to which they offer WEA if they made such information available through a
hyperlink to a website? We seek comment on any steps the Commission could take to lessen this burden
on CMS Providers.
192.
We also seek comment on the specific costs and burdens Participating CMS Providers
would incur if required to renew their election to participate in WEA pursuant to revised definitions of
participation. In response to the Third Report and Order, OMB also approved our assessment that our
election requirement would affect 1,253 entities that would be required to update this report on occasion,
but at most once per year, and that fulfillment of this requirement would take 30 minutes per report by an
individual salaried at $28.85/hr.730 Accordingly, OMB agreed with the Commission that the total annual
cost of our election requirement would be $18,074.53.731 We seek comment on whether we should revise
this assessment if we revise our election requirement consistent with the approach on which we seek
comment above.732 We seek comment on steps that we can take to help Participating CMS Providers to
control the costs of renewing their election to participate in WEA, including by adopting definitions of
participation in WEA that more closely reflect industry’s understanding.
193.
We seek comment on any other costs that we should consider in our analysis. Would
compliance with our proposed rules implicate any hardware replacement costs, or other capital
expenditures? Are there any additional costs of labor or recordkeeping that we should consider? Our
analysis of these estimated costs and benefits is intended to compare the maximum possible cost of
compliance with our proposed rules against the minimum possible benefit. To this end, we urge WEA
stakeholders, and in particular smaller, rural, and/or non-nationwide CMS providers, to file as detailed an
analysis as possible of the maximum dollar values that they would ascribe to compliance with each of the
policy changes we examine here. We also seek comment on special accommodations that would be
appropriate to help non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers, in particular, to control costs.
V.

PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A.

Accessible Formats

194.
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
B.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

195.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5 U.S.C. § 604, the
Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) and an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies
and rules addressed in this document. The FRFA is set forth in Appendix C. The IRFA is set forth in
Appendix D.

729

See OMB 3060-1113 (2011) (noting that these reports can be completed in 5-10 hours).

730

Id.

731

Where $28.85 x 1,253 carriers x 1 report/annually x .5 hours per report = $18,074.53. See OMB 3060-1113
(2011). Id.
732

See supra Section IV.A.1IV.A.1 (Defining the Modes of Participation in WEA).

114

Federal Communications Commission
C.

FCC 16-127

Paperwork Reduction Analysis

196.
The WEA Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contains new
information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law
No. 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under
Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment
on the new information collection requirements contained in this proceeding.
197.
We note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific comment on how the Commission
might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.”733 In addition, we have described impacts that might affect small businesses, which includes
most businesses with fewer than 25 employees, in the FRFA in Appendix C, infra.
D.

Congressional Review Act

198.
The Commission will send a copy of this WEA Report and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), see 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
VI.

ORDERING CLAUSES

199.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v),
307, 309, 335, 403, 624(g), 706, and 715 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
151, 152, 154(i), 154(o), 301, 301(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 544(g), 606, and 615, as well as by
sections 602(a),(b),(c), (f), 603, 604 and 606 of the WARN Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 1202(a),(b),(c), (f), 1203,
1204 and 1206, that the WEA Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in PS
Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94 IS HEREBY ADOPTED.
200.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s rules ARE HEREBY AMENDED
as set forth in Appendix A.
201.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rules adopted herein WILL BECOME
EFFECTIVE as described herein,734 including those rules and requirements which contain new or
modified information collection requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act that WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE after publication
in the Federal Register of a notice announcing such approval and the relevant effective date.735
202.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of the WEA Report and Order and
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Final and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

733

See EAS Operational Issues NPRM, 29 FCC Rcd at Appx. B.

734

See supra Section III.D (Compliance Timeframes).

735

Pub. L. No. 104-13, 109 Stat. 163 (May 22, 1995), codified at 44 USC §§ 3501 et seq.

115

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

203.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission SHALL SEND a copy of the WEA
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Congress and the Government
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary

116

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

APPENDIX A
Final Rules
The rules in this part are issued pursuant to the authority contained in the Warning, Alert, and Response
Network Act, Title VI of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-347,
Titles I through III of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Executive Order 13407 of June
26, 2006, Public Alert and Warning System, 71 Federal Register 36975 (2006).
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 C.F.R.
Part 10 and 47 C.F.R. Part 11 to read as follows:
PART 10 – WIRELESS EMERGENCY ALERTS
1. Amend § 10.280 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 10.280 Subscribers' right to opt out of WEA notifications.
(a) CMS providers may provide their subscribers with the option to opt out of both, or either, the
“Child Abduction Emergency/AMBER Alert,” and “Imminent Threat Alert” and “Public Safety
Message” classes of Alert Messages.
2. Add new paragraph (g) to § 10.320 to read as follows:
§ 10.320 Provider alert gateway requirements
*****
(g) Alert Logging. The CMS provider gateway must perform the following functions:
(1) Logging Requirements. Log the CMAC attributes of all Alert Messages received at the CMS
Provider Alert Gateway, including time stamps that verify when the message is received, and when
it is retransmitted or rejected by the Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateway. If an Alert
Message is rejected, a Participating CMS Provider is required to log the specific error code
generated by the rejection.
(2) Maintenance of Logs. Participating CMS Providers are required to maintain a log of all active
and cancelled Alert Messages for at least 12 months after receipt of such alert or cancellation.
(3) Availability of Logs. Participating CMS Providers are required to make their alert logs
available to the Commission and FEMA upon request. Participating CMS Providers are also
required to make alert logs available to emergency management agencies that offer confidentiality
protection at least equal to that provided by the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) upon
request, but only insofar as those logs pertain to Alert Messages initiated by that emergency
management agency.
3. Amend introductory paragraph and paragraph (b), and add new paragraph (c) to § 10.350 to read as
follows:
§ 10.350 WEA testing and proficiency training requirements.
This section specifies the testing that will be is required of Participating CMS Providers no
later than the date of deployment of the WEA, of WEA components.
117

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

***
(b) Periodic C interface testing. In addition to the required monthly tests, a Participating CMS
Provider must participate in periodic testing of the interfaces between the Federal Alert Gateway
and its CMS Provider Gateway, including the public television broadcast-based backup to the
C-interface. This periodic interface testing is not intended to test the CMS Provider's
infrastructure nor the mobile devices but rather is required to ensure the availability/viability of
both gateway functions. Each CMS Provider Gateway shall send an acknowledgement to the
Federal Alert Gateway upon receipt of such interface test messages. Real event codes or Alert
Messages shall not be used for this periodic interface testing.
(c) State/Local WEA Testing. A Participating CMS Provider must support State/Local
WEA Tests in a manner that complies with the Alert Message Requirements specified in
Subpart D.
(1) A Participating CMS Provider's Gateway shall support the ability to receive a
State/Local WEA Test message initiated by the Federal Alert Gateway Administrator.
(2) A Participating CMS Provider shall immediately transmit a State/Local WEA Test to
the geographic area specified by the alert originator.
(3) A Participating CMS Provider may forego a State/Local WEA Test if the State/Local
WEA Test is pre-empted by actual alert traffic or if an unforeseen condition in the CMS
Provider infrastructure precludes distribution of the State/Local WEA Test. If a
Participating CMS Provider Gateway forgoes a State/Local WEA Test, it shall send a
response code to the Federal Alert Gateway indicating the reason.
(4) Participating CMS Providers shall provide their subscribers with the option to opt in to
receive State/Local WEA Tests.
5. Amend introductory paragraph and add new paragraph (d) to § 10.400 to read as follows:
§ 10.400 Classification.
A Participating CMS Provider is required to receive and transmit three four classes of Alert Messages:
Presidential Alert; Imminent Threat Alert; and Child Abduction Emergency/AMBER Alert; and Public
Safety Message.
***
(d) Public Safety Message. A Public Safety Message is an essential public safety advisory
that prescribes one or more actions likely to save lives and/or safeguard property during an
emergency. A Public Safety Message may only be issued in connection with an Alert
Message classified in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of this Section.
5. Amend § 10.410 to read as follows:
§ 10.410 Prioritization.
A Participating CMS Provider is required to transmit Presidential Alerts upon receipt. Presidential Alerts
preempt all other Alert Messages. A Participating CMS Provider is required to transmit Imminent Threat
Alerts, and AMBER Alerts and Public Safety Messages on a first in-first out (FIFO) basis.
6. Revise § 10.430 to read as follows:
§ 10.430 Character limit.
A WEA Alert Message processed by a Participating CMS Provider must not exceed 90 characters of
alphanumeric text.
118

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

A Participating CMS Provider must support transmission of an Alert Message that contains a
maximum of 360 characters of alphanumeric text. If, however, some or all of a Participating CMS
Provider’s network infrastructure is technically incapable of supporting the transmission of a 360character maximum Alert Message, then that Participating CMS Provider must support
transmission of an Alert Message that contains a maximum of 90 characters of alphanumeric text
on and only on those elements of its network incapable of supporting a 360 character Alert
Message.
7. Remove Section 10.440.
8. Add a new Section 10.441
§ 10.441 Embedded references
Participating CMS Providers are required to support Alert Messages that include an embedded
Uniform Resource Locator (URL), which is a reference (an address) to a resource on the Internet,
or an embedded telephone number.
9. Amend § 10.450 by adding new paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:
§ 10.450 Geographic targeting.
This section establishes minimum requirements for the geographic targeting of Alert Messages.
(a) A Participating CMS Provider will determine which of its network facilities, elements, and locations
will be used to geographically target Alert Messages. A Participating CMS Provider must transmit any
Alert Message that is specified by a geocode, circle, or polygon to an area not larger than the provider's
approximation of coverage for the Counties or County Equivalents with which that geocode, circle, or
polygon intersects that best approximates the specified geocode, circle, or polygon. If, however, the
Participating CMS Provider cannot broadcast the Alert Message to an area that best approximates
the specified geocode, circle, or polygon, a Participating CMS Provider may transmit an Alert
Message to an area not larger than the propagation area of a single transmission site. If, however,
the propagation area of a provider's transmission site exceeds a single County or County Equivalent, a
Participating CMS Provider may transmit an Alert Message to an area not exceeding the propagation area.
(b) Upon request from an emergency management agency, a Participating CMS Provider will
disclose information regarding their capabilities for geo-targeting Alert Messages. A Participating
CMS Provider is only required to disclose this information to an emergency management agency
insofar as it would pertain to Alert Messages initiated by that emergency management agency, and
only so long as the emergency management agency offers confidentiality protection at least equal to
that provided by the federal FOIA.
10. Add a new Section 10.480:
§ 10.480 Language support.
Participating CMS Providers are required to transmit WEA Alert Messages that are issued in the
Spanish language or that contain Spanish-language characters.
11. Amend § 10.510 to read as follows:
119

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

§ 10.510 Call preemption prohibition.
Devices marketed for public use under part 10 must present an Alert Message as soon as they receive
it, but may not enable an Alert Message to preempt an active voice or data session. If a mobile device
receives a WEA Alert Message during an active voice or data session, the user may be given the
option to control how the Alert Message is presented on the mobile device with respect to the use of
the common vibration cadence and audio attention signal.
12. Amend § 10.520 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 10.520 Common audio attention signal
*****
(d) The audio attention signal must be restricted to use for Alert Messages under part 10. No person may
transmit or cause to transmit the WEA common audio attention signal, or a recording or
simulation thereof, in any circumstance other than in an actual National, State or Local Area
emergency or authorized test, except as designed and used for Public Service Announcements
(PSAs) by federal, state, local, tribal and territorial entities, and non-governmental organizations in
coordination with those entities, to raise public awareness about emergency alerting, provided that
the entity presents the PSA in a non-misleading manner, including by explicitly stating that the
emergency alerting attention signal is being used in the context of a PSA for the purpose of
educating the viewing or listening public about emergency alerting.
PART 11 – EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM
1. Amend § 11.45 to read as follows:
§ 11.45 Prohibition of false or deceptive EAS transmissions.
No person may transmit or cause to transmit the EAS codes or Attention Signal, or a recording or
simulation thereof, in any circumstance other than in an actual National, State or Local Area emergency
or authorized test of the EAS, or as specified in Section 10.520(d).

120

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

APPENDIX B
Proposed Rules
The rules in this part are issued pursuant to the authority contained in the Warning, Alert, and Response
Network Act, Title VI of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-347,
Titles I through III of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Executive Order 13407 of June
26, 2006, Public Alert and Warning System, 71 Federal Register 36975 (2006).
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend
47 C.F.R. Part 10 and 47 C.F.R. Part 11 to read as follows:
PART 10 – WIRELESS EMERGENCY ALERTS
1. Add new paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) to § 10.10 to read as follows:
§ 10.10 Definitions.
***
(h) CMS Provider participation “in whole.” CMS Providers that have agreed to transmit WEA
Alert Messages in a manner consistent with the technical standards, protocols, procedures, and
other technical requirements implemented by the Commission in the entirety of their geographic
service area and to all devices on their network.
(i) CMS Provider participation “in part.” CMS Providers that have agreed to transmit WEA Alert
Messages in a manner consistent with the technical standards, protocols, procedures, and other
technical requirements implemented by the Commission in some, if not all of their geographic
service area, and to some, if not all of the devices on their network.
*****
2. Amend paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 10.240 Notification to new subscribers of non-participation in WEA.
***
(c) CMS providers electing to participate in WEA “in part” shall use the following notification:
NOTICE REGARDING TRANSMISSION OF WIRELESS EMERGENCY ALERTS
(Commercial Mobile Alert Service)
[[CMS provider]] has chosen to offer wireless emergency alerts within portions of its service
area, as defined by the terms and conditions of its service agreement, on wireless emergency alert capable
devices. There is no additional charge for these wireless emergency alerts.
Wireless emergency alerts may not be available on all devices or in the entire service area, or if a
subscriber is outside of the [[CMS provider]] service area. For details on the availability of this service
and wireless emergency alert capable devices, please ask a sales representative, or go to [[CMS provider's
URL]].
Notice required by FCC Rule 47 CFR 10.240 (Commercial Mobile Alert Service).
CMS providers electing to participate in WEA “in part” shall also include in their point-of-sale
notification a statement attesting to whether they offer WEA service in the geographic area within
121

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

which the point of sale is located, and whether the specific device subject of the point-of-sale
agreement is WEA-capable.
***
3. Amend paragraph (b) of § 10.280 to read as follows:
§ 10.280 Subscribers' right to opt out of WEA notifications.
***
(b) Participating CMS pProviders shall provide their subscribers with a clear indication of what each
option means, and provide examples of the types of messages the customer may not receive as a result of
opting out. and informed choices among the Alert Message classifications that they may receive.
*****
4. Amend paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 10.320 Provider alert gateway requirements
*****
(e)
***
(3) Prioritization. The CMS provider gateway must process an Alert Message on a first in-first out basis
except for Presidential Alerts and earthquake-related Imminent Threat Alerts, which must be
processed before all non-Presidential alerts.
5. Amend introductory paragraph of § 10.330 and add a new paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
§ 10.330 Provider infrastructure requirements.
This section specifies the general functions that a Participating CMS Provider is required to perform
within their infrastructure. Infrastructure functions are dependent upon the capabilities of the delivery
technologies implemented by a Participating CMS Provider.
***
(a)
***
(1) Delivery of earthquake-related Alert Messages in fewer than three seconds, measured from the
time the Alert Message is created to when it is delivered and displayed on the mobile device.
*****
6. Add a new paragraph (d) to § 10.350 to read as follows:
§ 10.350 WEA testing and proficiency training requirements.
This section specifies the testing that is required of Participating CMS Providers.
***
(d) Annual WEA Performance Reports. Participating CMS Providers must submit Annual WEA
Performance Reports to the Commission that reliably demonstrate the following system
performance metrics for their nationwide WEA deployment.
(1) Geo-targeting. The accuracy with which the Participating CMS Provider can distribute WEA
Alert Messages to a geographic area specified by an alert originator.
(2) Latency. An end-to-end analysis of the amount of time that it takes for the Participating CMS
Provider to transmit a WEA Alert Message.
122

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

(3) Availability and Reliability. The annual percentage of WEA Alert Messages that the
Participating CMS Provider processes successfully, and a summary of the most common errors
with alert transmission.
(4) Participating CMS Providers shall grant requests from emergency management agencies for
locality-specific versions of these performance metrics at least annually, and only so long as the
emergency management agency offers confidentiality protection at least equal to that provided by
federal FOIA.
7. Amend § 10.410 to read as follows:
§ 10.410 Prioritization.
A Participating CMS Provider is required to transmit Presidential Alerts and earthquake-related
Imminent Threat Alerts upon receipt. Presidential Alerts preempt all other Alert Messages, and
earthquake-related Imminent Threat Alerts preempt all non-Presidential Alert Messages. A
Participating CMS Provider is required to transmit other Imminent Threat Alerts, AMBER Alerts, and
Public Safety Messages on a first in-first out (FIFO) basis.
8. Amend § 10.450 to read as follows:
§ 10.450 Geographic targeting.
This section establishes minimum requirements for the geographic targeting of Alert Messages. A
Participating CMS Provider will determine which of its network facilities, elements, and locations will be
used to geographically target Alert Messages. A Participating CMS Provider must transmit any Alert
Message that is specified by a geocode, circle, or polygon to an area that best approximates matches the
specified geocode, circle, or polygon. If, however, the Participating CMS Provider cannot broadcast the
Alert Message to an area that best approximates matches the target area, a Participating CMS Provider
may transmit an Alert Message to an area not larger than the propagation area of a single transmission site
that best approximates the target area.
9. Add a new Section 10.490:
§ 10.490 Multimedia support.
Participating CMS Providers are required to support the transmission of hazard symbols and
thumbnail-sized photos in Public Safety Messages.
10. Amend introductory paragraph and add a new paragraph (h) of § 10.500 to read as follows:
§ 10.500 General requirements.
WEA mobile device functionality is dependent on the capabilities of a Participating CMS Provider's
delivery technologies. Mobile devices are required to perform the following functions:
***
(h) Preservation of Alert Messages in a consumer-accessible format and location at least until the
Alert Message expires.

123

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

APPENDIX C
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA)1 the
Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the WEA
NPRM.2 No comments were filed addressing the IRFA regarding the issues raised in the WEA NPRM.
Because the Commission amends the rules in this WEA Report and Order, the Commission has included
this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA). This present FRFA conforms to the RFA.3
A.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Final Rules

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

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

6.
No commenter raised issues in response to the IRFA included in the WEA NPRM. We
conclude that these mandates provide Participating CMS Providers with a sufficient measure of flexibility

See 5 USC § 603. The RFA, see 5 USC § 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, (SBREFA) Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
2

See Improving Wireless Emergency Alerts and Community-Initiated Alerting, PS Docket No. 15-91, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 13781 (2015) (WEA NPRM), Appx. B.
3

See 5 USC § 604.

“A Commercial Mobile Service Provider (or CMS Provider) is an FCC licensee providing commercial mobile
service as defined in section 332(d)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 USC § 332(d)(1)). Section 332(d)(1)
defines the term commercial mobile service as any mobile service (as defined in 47 USC 153) that is provided for
profit and makes interconnected service available to the public or to such classes of eligible users as to be effectively
available to a substantial portion of the public, as specified by regulation by the Commission.” 47 CFR § 10.10(d).

124

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

to account for technical and cost-related concerns.5 In the event that small entities face unique
circumstances that restrict their ability to comply with the Commission’s rules, we can address them
through the waiver process. We have determined that implementing these improvements to WEA is
technically feasible and the cost of implementation is small.
C.

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

7.
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of
the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.6 The RFA generally
defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small
organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”7 In addition, the term “small business” has the
same meaning as the term “small-business concern” under the Small Business Act.8 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.9
8.
Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental Jurisdictions. Our
action may, over time, affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore
describe here, at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards.10 First,
nationwide, there are a total of approximately 27.5 million small businesses, according to the SBA.11 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.”12 Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately
1,621,315 small organizations.13 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.”14 Census Bureau data for 2011 indicate that there were 89,476
local governmental jurisdictions in the United States.15 We estimate that, of this total, as many as 88, 506
entities may qualify as “small governmental jurisdictions.”16 Thus, we estimate that most governmental
5

See supra para. 48, Error! Reference source not found. (identifying measures in place to ensure flexibility in
compliance and avoidance of unduly burdensome costs).
6

See 5 USC § 603(b)(3).

See 5 USC § 601(6).

See 5 USC § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business
Act, 15 USC § 632). Pursuant to 5 USC § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an
agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity
for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the
agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”
9

See 15 USC § 632.

See 5 USC §§ 601(3)–(6).

See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions, http://www,”
web.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_March_2014_0.pdffaqs (last accessed Jan. 25, 2015) (figures are from 2009).
12

5 USC § 601(4).

INDEPENDENT SECTOR, THE NEW NONPROFIT ALMANAC & DESK REFERENCE (2010).

5 USC § 601(5).

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES: 2012, Section 8, page 267, tbl. 429,
https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0429.pdf/ (data cited therein are from 2011, Table 427
(2007).
16

The 2007 U.S Census data for small governmental organizations indicate that there were 89, 476 “Local
Governments” in 2007. (U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES 2011,
Table 428.) The criterion by which the size of such local governments is determined to be small is a population of
(continued….)

125

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

jurisdictions are small.
9.
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). This industry comprises
establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide
communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide
services using that spectrum, such as cellular phone services, paging services, wireless Internet access,
and wireless video services.17 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.18 Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of
this total, 955 firms had employment of fewer than 1000 employees.19 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.20
10.
Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband personal communications
services (PCS) spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the
Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission initially defined a “small business” for
C- and F-Block licenses as an entity that has average gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three
previous calendar years.21 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.22 These small business size
standards, in the context of broadband PCS auctions, have been approved by the SBA.23 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.24 On April 15, 1999, the Commission
(Continued from previous page)
50,000. However, since the Census Bureau does not specifically apply that criterion, it cannot be determined with
precision how many of such local governmental organizations is small. Nonetheless, the inference seems reasonable
that substantial number of these governmental organizations has a population of less than 50, 000. To look at Table
428 in conjunction with a related set of data in Table 429 in the Census’s Statistical Abstract of the U.S., that
inference is further supported by the fact that in both Tables, many entities that may well be small are included in
the 89,476 local governmental organizations, e.g. county, municipal, township and town, school district and special
district entities. Measured by a criterion of a population of 50,000 many specific sub-entities in this category seem
more likely than larger county-level governmental organizations to have small populations. Accordingly, of the
89,746 small governmental organizations identified in the 2007 Census, the Commission estimates that a substantial
majority is small.
17

U.S. Census Bureau, North American Industry Classification System, Definition of “Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite),” NAICS code 517210, available at
18

See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS Code 517210

Id. Available census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of
1,500 or fewer employees. The largest category provided is for firms with “1,000 employees or more”.
20

Id.

See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission’s Rules – Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the
Commercial Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Cap; Amendment of the Commission’s Cellular/PCS Cross-Ownership
Rule; WT Docket No. 96-59, GN Docket No. 90-314, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 7824, 7850-52, paras. 57-60
(1996) (PCS Report and Order); see also 47 CFR § 24.720(b).
22

See PCS Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 7852, para. 60.

See Alvarez Letter 1998.

126

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

completed the reauction of 347 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 22.25 Of the 57 winning
bidders in that auction, 48 claimed small business status and won 277 licenses.
11.
On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Block
Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in that auction, 29 claimed small
business status.26 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.27
On May 21, 2007, the Commission completed an auction of 33 licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks in
Auction No. 71.28 Of the 12 winning bidders in that auction, five claimed small business status and won
18 licenses.29 On August 20, 2008, the Commission completed the auction of 20 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block
Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 78.30 Of the eight winning bidders for Broadband PCS licenses
in that auction, six claimed small business status and won 14 licenses.31
12.
Narrowband Personal Communications Service. To date, two auctions of narrowband
personal communications services (PCS) licenses have been conducted. For purposes of the two auctions
that have already been held, “small businesses” were entities with average gross revenues for the prior
three calendar years of $40 million or less. Through these auctions, the Commission has awarded a total
of 41 licenses, out of which 11 were obtained by small businesses. To ensure meaningful participation of
small business entities in future auctions, the Commission has adopted a two-tiered small business size
standard in the Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order.32 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.33
13.

Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for fixed, mobile,

(Continued from previous page)
24
See Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes, Public Notice, Doc. No. 89838 (rel. Jan. 14, 1997).
25

See C, D, E, and F Block Broadband PCS Auction Closes, Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 6688 (WTB 1999). Before
Auction No. 22, the Commission established a very small standard for the C Block to match the standard used for F
Block. Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Installment Payment Financing for Personal
Communications Services (PCS) Licensees, WT Docket No. 97-82, Fourth Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15743,
15768, para. 46 (1998).
26

See C and F Block Broadband PCS Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd
2339 (2001).
27

See Broadband PCS Spectrum Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 58, Public Notice, 20
FCC Rcd 3703 (2005).
28

See Auction of Broadband PCS Spectrum Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 71,
Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 9247 (2007).
29

Id.

See Auction of AWS-1 and Broadband PCS Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 78, Public
Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 12749 (WTB 2008).
31

Id.

Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Establish New Personal Communications Services, Narrowband PCS,
GEN Docket No. 90-314, ET Docket No. 92-100, PP Docket No. 93-253, Second Report and Order and Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 10456 (2000).
33

See Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau, FCC, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Dec. 2, 1998).

127

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

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.34 The SBA has approved these
definitions.35
14.
700 MHz Guard Band Licensees. In 2000, in the 700 MHz Guard Band Order, the
Commission adopted size standards for “small businesses” and “very small businesses” for purposes of
determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments.36 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.37 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.38 SBA approval of these
definitions is not required.39 An auction of 52 Major Economic Area licenses commenced on September
6, 2000, and closed on September 21, 2000.40 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.41
15.
Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The Commission previously adopted criteria for
defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special
provisions such as bidding credits.42 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.43 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.44 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
34

Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Establish Part 27, the Wireless Communications Service (WCS), GN
Docket No. 96-228, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10785, 10879, para. 194 (1997).
35

See Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis
Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (filed Dec. 2, 1998)
(Alvarez Letter 1998).
36

See Service Rules for the 746–764 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules, WT Docket
No. 99-168, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5299 (2000) (746–764 MHz Band Second Report and Order).
37

See id. at 5343, para. 108.

See id.

See id. at 5343, para. 108 n.246 (for the 746–764 MHz and 776–794 MHz bands, the Commission is exempt from
15 USC § 632, which requires Federal agencies to obtain SBA approval before adopting small business size
standards).
40

See 700 MHz Guard Bands Auction Closes: Winning Bidders Announced, Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 18026
(WTB 2000).
41

See 700 MHz Guard Bands Auction Closes: Winning Bidders Announced, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 4590 (WTB
2001).
42

See Reallocation and Service Rules for the 698–746 MHz Spectrum Band (Television Channels 52–59), GN
Docket No. 01-74, Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 1022 (2002) (Channels 52–59 Report and Order).
43

See id. at 1087-88, para. 172.

See id.

128

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

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.45 The SBA approved these small size
standards.46 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.47 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.48 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.49 On July 26, 2005, the Commission
completed an auction of 5 licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band (Auction No. 60). There were three
winning bidders for five licenses. All three winning bidders claimed small business status.
16.
In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700 MHz band in the 700
MHz Second Report and Order.50 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.51 Twenty winning bidders,
claiming small business status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that exceed $15
million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years) won 49 licenses. Thirty three
winning bidders claiming very small business status (those with attributable average annual gross
revenues that do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) won 325 licenses.
17.
Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. In the 700 MHz Second Report and Order, the
Commission revised its rules regarding Upper 700 MHz licenses.52 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.53 The auction concluded on March 18, 2008, with 3 winning bidders
claiming very small business status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do not
exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) and winning five licenses.
18.

Advanced Wireless Services. AWS Services (1710–1755 MHz and 2110–2155 MHz

See id., at 1088, para. 173.

See Alvarez Letter 1999.

See Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes, Public Notice, 17 FCC Rcd 17272 (WTB 2002).

See id.

Service Rules for the 698–746, 747–762 and 777–792 MHz Band; Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure
Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems; Section 68.4(a) of the Commission’s Rules
Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones; Biennial Regulatory Review—Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27,
and 90 to Streamline and Harmonize Various Rules Affecting Wireless Radio Services; Former Nextel
Communications, Inc. Upper 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules;
Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band; Development
of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety
Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010; Declaratory Ruling on Reporting Requirement under
Commission’s Part 1 Anti-Collusion Rule, WT Docket Nos. 07-166, 06-169, 06-150, 03-264, 96-86, PS Docket No.
06-229, CC Docket No. 94-102, Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289, 15359 n. 434 (2007) (700 MHz
Second Report and Order).
51

See Auction of 700 MHz Band Licenses Closes, Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 4572 (WTB 2008).

700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289.

See Auction of 700 MHz Band Licenses Closes, Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 4572 (WTB 2008).

129

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

bands (AWS-1); 1915–1920 MHz, 1995–2000 MHz, 2020–2025 MHz and 2175–2180 MHz bands (AWS2); 2155–2175 MHz band (AWS-3)). For the AWS-1 bands,54 the Commission has defined a “small
business” as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40
million, and a “very small business” as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding
three years not exceeding $15 million. For AWS-2 and AWS-3, although we do not know for certain
which entities are likely to apply for these frequencies, we note that the AWS-1 bands are comparable to
those used for cellular service and personal communications service. The Commission has not yet
adopted size standards for the AWS-2 or AWS-3 bands but proposes to treat both AWS-2 and AWS-3
similarly to broadband PCS service and AWS-1 service due to the comparable capital requirements and
other factors, such as issues involved in relocating incumbents and developing markets, technologies, and
services.55
19.
Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. Broadband Radio Service
systems, previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel Multipoint
Distribution Service (MMDS) systems, and “wireless cable,” transmit video programming to subscribers
and provide two-way high speed data operations using the microwave frequencies of the Broadband
Radio Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) (previously referred to as the
Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)).56 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.57 The BRS auctions resulted
in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 67
auction winners, 61 met the definition of a small business. BRS also includes licensees of stations
authorized prior to the auction. At this time, we estimate that of the 61 small business BRS auction
winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA
authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small entities.58
After adding the number of small business auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees not
already counted, we find that there are currently approximately 440 BRS licensees that are defined as
small businesses under either the SBA or the Commission’s rules.
20.
In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78 licenses in the BRS
areas.59 The Commission offered three levels of bidding credits: (i) a bidder with attributed average
54

The service is defined in section 90.1301 et seq. of the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR § 90.1301 et seq.

See Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 02-353,
Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 25162, Appx. B (2003), modified by Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services
in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 02-353, Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC Rcd 14058, Appx.
C (2005); Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1915–1920 MHz, 1995–2000 MHz, 2020–2025 MHz
and 2175–2180 MHz Bands; Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, WT
Docket Nos. 04-356, 02-353, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 19263, Appx. B (2005); Service Rules
for Advanced Wireless Services in the 2155–2175 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 07-195, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 17035, Appx. (2007).
56

Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint
Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and Implementation of Section 309(j) of the
Communications Act—Competitive Bidding, MM Docket No. 94-131, PP Docket No. 93-253, Report and Order, 10
FCC Rcd 9589, 9593, para. 7 (1995).
57

47 CFR § 21.961(b)(1).

47 USC § 309(j). Hundreds of stations were licensed to incumbent MDS licensees prior to implementation of
Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 USC § 309(j). For these pre-auction licenses, the applicable
standard is SBA’s small business size standard of 1500 or fewer employees.
59

Auction of Broadband Radio Service (BRS) Licenses, Scheduled for October 27, 2009, Notice and Filing
Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments, and Other Procedures for Auction 86, AU Docket No.
09-56, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 8277 (2009).

130

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

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.60 Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with
the sale of 61 licenses.61 Of the ten winning bidders, two bidders that claimed small business status won
4 licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business status won three licenses; and two bidders that
claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses.
21.
In addition, the SBA’s Cable Television Distribution Services small business size
standard is applicable to EBS. There are presently 2,436 EBS licensees. All but 100 of these licenses are
held by educational institutions. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small entities.62
Thus, we estimate that at least 2,336 licensees are small businesses. Since 2007, Cable Television
Distribution Services have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired
Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as follows: “This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using
wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a
combination of technologies.”63 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category,
which is: all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. To gauge small business prevalence for these
cable services we must, however, use the most current census data that are based on the previous category
of Cable and Other Program Distribution and its associated size standard; that size standard was: all such
firms having $13.5 million or less in annual receipts.64 According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there
were a total of 996 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.65 Of this total, 948 firms had
annual receipts of under $10 million, and 48 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25
million.66 Thus, the majority of these firms can be considered small. In the Paging Third Report and
Order, we developed a small business size standard for “small businesses” and “very small businesses”
for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment
payments.67 A “small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has
average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. Additionally, a “very
small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross
60

Id. at 8296 para. 73.

Auction of Broadband Radio Service Licenses Closes, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 86, Down
Payments Due November 23, 2009, Final Payments Due December 8, 2009, Ten-Day Petition to Deny Period,
Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 13572 (2009).
62

The term “small entity” within SBREFA applies to small organizations (nonprofits) and to small governmental
jurisdictions (cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, and special districts with populations of
less than 50,000). 5 USC §§ 601(4)-(6). We do not collect annual revenue data on EBS licensees.
63

U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, “517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” (partial
definition), http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517110&search=2012.
64

13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, Receipts by Enterprise Employment
Size for the United States: 2007, NAICS code 517510 (rel. Nov. 19, 2010).
66

Id.

Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Provide for the Use of the 220-222 MHz Band by the Private
Land Mobile Radio Service, PR Docket No. 89-552, Third Report and Order and Fifth Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 10943, 11068-70, paras. 291-295, 62 FR 16004 (Apr. 3, 1997).

131

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three years.68 The SBA has approved these
small business size standards.69 An auction of Metropolitan Economic Area licenses commenced on
February 24, 2000, and closed on March 2, 2000.70 Of the 985 licenses auctioned, 440 were sold. Fiftyseven companies claiming small business status won. Also, according to Commission data, 365 carriers
reported that they were engaged in the provision of paging and messaging services.71 Of those, we
estimate that 360 are small, under the SBA-approved small business size standard.72
22.
Wireless Communications Service. This service can be used for fixed, mobile,
radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses. The Commission established small business
size standards for the wireless communications services (WCS) auction.73 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.74 The Commission auctioned geographic area
licenses in the WCS service. In the auction, there were seven winning bidders that qualified as “very
small business” entities, and one that qualified as a “small business” entity.
23.
Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment
Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and
television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment,
pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and
broadcasting equipment.75 The Small Business Administration has established a size standard for this
industry of 750 employees or less.76 Census data for 2012 show that 841 establishments operated in this
industry in that year. Of that number, 819 establishments operated with less than 500 employees. 77 Based
on this data, we conclude that a majority of manufacturers in this industry is small.
24.
Software Publishers. Since 2007 these services have been defined within the broad
economic census category of Custom Computer Programming Services; that category is defined as
establishments primarily engaged in writing, modifying, testing, and supporting software to meet the
needs of a particular customer.78 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category,
68

See Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau, FCC, from A. Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Dec. 2, 1998).
69

Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems,
Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration and Third Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 10030, paras. 98107 (1999).
70

Id. at 10085, para. 98.

FCC Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology Division, “Trends in Telephone Service”
at Table 5.3., page 5-5 (Feb. 2007). This source uses data that are current as of October 20, 2005.
72

Id.

Public Notice, “Auction of Wireless Communications Services, Auction Notes and Filing Requirements for 128
WCS Licenses Scheduled for April 15, 1997,” DA 97-386, Feb. 21, 1997.
74

SBA Dec. 2, 1998 Letter.

https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch

13.CFR121.201, NAICS Code 334220

http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2012_US_31SG2&prodTyp
e=table
78

http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch

132

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

which is annual gross receipts of $25 million or less.79 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.80 Based on this data, the Commission concludes that the majority of the businesses engaged in this
industry are small.
25.
NCE and Public Broadcast Stations. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows:
“This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.
These establishments operate television broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and
transmission of programs to the public.”81 The SBA has created a small business size standard for
Television Broadcasting entities, which is: such firms having $13 million or less in annual receipts.82
According to Commission staff review of the BIA Publications, Inc., Master Access Television Analyzer
Database as of May 16, 2003, about 814 of the 1,220 commercial television stations in the United States
had revenues of $12 (twelve) million or less. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business
concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations83 must be included.
Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action,
because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated
companies.
26.
In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be
dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would
establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the
estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply do not exclude any television station from the
definition of a small business on this basis and are therefore over-inclusive to that extent. Also as noted,
an additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned
and operated. We note that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities
and our estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent. There are
also 2,117 low power television stations (LPTV).84 Given the nature of this service, we will presume that
all LPTV licensees qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.
27.
The Commission has, under SBA regulations, estimated the number of licensed NCE
television stations to be 380.85 We note, however, that, in assessing whether a business concern qualifies
as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations86 must be included. Our estimate,
therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the
revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.
The Commission does not compile and otherwise does not have access to information on the revenue of
79

13 CFR Section 121.201

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_54SSSZ1&prod
Type=table
81

U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, “515120 Television Broadcasting” (partial definition);
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF515.HTM.
82

13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 515120.

“Concerns are affiliates of each other when one concern controls or has the power to control the other or a third
party or parties controls or has to power to control both.” 13 CFR § 21.103(a)(1).
84

FCC News Release, “Broadcast Station Totals as of September 30, 2005.”

See Broadcast Station Totals, supra IRFA note 11.

“[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one concern controls or has the power to control the other
or a third party or parties controls or has to power to control both.” 13 CFR § 121.103(a)(1).

133

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many such stations would qualify as small entities.
D.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements

28.
In the WEA Report and Order, we amend our Part 10 rules for Participating CMS
Providers, as defined in the WEA rules, to require them to create and maintain logs of Alert Messages
received at their Alert Gateway from FEMA IPAWS,87 and to make available to emergency management
agencies information about the measures they take to geo-target Alert Messages transmitted by that
agency.88
29.
We consider compliance costs associated with the alert logging and geo-targeting
disclosure rules that we adopt today to be reporting and recordkeeping costs.89 These costs include a onetime expense to establish the Alert Gateway logging capability for the few Participating CMS Providers
that may not already have this capability, and the small, annual expense of automatically generating and
maintaining alert logs, and the potentially larger expense of the employment of a clerical worker to
respond to emergency management agencies’ requests for alert log data or requests for information about
geo-targeting.90 These alert logging and reporting requirements represent a somewhat more lenient
version of the alert logging requirements we proposed in the WEA NPRM.91 To the extent these costs
may still present a burden to non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers, we offer such entities an
extended timeframe for compliance in order to allow them to standardize appropriate gateway behavior
and integrate any updates into their regular technology refresh cycle.92
E.

Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered

30.
The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its conclusions, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule,
or any part thereof, for small entities.”93
31.
The compliance requirements in this WEA Report and Order have been adjusted to
accommodate the special circumstances of non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers with respect to
our WEA geo-targeting requirements and our alert logging requirements. According to the Annual
Competition Report, “there are four nationwide providers in the U.S. with networks that cover a majority
of the population and land area of the country – Verizon Wireless, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile.”94
Consistent with the Annual Competition Report, we refer to other providers with “networks that are
87

See supra Section III.B.1 (Logging Alert Messages at the Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateway).

See supra Section III.B.2 (Narrowing Geo-targeting Requirements).

See supra paras. 101, 102 (discussing the costs of our alert logging requirements).

See id.

See WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13810, para. 56 (proposing to require Participating CMS Providers to log alert
messages with time stamps and error messages, where appropriate, proposing to require that Participating CMS
Providers maintain logs for 90 days and archived logs for 36 months, and seeking comment on how alert logs should
be shared); but see id. (proposing that the Alert Gateway generate monthly system performance statistics).
92

See supra para. 82 (discussing the compliance timeframes for our alert logging rules).

5 USC §§ 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).

Sixteenth Annual Competition Report, 28 FCC Rcd at 3736-37, para. 26; supra note 15.

134

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

limited to regional and local areas” as non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers.95 We allow nonnationwide Participating CMS Providers one year within which to comply with our WEA geo-targeting
rules and two years to comply with our alert logging rules, instead of sixty days from the rules’
publication in the Federal Register, in light of a non-nationwide Participating CMS Provider’s inability to
meet that standard immediately, and our concern that other non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers
may be similarly situated.96 We believe that applying the same rules equally to all entities in this context
is not necessary to alleviate potential confusion from adopting different rules for Participating CMS
Providers because most consumers do not have insight into the relative accuracy of various Participating
CMS Providers geo-targeting capabilities, and because alert logging is not a consumer facing service. We
believe, and the record in this proceeding confirms, that the costs and/or administrative burdens
associated with the rules will not unduly burden small entities, particularly in light of the special
consideration we provide to them. These requirements will implicate no additional legal concerns, and
will require no additional professional assistance for non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers.
32.
Based on our review of the record, we find that it is practicable for all Participating CMS
Providers, including non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers, to implement WEA improvements
without incurring unduly burdensome costs, especially considering the special treatment that we afford
non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers. The WEA Report and Order recognizes that technical and
operational issues must be addressed before compliance can be required, and allows sufficient time for
nationwide and non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers to achieve compliance with today’s rules.
33.
In considering the record received in response to the WEA NPRM, we examined
additional alternatives to ease the burden on non-nationwide EAS Participants. These alternatives
included adopting longer compliance timeframes than those initially proposed; requiring Participating
CMS Providers to support WEA Alert Messages that contain only360 characters, as opposed to 1,380, as
considered by the Updated START Report;97 requiring support for only additional languages that are
currently supported by standards, as opposed to others as initially proposed; and allowing Participating
CMS Providers geo-target an Alert Message to an area that “best approximates” the target area, as
opposed to one that is “no larger than” the target area using device-based geo-fencing techniques, as
proposed. Additionally, the rules adopted in this WEA Report and Order are technologically neutral in
order to enable small entities flexibility to comply with our rules using technologies offered by a variety
of vendors. Finally, we sought further comment on some issues where the record demonstrated that it
would be premature to adopt rules at this time, particularly for non-nationwide CMS Providers.
34.
Finally, in the event that small entities face unique circumstances with respect to these
rules, such entities may request waiver relief from the Commission. Accordingly, we find that we have
discharged our duty to consider the burdens imposed on small entities.
F.

Legal Basis

35.
The legal basis for the actions taken pursuant to this WEA Report and Order is contained
in sections 1, 4(i) and (o), 201, 303(r), 403, and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i) and (o), 201, 303(r), 403, and 606, as well as sections 602(a),(b),(c), (f), 603, 604
and 606 of the WARN Act.
36.
Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the WEA Report and Order,
including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.98 In
95

Sixteenth Annual Competition Report, 28 FCC Rcd at 3736-37, para. 26; supra note 15.

See supra paras. 82, 83 (explaining our rationale for adopting longer compliance timeframes for non-nationwide
Participating CMS Providers with respect to our geo-targeting and alert logging rules).
97

See Updated START Report at 1

See 5 USC § 801(a)(1)(A).

135

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

addition, the Commission will send a copy of the WEA Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the WEA Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries
thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.

136

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

APPENDIX D
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 we have
prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA.
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments
on the Further Notice. We will send a copy of the Further Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).2 In addition, the Further Notice and
IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.3
A.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Final Rules

2.
With this Further Notice, we take another step towards strengthening Wireless
Emergency Alerts (WEA) by proposing revisions to our rules to empower alert originators to participate
more fully in WEA, to empower consumers to make more informed decisions about the kind of WEA
service that their CMS Provider offers, and to enhance the utility of WEA as an alerting tool. Our
proposals fall into four categories, ensuring the provision of effective WEA Alert Messages,
incorporating future technical advancements to improve WEA, developing consumer education tools, and
improving WEA transparency.
3.
Specifically, with respect to ensuring the provision of effective WEA Alert Messages, we
propose to establish clear definitions and requirements for CMS Providers participating in WEA in whole
and in part.4 We ensure the provision of effective WEA Alert Messages by removing language from our
rules that may contribute to emergency management agencies’ uncertainty about WEA’s quality of
service.5 We require Participating CMS Providers to offer subscribers a method of accessing pending
Alert Messages.6 We propose to require that earthquake-related alerts be delivered to the public in fewer
than three seconds.7 We also seek comment on how to leverage the improvements to WEA that we adopt
today to continue to improve WEA’s value during disaster relief efforts.8 With respect to incorporating
future technical advancements into WEA, we seek comment on and propose of a number of technological
innovations that could expand WEA’s multimedia,9 multilingual and geo-targeting capabilities,10
including innovations on 5G networks.11 With respect to developing consumer education tools, we
propose to promote more informed consumer choice through improvements to the point-of-sale
1

See 5 USC § 603. The RFA, see 5 USC §§ 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
2

See 5 USC § 603(a).

Id.

See supra Section IV.A.1 (Defining the Modes of Participation in WEA).

See supra Section IV.A.2 (Infrastructure Functionality).

See supra Section IV.A.3 (Alert Message Preservation).

See supra Section IV.A.4 (Earthquake Alert Prioritization).

See supra Section IV.A.5 (Disaster Relief Messaging).

See supra Section IV.B.1 (Multimedia Alerting).

See supra Section IV.B.2 (Multilingual Alerting); see also supra Section IV.B.3 (Matching the Geographic Target
Area).
11

See supra Section IV.B.4 (WEA on 5G Networks).

137

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

notifications for Participating CMS Providers’ mobile devices,12 and to the WEA interface.13 Finally, we
propose to improve WEA transparency through requiring Participating CMS Providers to disclose their
performance along three key metrics, latency, geo-targeting, and reliability,14 and we seek comment on
whether additional alert logging could be instrumental in allowing them to collect relevant data.15
4.
This Further Notice represents another step towards achieving one of our highest
priorities – “to ensure that all Americans have the capability to receive timely and accurate alerts,
warnings and critical information regarding disasters and other emergencies.”16 This Further Notice also
is consistent with our obligation under Executive Order 13407 to “adopt rules to ensure that
communications systems have the capacity to transmit alerts and warnings to the public as part of the
public alert and warning system,” and our mandate under the Communications Act to promote the safety
of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication.17 We take these steps as part of an
overarching strategy to advance the Nation’s alerting capability, which includes both WEA and the
Emergency Alert System (EAS), to keep pace with evolving technologies and to empower communities
to initiate life-saving alerts.
B.

Legal Basis

5.
The proposed action in this WEA Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is authorized
on the basis of sections 1, 4(i) and (o), 201, 303(r), 403, and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i) and (o), 201, 303(r), 403, and 606, as well as sections 602(a),(b),(c),
(f), 603, 604 and 606 of the WARN Act.
C.

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

6.
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of
the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.18 The RFA generally
defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small
organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”19 In addition, the term “small business” has the
same meaning as the term “small-business concern” under the Small Business Act.20 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.21

See supra Section IV.C.1 (Promoting Informed Consumer Choice at the Point of Sale).

See supra Section IV.C.2 (Promoting Informed Consumer Choice about the Receipt of WEA Alert Messages).

See supra Section IV.D.1 (Annual WEA Performance Reporting).

See supra Section IV.D.2 (Alert Logging Standards and Implementation).

See Lisa Fowlkes, 21st Century Emergency Alerting: Leveraging Multiple Technologies to Bring Alerts and
Warnings to the Public, at 1 (2010), https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/blog/2010/05/26/21st-century-emergencyalerting-leveraging-multiple-technologies-bring (last visited Jul. 21, 2016).
17

See White House, Executive Order 13407, Public Alert and Warning System (2006); 47 USC § 151.

See 5 USC § 603(b)(3).

See 5 USC § 601(6).

See 15 USC § 632.

138

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

7.
See Appendix C, Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for a detailed description of, and
an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be affected by any rules that may be adopted in
response to the FNPRM.
D.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements

8.
This Further Notice proposes new or modified reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
We seek comment on whether the reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements we adopt
today should affect all entities in the same manner, or whether we should make special accommodations
for non-nationwide entities.22
9.
We propose to require Participating CMS Providers to offer potential subscribers notice
at the point of sale that more accurately reflects the extent to which they will offer WEA.23 We propose
to require Participating CMS Providers, to gather, analyze and report on system performance metrics such
as the geo-targeting, latency, and availability and reliability.24 We seek comment on whether to increase
system transparency further by adopting additional alert logging requirements.25 We seek comment on
the costs of compliance with these proposed rules. With respect to our Annual Performance Reporting
Requirements, we also seek comment on whether non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers merit
special consideration as regards their collection of relevant data.26
E.

Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered

10.
The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered
in developing its approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) the
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the
resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance
and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than
design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.”27
11.
As noted in paragraph 1 above, this Further Notice initiates a rulemaking to update the
rules governing the WEA system by which Participating CMS Providers may elect to transmit emergency
alerts to the public, a goal mandated by the WARN Act and consistent with the Commission’s obligation
to protect the lives and property of the public. Primarily, this Further Notice seeks comment on four
general categories of proposed rule changes: ensuring the provision of effective WEA Alert Messages,
incorporating future technical advancements to improve WEA, developing consumer education tools, and
improving WEA transparency.
12.

With respect to ensuring the provision of effective WEA Alert Messages, we seek

See, e,g., supra para.180 (seeking comment on alternative compliance timeframes for non-nationwide
Participating CMS Providers); supra para. 186 (seeking comment on how to minimize costs and burdens,
particularly for non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers).
23

See supra Section IV.C.1 (Promoting Informed Consumer Choice at the Point of Sale).

See supra Section IV.D.1 (Annual WEA Performance Reporting).

See supra Section IV.D.2 (Alert Logging Standards and Implementation).

See supra para. 165 (seeking comment on whether non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers should be subject
to less frequent reporting requirements); supra para. 168 (seeking comment on whether to allow non-nationwide
Participating CMS Providers to collect less granular data); supra para. 169 (seeking comment on whether to remain
implementation agnostic, at least with respect to how non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers collect data).
27

5 USC § 603(c)(1) – (c)(4).

139

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

comment on whether there are any particular considerations that we should take into account when
defining the nature of a Participating CMS Provider’s participation in WEA due to the electing entity’s
size.28 We also seek comment on whether non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers require the
regulatory flexibility implicated by certain provisions of Sections 10.330 and 10.500, and if so, whether
we should retain the flexibility that the current language of those rules may provide only as applicable to
them.29 With respect to incorporating technical advancements to improve WEA, we seek comment on
whether support for additional languages would be unduly burdensome for non-nationwide Participating
CMS Providers, and if so, whether there are steps that we can take to accommodate these entities to make
compliance more feasible.30 We also seek comment on whether alternative geo-targeting standards would
be appropriate for non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers.31 With respect to developing consumer
education tools, we seek comment on whether we should give special consideration to non-nationwide
entities if we were to require Participating CMS Providers to offer a consistent menu of opt-out choices,
and on whether non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers should be required to make more lenient
disclosures at the point of sale.32 Finally, with respect to improving WEA transparency, we propose the
use of performance, rather than design standards to collect information relevant to our analysis of WEA’s
system integrity.33 We also seek comment on whether it would be appropriate to adopt an alternative, less
frequent reporting requirement for non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers, and on whether such
Participating CMS Providers should also be allowed to collect less granular data on system performance
in order to reduce any cost burdens entailed by these proposed recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.34
F.

Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules

13.

None.

See supra para. 110 (seeking comment on whether and how to mitigate disclosure burdens for non-nationwide
Participating CMS Providers for disclosures related to their participation in WEA).
29

See supra para. 114 (seeking comment on whether, if we remove certain language from our rules, we should
retain flexibility for non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers).
30

See supra para. 137 (seeking comment on whether to make special accommodations for non-nationwide
Participating CMS Providers with respect to their multilingual service offerings).
31

See supra para.140 (seeking comment on whether non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers should be subject
to alternative geo-targeting accuracy requirements).
32

See supra para. 158 (seeking comment on whether to make accommodations for non-nationwide Participating
CMS Providers with respect to the consumer opt-out menu).
33

See supra para. 169 (seeking comment on whether to remain implementation agnostic, at least with respect to how
non-nationwide Participating CMS Providers collect data).
34

140

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

APPENDIX E

List of Commenters to the Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) NPRM
PS Docket 15-91

Initial Commenters

Abbreviation

AC&C, LLC

AC&C

AccuWeather, Inc.

Adolph Holmes

Art Botterrell

Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials

APCO

Ashtabula County Emergency Management Agency

Ashtabula County EMA

AT&T Services Inc.

AT&T

Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions

ATIS

Andrew Brown

AWARN Coalition

Beaufort County Emergency Management,
Fire Marshal & Emergency Services

Beaufort County

Bosque County Office of Emergency Management

Bosque County OEM

Boulder Regional Emergency Telephone Service Authority

BRETSA

Calcasieu Parish Police Jury Office of Homeland Security
and Emergency Preparedness

Calcasieu Parish

California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services

California Governor’s OES

Carter County Emergency Management

Carter County EM

Cellular Telephone Industries Association

CTIA

City of Austin Homeland Security and Emergency Management

Austin HSEM

City of Henderson, Nevada Office of Emergency Management

Henderson OEM

City of Houston Office of Public Safety and Homeland Security

Houston OPHS

City of Lexington, Division of Emergency Management
of Emergency Management

City of Lexington, Division

City of Peoria Emergency Communications Center

Peoria ECC

141

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

Clark County Office of Emergency Management

CCOEM

Cochise County Office of Emergency Services

Cochise County OES

County of San Joaquin Office of Emergency Services

San Joaquin OES

Denver Office of Emergency Management

Denver OEMHS

Department of Homeland Security – FEMA

FEMA

Douglas County, WA Emergency Management

Douglas County EMA

Douglas Hilton

Eagle County, Colorado Emergency Management

Eagle County EM

Eliot Christian

Emergency Communications Network

ECN

Emmis Communications Corporation

Emmis

Eric Brewer

Florida Department of Law Enforcement

FL Law Enforcement

Fort Riley Emergency Management

Fort Riley EM

Franklin William Bell

Gary Timm

Global Security Systems, LLC

GSS

Harris County Office of Homeland Security
& Emergency Management

Harris County OHSEM

Hisham Kissab

Indiana Department of Homeland Security

Indiana DHS

International Association of Firefighters

IAFC

Iowa Flood Center at the University of Iowa

Iowa Flood Center

Jefferson Parish Emergency Management

Jefferson Parish EM

Kansas City Emergency Management

Kansas City EM

Karen Kempert

Kathi Metzler

Ken Daughtry

Kimball Croft

Kimberly Prosser

Kimberly Prosser
142

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

Kristin Card

Krown Manufacturing

Lew Pettit

Lloyd Colston

Lloyd Ewing

Los Angeles Emergency Management Department

Los Angeles EMD

Mark Maxwell

Mark Wood

Martinsville-Henry County 911 Communication Center
Maryland Emergency Management Agency

Martinsville-Henry County
Maryland EMA

Mason County Emergency Management

Mason County EM

Matanuska-Susitna Borough

Matthew Biddle

Michelle Lloyd

Microsoft Corporation

Microsoft

Mona Barnes

Nathan Garibay

National Association of Broadcasters and National Public Radio

NAB & NPR

National Center for Missing & Exploited Children

NCMEC

National Public Safety Telecommunications Council

NPSTC

Nebraska State Emergency Communication Committee

Nebraska SECC

New York City Emergency Management

NYCEM

Newaygo County Emergency Services

Newaygo County EM

NOAA/National Weather Service

NWS

Northern Illinois University Environmental Health
and Safety Department

N. Illinois University EHSD

Omaha-Douglas County Emergency Management Agency

Omaha-Douglas Cnty. EMA

Osage County Emergency Management Agency

Osage County EMA

Patrick Harvey

Pinellas County Emergency Management

Pinellas County EM
143

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

Public Broadcasting Service,
PBS, APTS, and CPB
Association of Public Television Stations, and Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Ron Wolbert

Ron Wolbert

Sam Asher Computing Services, Inc. dba Hyper-Reach

Hyper-Reach

San Antonio Office of Emergency Management

San Antonio OEM

San Francisco International Airport Safety & Security Services

San Francisco Int’l Airport

Sprint Corporation

Sprint

Steve Mathews

Sylvia Murdolo

T-Mobile USA, Inc.

T-Mobile

TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.

Telecommunication Systems

Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc.

TDI

The Weather Company

Tom Doering

Tom Glass

University of Southern Mississippi
Department of Geography and Geology

University of S. Mississippi

United States Coast Guard

USCG

United States Geological Survey

USGS

Vail Public Safety Communications Center
and Vail Police Department

Vail PSCC and PD

Ventura County Sheriff Office of Emergency Services

Ventura County Sheriff EMS

Verizon

Washoe County Emergency Management
and Homeland Security

Washoe County EMHS

Winnebago County Emergency Management

Winnebago County EM

Wireless RERC

Wyoming Department of Transportation

Wyoming DOT

Zane Steves

144

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

Reply Commenters

Abbreviation

Boulder Regional Emergency Telephone Service Authority

BRETSA

Cellular Telephone Industries Association

CTIA

Harris County Office of Homeland Security
& Emergency Management

Harris County OHSEM

Hubbard Radio, LLC

Hubbard

Microsoft Corporation

Microsoft

Sprint Corporation

Sprint

T-Mobile USA, Inc.

T-Mobile

Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc.

TDI

Ex Parte Filers

Abbreviation

Aaron Conti

Advanced Computer and Communications, LLC

AC&C

Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions

ATIS

Apple Inc.

Apple

Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials

APCO

AT&T Services Inc.

AT&T

BlackBerry Corporation

Blackberry

Bluegrass Cellular, Inc.

Bluegrass

Boulder Regional Emergency Telephone Service Authority

BRETSA

Calhoun County Emergency Management Agency

Calhoun Co. EMA

Carnegie Mellon University – Silicon Valley

CMU-SV

Catherine Clubb-Brown

Cellular South (dba C Spire)

C Spire

Cellular Telephone Industries Association

CTIA

City of Houston Office of Emergency Management

Houston OEM

City of Houston Office of Public Safety
and Homeland Security

Houston PS&HS

City of Los Angeles Emergency Management Department

LA EMD

145

Federal Communications Commission

City of San Francisco Department of Emergency Management

SF DEM

City of Seattle Office of Emergency Management

Seattle OEM

Competitive Carriers Association

CCA

Comtech Telecommunications Corp.

Comtech

CTIA

Denis Gusty, Department of Homeland Security

Denis Gusty

Dennis Mileti

FCC 16-127

Denver Office of Emergency Management & Homeland Security Denver OEMHS
Department of Homeland Security – FEMA

FEMA

Disability Advisory Committee

DAC

District of Columbia Homeland Security
& Emergency Management Agency

DC HSEMA

Emergency Communications Network

ECN

Everbridge

Gary Bootay

Harris County Office of Homeland Security
& Emergency Management

Harris County OHSEM

Indiana Statewide 911 Board

Indiana 911 Board

inPhase Wireless

inPhase

Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management

Iowa HS & EM

Jacob Epstein

location.io RX Networks

location.io

Mark Wood

Mayco Ayala

Microsoft Corporation

Microsoft

Nassau County Office of Emergency Management

Nassau Co. OEM

National Alliance of State Broadcasters Associations

State Broadcasters Assoc.

National Association of Broadcasters

NAB

National Center for Missing & Exploited Children

NCMEC

New York City Emergency Management Department

NYCEM

146

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

New York City Fire Department

NYFD

New York City Office of the Mayor

Mayor Bill de Blasio

New York City Police Department

NYPD

NOAA/National Weather Service

NWS

Nolan Peek

Nsighttel Wireless, LLC (dba Cellcom)

Cellcom

Public Broadcasting Service

PBS

Public Broadcasting Service,
Association of Public Television Stations,
and Corporation for Public Broadcasting

PBS, APTS, and CPB

Public Broadcasting Service and Wavetech Services LLC

PBS and Wavetech

Riverside Fire Department Office of Emergency Management;
New York City Emergency Management; Harris County Office
of Homeland Security & Emergency Management; Calhoun
County Emergency Management Agency; AC&C,
LLC; Federal Emergency Management Agency

Riverside FDOEM; NYCEM;
Harris County OSHEM;
Calhoun Co. EMA; AC&C;
FEMA

Robert Kluver

Sean Avne

Sean Digiacomo

SecuLore Solutions, LLC

SecuLore Solutions

State of Alaska

Alaska

Sylvana Berry

Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc.,
TDI, NAD, DHHCAN,
National Association of the Deaf, Deaf and Hard of Hearing
HLAA, ALDA, and DHHConsumer Advocacy Network, Hearing Loss
RERC
Association of America, Association of Late-Deafened Adults,
Inc., and Gallaudet University Rehabilitation Engineering
Research Center on Technology for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Telecommunications Industry Association

TIA

United States Cellular Corporation

U.S. Cellular

Verizon

William W. Shields

147

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

APPENDIX F
Model Opt-out Menu for WEA-capable Mobile Devices
We are including the relevant portion of NWS’s May 3, 2016 Ex Parte Letter for the purpose of
illustrating one potential approach to revising the WEA application interface. The entire filing can be
found in PS Docket No. 15-91.

148

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

APPENDIX G
New York City Emergency Management (NYCEM)
Local WEA Geo-targeting and Latency Test Reports
We are including the relevant portion of NYCEM’s Apr. 26, 2016 Ex Parte Letter for the purpose of
illustrating geo-targeting, latency and reliability of the WEA system as currently implemented, as well as
the capacity to produce reports on such metrics. The entire filing can be found in PS Docket No. 15-91.

149

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

150

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

151

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 16-127

APPENDIX H
Sample CMAC Attribute Alert Log
We are including the relevant portion of AT&T Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte Letter for the purpose of
illustrating alert logging that currently occurs. The entire filing can be found in PS Docket No. 15-91.
Message
type
NEW

Parameter
Name

Parameter Value

Message
Number

A6D00660

Sent Date
Time

Tue Feb 23 23:52:22 CST 2016

File Type	application/pdf
File Title	Microsoft Word - 161606
File Modified	0000-00-00
File Created	2016-09-29