Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

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: Chairwoman Rosenworcel issuing a statement.

I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................1

II. BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................................4

III. DISCUSSION........................................................................................................................................10

I. INTRODUCTION

warnings that commercial mobile service providers (CMS Providers) deliver to the mobile devices of

people within the United States have become an integral part of our nation’s emergency preparedness and

response infrastructure.

1

than 78,000 times.

2

When disasters occur, people regularly credit WEA messages for notifying them that

use WEA because they do not understand or have confidence in how the system will perform in their

jurisdictions during an emergency.

5

Further, under our current rules, alerting authorities can only send

WEA messages in English and Spanish,

provided they have the in-house language capability to compose

1

2

3

5

6

alert messages in that language.

would still leave the approximately 26 million people living in the United States who do not primarily

speak English or Spanish at risk for not understanding the potentially life-saving information conveyed by

alert messages.

information during emergencies.

and that alerting authorities better understand WEA performance. Accordingly, we propose to require

CMS Providers that have elected to participate in WEA (Participating CMS Providers) take measures to:

Through these proposals, we intend to help the millions of people who primarily speak languages other

than English or Spanish, as well as those with disabilities, better understand and take protective actions in

response to WEA messages;

options for the alerting authority and consumer; and provide alerting authorities with the information they

need to use WEA with confidence.

II. BACKGROUND

geographically target alerts and warnings to WEA-capable mobile devices of Participating CMS

9

10

voluntary system in which CMS providers may elect to participate and gives the Commission authority to

adopt “relevant technical standards, protocols, procedures and other technical requirements . . . necessary

to enable commercial mobile service alerting capability for commercial mobile service providers that

voluntarily elect to transmit emergency alerts.”

Pursuant to this authority, the Commission has adopted

requirements to prescribe WEA capabilities, WEA testing, and WEA election procedures.

12

While

Protocol to the FEMA-operated Alert Aggregator (IPAWS Open) 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).

Participating CMS Providers by being converted to Commercial Mobile Alert for C-Interface (CMAC)

format to render it readable by CMS networks. The alert message is then disseminated across a secure

are received.

In 2018, the Commission sought additional comment on how WEA’s performance should

be measured and reported, and how the Commission should address inconsistent WEA delivery.

25

In

2022, the Commission sought to refresh the issue of developing metrics for WEA performance and

reporting standards to assist stakeholders with understanding the effectiveness of WEA in their alerting

areas, and identify areas for improvement.

26

natural disasters, and examined the Commission’s oversight of WEA in particular.

WEA usage has increased and now serves as the nation’s primary alerting method.

while the FCC collects test data from Emergency Alert System (EAS) tests,

not exist for WEA.

identifying areas where performance is lacking, which could undermine authorities’ confidence in using

IPAWS.”

32

Accordingly, GAO recommended that the FCC should develop measurable goals and

performance measures for WEA.

33

In response, the Commission stated it would “complete geo-targeting

24

26

27

30

31

32

33

pilot testing with selected local jurisdiction partner(s)” and “complete associated rulemaking to adopt

performance measures for enhanced WEA capabilities, as appropriate.”

34

(CSRIC) has studied and reported on various aspects of the WEA system. In 2014, CSRIC IV discussed

recommended automated performance data reporting via email and discussed alternative ways to

implement WEA performance reporting, including through the use of staged devices.

37

CSRIC VII also

recommended enhancements to WEA messages such as support for machine-based translation, location

aware maps, and other multimedia content.

38

III. DISCUSSION

may be excluded during emergencies if they are not notified in a manner that they can understand. We

tentatively conclude that WEA needs to do more to deliver essential warnings in languages and in a

ensure that their subscribers’ WEA-capable mobile devices have the capacity to translate English-

language alert messages that they receive into the default language preferences of most subscribers by

taking advantage of machine translation technologies. This proposal would address alerting authorities’

need to be able to communicate with people in their communities in languages other than English or

Spanish, irrespective of the alerting authorities’ in-house language translation capabilities.

34

38

39

from industry participants, we believe machine translation technologies have matured sufficiently to

support such a requirement.

technologies are sufficiently mature to effectively support the translation of WEA alerts into the most

commonly spoken languages” and recommended that “translation beyond English and Spanish use the

44

operate with a high-enough degree of accuracy to safely enable multilingual WEAs”); Darah Franklin, Counsel,

44

45

feasible for Participating CMS Providers to support the transmission of a data element that triggers

mobile devices to display pre-installed, translated alert content. Could this same technological approach

be leveraged to prompt mobile devices upon receipt of a WEA alert to display other media content pre-

installed on the mobile device, such as infographics? Alerting authorities ask the Commission to enable

WEA messages to include a symbol set designed for emergency communications, such as that developed

by the National Alliance for Public Safety GIS (NAPSG) Foundation and endorsed by FEMA IPAWS.

When the Commission sought comment on these issues in 2016 and 2018,

this proposal, stating that hazard symbols would “allow for quicker comprehension and therefore increase

accessibility, including for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, deafblind, and deaf with mobility

issues.”

for people with disabilities, those with limited English proficiency, and the whole community.”

consumer education,

but CSRIC VIII recommends that “WEA message presentation include a

standardized symbol representative of the event,” and recommends that ATIS, public warning risk

communications experts, and social scientists should develop standards and best practices and choose a

symbol set to use.

If we do require Participating CMS Providers to support the inclusion of symbols in

WEA messages, should we require them to support a specific symbol set? If so, which one? As a

87

authorities more flexibility in how WEA messages are presented to accommodate different emergencies,

while ensuring that people with disabilities are afforded access to information. We also propose measures

to prevent unnecessary consumer opt-out and facilitate more effective public awareness testing. We seek

comment on these proposals and on any additional measures that the Commission can take to ensure that

WEA is a suitable tool to mitigate loss of life and property damage during today’s most serious

the WEA audio attention signal and vibration cadence could prevent the use of WEA during an active

shooter scenario, where the attention signal and vibration could draw the attacker’s attention to those who

need to stay hidden to stay safe.

92

The mandatory presentation of these signals might also result in user

such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Accordingly, we propose to require that Participating CMS Providers

be able to send WEA messages, at the alerting authority’s option, without triggering the audio attention

signal and the vibration cadence.

We seek comment on the relative benefits and burdens of this

proposal, if adopted. Would providing alerting authorities the ability to customize how WEA messages

95

comment on whether an alert received without the attention signal and/or vibration cadence could fail to

grab alert recipients’ attention during time-sensitive active shooter situations.

authorities to be able to suppress the presentation of the WEA attention signal with the need to present

have received an emergency alert. Should we limit the suppression of the attention signal and/or the

vibration cadence to specific circumstances (e.g., active shooter) situations only, and if so, what should

those situations be? Or, should we defer to the alerting authority to best accommodate and balance

competing considerations without limitation? If we adopt requirements that WEA support text-to-speech,

no chance of receiving potentially life-saving emergency instructions through WEA. To remedy this, we

propose to require Participating CMS Providers to provide their subscribers with the option to durably

turn off WEA’s audio attention signal and vibration cadence for all alerts. The Commission’s rules allow

for consumers to be able to mute the audio attention signal and vibration cadence.

98

choice by allowing consumers to receive WEAs with the audio attention signal and vibration cadence

Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, and the New York City Emergency Management Department

support allowing consumers to change their WEA delivery preferences, including by allowing them to

98

receive WEAs without the attendant audio attention signal and vibration cadence.

the record on this issue. How do mobile device manufacturers operationalize silencing the WEA audio

attention signal and vibration cadence when users set their devices to “do not disturb” mode? What other

options do consumers have to personalize the audio attention signal and vibration cadence? We

tentatively conclude that Participating CMS Providers should work with mobile device manufacturers to

safety and consumer benefits would attend this proposal, if adopted? We note, however, that if the rule is

manufacturers to support such a re-set and update? Could such a re-set take place without affecting other

settings on a user’s device (e.g., location)? Should the customer be made aware of the attempted re-set,

and if so, how? We seek comment on any alternatives that would help to ensure that the public is able to

promote unnecessary WEA opt-out? We seek comment on alternative ways in which unnecessary

consumer opt-out can be mitigated or prevented.

100

101

102

WEA test, where members of the public receive the test message by default, without receiving a waiver of

the Commission’s rules. In contrast, the Commission’s rules allow EAS Participants to participate in two

Live Code Tests per calendar year, provided that the entity conducting the test takes specified actions to

make clear that the alert being sent is only a test.

are valuable tools for system readiness testing and proficiency training. To the extent State/Local WEA

believe we can identify circumstances where it is beneficial for consumers to receive WEA test messages

by default without conducting a case-by-case evaluation of waiver requests, going forward. Thus, we

propose to authorize Participating CMS Providers to support up to two end-to-end WEA tests (in which

consumers receive test messages by default) per alerting authority each year, provided that the alerting

authority: 1) conducts outreach and notifies the public in advance of the planned WEA test and that no

emergency is, in fact, occurring; 2) includes in its test message that the alert is only a test; 3) coordinates

the test among Participating CMS Providers, state and local emergency authorities, relevant State

are the same conditions that attend alerting authorities’ conduct of EAS Live Code Tests and the

Commission has routinely conditioned waiver its rules to conduct public awareness exercises on these

criteria.

We seek comment on whether we should condition authorization on alerting authorities

107

conducting certain types of outreach or on the outreach being completed a certain period of time before

transmitting the test. We also seek comment on whether, as an additional condition to conduct public

awareness exercises, alerting authorities should have to keep records on how they comply with the above-

mentioned four conditions, and produce these records if requested by a Participating CMS Provider or the

Commission. We believe that, by authorizing Participating CMS Providers to support up to two tests per

our rules facilitate more seamless joint exercises of EAS and the WEA system?

Would they make the

WEA system a more powerful tool for proactively warning the public in advance of emergencies,

ultimately preparing them to take more effective protective actions in the event that an emergency

actually occurs? We also seek comment on how this amendment of the rules may affect alert fatigue.

Are the proposed rules restrictive enough to mitigate potential alert fatigue? Recognizing that alerting

authorities may have overlapping jurisdictions (e.g., a city, within a county, within a state), should we

limit the number of tests to two per county (or other geographic area) per year, to ensure that alerting

emergency situations likely to occur while mitigating the risk of alert fatigue?

availability and performance information through the development of a Commission-hosted WEA

Database. At present, to access information about WEA’s availability in their jurisdictions, alerting

authorities and the public must review all of the WEA election letters filed with the Commission. Even

in part and their level of support for WEA geographically and on different types of mobile devices. We

anticipate that the WEA Database would be an interactive portal where CMS Providers submit

Database to be effective in providing a full understanding of WEA coverage, we propose the database

should identify which CMS Providers offer WEA, in what geographic areas, and on which devices. In

addition, this information must be current.

identify whether they elect to participate in WEA in whole or in part, or whether they elect not to

participate. If a CMS Provider elects to participate in part or not to participate at all, we propose that they

108

109

provide an explanation or basis for this decision using free form text. CMS Providers should submit their

election in the WEA Database regardless of whether they have previously filed in the docket. We

propose that CMS Providers should also identify the entities on behalf of which they are filing. We seek

comment on this proposal. It is often difficult for the Commission and alerting authorities to know which

service providers are participating in WEA because CMS Providers take inconsistent approaches to

standpoint of an alerting authority trying to plan for how it will reliably communicate with the public

during an emergency. For example, during this past wildfire season, alerting authorities and the

Commission struggled to identify whether the non-delivery of WEA alert messages in New Mexico was

due to service degradation or the Participating CMS Providers’ choice not to transmit WEA alert

messages in the affected counties.

Providers support WEA be helpful to alerting authorities during situations like the New Mexico

wildfires?

in whole, we propose to represent their geographic service area using the voice geographical information

system (GIS) coverage area, which CMS Providers submit to the Commission as their mobile voice

110

111

112

consumers into thinking they will receive a WEA where they will not. We seek comment on this

approach. For those CMS Providers that do not support WEA through their entire geographic service

area, we propose to require them to submit a GIS polygon coverage area that most accurately represents

their WEA coverage area. We seek comment on whether these proposals would represent a cost-effective

and accurate approach to reporting WEA availability, in a manner that would be readily understood by

with additional information about WEA delivery to be useful to alerting authorities? For example,

because our WEA rules require Participating CMS Providers to support WEA for roaming subscribers,

whether to require Participating CMS Providers to provide a list of their roaming partners via the WEA

database to allow the database to compile that coverage area information. Further, it is unclear from the

record whether mobile assets (e.g., cells on wheels (COWs), cells on light trucks (COLTs)) deployed to

Reporting System (DIRS) regarding a particular emergency also include information about whether any

COWs and COLTs deployed support WEA?

We seek comment on the benefit to alerting authorities of

knowing whether COWS/COLTS deployed in their area support WEA. Would the value of this

information be enhanced if Participating CMS Providers also disclosed the location of those deployable

technologies (e.g., a CMS Provider sends WEA messages on its 5G network, but not its 3G network)?

Are there other kinds of information about WEA availability that CMS providers should be required to

report, and if so, how would that information assist alerting authorities in protecting the public? We also

seek comment on how this information, if required, should be reported to ease burdens and promote

uniformity in reporting. For example, for network technology information, should CMS Providers be

presented with simple checkboxes to indicate whether they offer WEA on all deployed generations of

wireless network technology or on all available deployable mobile assets? Should the Commission use

Participating CMS Providers’ technology specific shapefiles submitted as part of the BDC for this

purpose?

114

115

rarely share information about the mobile devices that are capable of receiving WEA messages. While

this information is provided by CMS Providers at the point of sale,

116

it is prohibitively difficult for

alerting authorities to aggregate that information from all possible points of sale, including by third-party

retailers. For this reason, we propose to require Participating CMS Providers to report in the WEA

with visibility into WEA capabilities of the mobile devices operating on the Participating CMS Provider’s

network but that they do not sell? Do all versions of a given make and model of mobile device have the

same WEA capabilities, irrespective of where they are sold? Or, does a mobile device’s WEA

capabilities depend on firmware specific to Participating CMS Providers? We seek comment on any

alternative approaches that might further reduce reporting burdens. We particularly encourage

commenters to address other ways the Commission may leverage data CMS Providers already submit to

the Commission to alleviate any burden attendant to reporting this information.

WEA’s effectiveness, such as supporting a 360-character message length or the inclusion of URLs. We

WEA functionality, consumers might be confused and mistakenly believe that all “WEA-capable” mobile

capable mobile device” as a mobile device that is compliant with the Part 10, Subpart E equipment

requirements, and to make explicit that WEA-capable mobile devices must support the alert message

Does Figure 2 accurately capture the data elements and their respective locations where Participating

CMS Providers could potentially log them to measure WEA’s performance? Is it technically feasible for

Participating CMS Providers to log each of the data elements that currently reside in their network during

WEA transmission, because Participating CMS Providers already log many such data elements under our

rules?

Participating CMS Providers, can be used to demonstrate WEA’s performance. One approach would be

for Participating CMS Providers to submit data to the Commission’s WEA Database regarding the

capable of receiving an alert and opted into sharing WEA performance information; the number of WEA-

receiving an alert (e.g., mobile devices that meet the foregoing criteria and are connected to the cell

facility that initially transmits the WEA message); the number of such devices located inside and outside

the area that are opted into presenting the alert; and the number of those devices inside and outside of the

area that presented the alert. Could the Commission use this data to calculate the percentage of devices in

approach would be for Participating CMS Providers to also submit to the Commission’s WEA Database

the times at which mobile devices received and presented an alert, as well as the time when the alert was

received at a Participating CMS Provider’s alert gateway. Could the Commission use this data to

calculate WEA’s speed? Are there any other ways the Commission should use these or other data

elements to measure WEA performance?

and “cannot be obtained without a complete redesign of existing cellular technology,” we observe that a

cell site can generate a record, at any given time, of how many mobile devices are attached to it.

139

seek comment on this assessment. We also seek comment on CSRIC VIII’s view that it is not possible

for Participating CMS Providers to know the number of devices in a targeted area that have opted into

sharing WEA performance data.

Is CSRIC VIII correct? What steps could be taken to improve the

ability to Participating CMS Providers to obtain this information? CSRIC VIII finds that WEA-capable

mobile devices currently do not know whether they are receiving the first WEA broadcast or a later WEA

140

broadcast.

Could Participating CMS Providers take measures to enable devices to identify the initial

transmission?

devices, as contemplated by CSRIC VIII.

from data derived at the device level from real WEA activations? Would there be any limitations to the

public safety benefits of measuring performance using staged devices? We seek comment on whether

there would be any cost or time savings attendant to this approach if Participating CMS Providers had to

update network and mobile device firmware to measure WEA’s performance using staged devices.

145

143

144

145

146

providers were required to collect precise location information to satisfy WEA reporting obligations, we

would require CMS providers to protect that information subject to the same statutory and regulatory

duties that apply to the most sensitive CPNI.

We seek comment on this approach. We also seek

comment on the other specific data elements that CMS Providers would need to collect to satisfy their

reporting obligations and the extent to which the information types collected could be minimized to

functions to further anonymize the data collected? We seek comment on other potential privacy impact

mitigations. Our intent is to ensure that any approach to collecting performance data would not change

wireless providers’ existing access to mobile device location data or change the compliance status of their

convey WEA performance reporting information from Participating CMS Providers to an alerting

authority or a centralized reporting location for each sent WEA.

WEA performance information communicated by email directly to alerting authorities, either in addition

worked out between alerting authorities, PBS, and Participating CMS Providers.

150

submit WEA performance data to the WEA Database? To reduce the risk of wireless service

performance degradation during an emergency, should Participating CMS Providers collect and report

WEA performance data sufficiently outside of any actual activation of WEA? For example, Participating

147

148

149

150

CMS Providers could submit data to the WEA Database within 24 hours of the issuance of the WEA

message or State/Local WEA Test to which the performance data pertains. Would it be feasible for

Participating CMS Providers to delay collecting WEA performance information until off-peak network

hours? CSRIC VIII raises concerns, however, that “[e]ven delayed automated reporting, triggered at a

later time, carries that possibility of localized congestion during the reporting period.”

minimizing burdens on CMS Providers. We propose that WEA elections and WEA performance data be

filed electronically using a web-based interface and, if feasible, an application programming interface

(API). In addition to an API, what other tools or features should we consider when designing the data

example, would Participating CMS Providers prefer to submit information regarding the WEA-capable

mobile devices they support either through a file upload or through a form, or should both options be

available?

originators’ need to better understand WEA performance in their respective areas, we propose to enable

the WEA Database to provide information about WEA availability and performance. With respect to

WEA availability information, we seek to ensure that the public has access to information about which

service providers offer WEA, in which locations, and on what devices, so they are empowered to make

the right decisions for their unique needs when they choose a mobile device and service plan. We seek

comment on this proposal, and on whether the use of the WEA database is the most effective manner to

understand WEA’s reach when planning whether and how to use WEA during emergencies, thus

increasing its value as a tool to protect life and property.

competitively sensitive, we do not propose to use the WEA Database to disclose the number of WEA-

transmits the alert message. We seek comment on this approach. We anticipate that using a dedicated

database would be more efficient than the current practice of searching for WEA elections that have been

filed directly in a docket one-by-one and downloading individual election letters, which are unlikely to be

uniform in how they make their elections. We seek comments on our views. What alternative steps could

Broadband Data Collection. Similarly, many Participating CMS Providers already make publicly

Providers’ performance in the WEA Database should be treated confidentially when information about

WEA’s performance is already publicly available.

provides that “[u]pon request from an emergency management agency, a Participating CMS Provider will

federal FOIA.” Notwithstanding the fact that nationwide Participating CMS Providers have established

contact information purposefully identified for WEA geo-targeting inquiries, alerting authorities have had

difficulty obtaining this information. Accordingly, if the WEA performance reporting proposal we offer

today is adopted, we propose to have it replace the existing requirement that Participating CMS Providers

DIRS? Should any aspects of those procedures differ for the WEA database?

associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein. Specifically, we seek comment on how our

proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as well the

scope of the Commission’s relevant legal authority.

of these proposals, we seek comment on whether it would be appropriate to allow CMS Providers that are

small- or medium-sized businesses additional time to comply. We seek comment on how we should

Participating CMS Providers’ WEA-capable mobile devices to translate English-language alert messages

that they receive into the subscriber’s default language preference, we propose to set a compliance date of

30 months after the publication of final rules in the Federal Register. Depending on the approach used by

Participating CMS Providers to satisfy this requirement, compliance with this proposal would necessitate

updates to standards and firmware. We also note that CSRIC VIII directed ATIS to conduct a study to

determine a feasible, accurate, and effective method for enhancing language support.

The Commission

has previously reasoned that it takes industry 30 months to comply with rules that implicate the need for

machine-based translation approach to increasing WEA’s language support, as contemplated by this

Further Notice, is likely to only require updates to mobile devices, not to the CMS network, which

potentially means less standards and firmware development would be needed. If the record supports the

WEA alerts and the integration of location-aware maps would implicate updates to standards and

firmware in both the CMS network and at mobile devices. To give Participating CMS Providers

sufficient time to complete the updates to standard and software necessary, we propose to set a

compliance date for these requirements of 36 months from the publication of the rules in the Federal

Register. We seek comment on this proposal. Would 36 months be sufficient time for all mobile devices

device manufacturers to comply within 30 months of the rules’ publication in the Federal Register. We

change. We do not believe that Participating CMS Providers would need to make any changes to support

manner indistinguishable from any other WEA message. We seek comment on this proposals and our

views.

Benchmark WEA Performance. We propose to set a compliance date of 30 months after the publication

of final rules in the Federal Register or within 30 days of the Public Safety and Homeland Security

Bureau’s publication of a public notice announcing that the WEA Database is ready to accept filings,

performance minimums and submit reports measuring WEA’s performance. We believe 30 months is

appropriate because Participating CMS Providers will have to update standards and firmware to comply

small- and medium-sized businesses, which may have different network resource constraints than the

nationwide CMS Providers.

using the WEA Database within 30 days of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau’s

publication of a public notice announcing (1) OMB approval of any new information collection

requirements and (2) that the WEA Database is ready to accept filings. We seek comment on this

proposal. We note that the Commission gave wireless industry 30 days within to comply with the

Commission’s initial requirement to elect whether to participate in WEA.

158

157

158

providers would need to undertake the same measures as they did in their first WEA election to refresh

their WEA election in compliance with this proposal, if adopted: assessing the extent to which they can

agree to offer WEA in the entirety of their geographic service area, assessing the extent to which all

mobile devices that they offer at the point of sale are WEA capable, and assessing their ability to comply

with the Commission’s technical and procedural WEA rules. To the extent that the requirements we

We are cognizant of the fact that, as a general matter, it is impossible to assign precise dollar values to

changes to WEA that improve the public’s safety, life, and health.

will result in benefits measurable in terms of lives saved and injuries and property damage prevented. We

seek comment on developments in social science that add support to or refute the premise that effective

alerts and warnings help to move people more effectively to take protective actions during emergencies.

We seek comment on how to quantify the value of the improvements to public safety outcomes that result

alert message accessibility and personalization features that we propose in this Further Notice would

161

161

analyzing alerts’ performance? We seek further comment on the benefits of our proposals taken

individually and jointly.

proposed WEA language support is likely to be significant. Currently, the 76 CMS Providers

163

who have been receiving WEA alerts in languages they cannot comprehend would understand the content

of WEA alerts under the proposed WEA language support.

Even if alerts reach just 1% of this

population per year (i.e., nearly 100,000 people) the potential of WEA to prevent property damage,

injuries, and deaths could be enormous.

alert transmission. We seek comment on this assessment.

162

164

166

Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of

the Small Business Administration.

APPENDIX A

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

* * * * *

§ 10.330 Provider infrastructure requirements.

* * *

(d) Public Awareness Tests. Participating CMS Providers may participate in no more than two (2) WEA

System tests per calendar year that the public receives by default to raise public awareness, provided that

the entity conducting the test:

(iii) Coordinates the test among Participating CMS Providers and with state and local emergency

authorities, the relevant SECC (or SECCs, if the test could affect multiple states), and first responder

organizations, such as PSAPs, police, and fire agencies); and,

* * * * *

§ 10.360 Performance Reporting.

This section establishes minimum requirements for the geographic targeting of Alert Messages. A

Participating CMS Provider will determine which of its network facilities, elements, and locations will be

used to geographically target Alert Messages. A Participating CMS Provider must deliver any Alert

Message that is specified by a circle or polygon to an area that matches the specified circle or polygon.

Provider receives an alert message at the CMS Alert Gateway and the time that mobile devices present

the alert message based on aggregated, annualized data submitted to the WEA Database.

* * * * *

paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 10.480 Language support.

§ 10.490 Multimedia support

* * * * *

follows:

§ 10.500 General requirements.

* * * * *

(e) Extraction of alert content in English or translation of alert content into the subscriber’s preferred

language;

* * *

(i) Logging and making available to the CMS network the data elements necessary to measure WEA’s

performance, as defined in § 10.360;

the option to send WEA Alert Messages without triggering the audio attention signal.

* * * * *

§ 10.530 Common vibration cadence.

* * * * *

(d) Participating CMS Providers and mobile device manufacturers must provide alerting authorities with

APPENDIX B

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

addition, the Further Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

to helping safeguard the lives and property of all people. To ensure that Wireless Emergency Alerts

(WEA) remain strong, the Commission must act proactively in its oversight of stakeholders associated

with this system. The Commission has previously engaged with stakeholders to ensure that WEA had

minimum performance minimums and to ensure WEA was accessible to Spanish speaking people.

Moreover, approximately 26 million people who do not primarily speak English or Spanish are at risk

because they cannot understand the potentially life-saving information conveyed by alert messages.

We

effectiveness with multimedia content, and 3) integrating WEA more seamlessly into people’s lives by

improving active shooter and public health alerts, preventing unnecessary consumer opt-out, and

facilitating more effective WEA public awareness exercises.

definitions for reliability, accuracy, and speed, and setting benchmarks based on these definitions that

Participating CMS Providers would be required to meet; requiring Participating CMS Providers to submit

data regarding WEA availability and performance into a WEA Database to be shared with FEMA and

authorized alerting authorities; translating alerts into the thirteen most commonly spoken languages in the

United States and storing them at the mobile device to be displayed when an alerting authority deems

relevant; sending thumbnail-sized images in alerts over the air; incorporating location-aware maps into

3

4

Commission’s relevant legal authority.

303(e), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 307, 309, 316, 403, and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C §§ 151, 152, 154(i), 154(n), 301, 303(b), 303(e), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 307, 309,

316, 403, 544(g), and 606; The Warning, Alert and Response Network (WARN) Act, WARN Act §§

602(a), (b), (c), (f), 603, 604, and 606, 47 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a),(b),(c), (f), 1203, 1204 and 1206.

organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”

6

In addition, the term “small business” has the

same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.

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.

over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here,

at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein.

First, while there

according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.

establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide

closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable to these services is Wireless

Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).

classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.

show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year.

33

firms employed fewer than 250 employees.

34

24

25

26

29

30

31

32

34

licenses in the Broadband PCS service.

The Commission’s small business size standards with respect to

for these services. In auctions for these licenses, the Commission defined “small business” as an entity

that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40

million for the preceding three years, and a “very small business” as an entity that, together with its

affiliates and controlling interests, has had average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for

the preceding three years.

36

Winning bidders claiming small business credits won Broadband PCS

licenses in C, D, E, and F Blocks.

standard.

Services (Narrowband PCS) are PCS services operating in the 901-902 MHz, 930-931 MHz, and 940-941

MHz bands.

PCS services are radio communications that encompass mobile and ancillary fixed

communication that provide services to individuals and businesses and can be integrated with a variety of

competing networks.

39

Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)

is the closest industry

with a SBA small business size standard applicable to these services. The SBA small business size

standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.

U.S. Census

35

36

38

39

40

41

43

Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel

91

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)).

92

Wireless cable operators that use spectrum in the BRS

often supplemented with leased channels from the EBS, provide a competitive alternative to wired cable

and other multichannel video programming distributors. Wireless cable programming to subscribers

resembles cable television, but instead of coaxial cable, wireless cable uses microwave channels.

94

active BRS and EBS licenses.

The Commission’s small business size standards with respect to BRS

involves eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for these

businesses. A very small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests,

93

94

average gross revenues exceed $15 million and did not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years,

entity that, together with its affiliates, its controlling interests and the affiliates of its controlling interests,

has average gross revenues that are not more than $55 million for the preceding five (5) years, and a very

small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates, its controlling interests and the affiliates of its

(5) years.

102

Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or

transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect

data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to

estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA’s small

business size standard.

104

Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies.

Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to

99

100

101

105

audio and video programming distribution; and wired broadband Internet services.”

Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and

television broadcast and wireless communications equipment.

111

establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment,

broadcasting equipment.

112

employees.

Thus, under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered

116

operations necessary for producing and distributing computer software, such as designing, providing

106

107

108

111

112

113

115

116

establishments may design, develop, and publish, or publish only.

educational broadcast stations and public broadcast stations are television or radio broadcast stations

which under the Commission's rules are eligible to be licensed by the Commission as a noncommercial

educational radio or television broadcast station and are owned and operated by a public agency or

nonprofit private foundation, corporation, or association; or are owned and operated by a municipality

which transmits only noncommercial programs for education purposes.

U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 1,879 of the 2,963 firms that operated during that year had

revenue of less than $25 million per year.

2017 show that 657 of the 744 firms that operated for the entire year had revenue of less than

117

118

119

120

123

stations, we estimate that under the applicable SBA size standard the majority of noncommercial

noncommercial educational radio and television stations.

In addition, the Commission estimates as of

Class A TV stations, 1,912 LPTV stations and 3,122 TV translator stations.

determine how many stations qualify as small entities under the SBA small business size standards.

However, given the nature of these services, we will presume that all noncommercial educational and

public broadcast stations qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standards.

business size standard, we estimate a majority of such entities are small entities.

commercial AM radio stations and 6,686 licensed commercial FM radio stations, for a combined total of

11,170 commercial radio stations.

Online Database (MAPro) on January 13, 2023,

specific radio or television broadcast station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the

estimate of small businesses to which the rules may apply does not exclude any radio or television station

from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive. An

additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned

and operated. Because it is difficult to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, the estimate of

140

SBA’s size standard we conclude that the majority of FM Translator stations and Low Power FM Stations

broadcast studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public.

establishments also produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television stations,

which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule. Programming may

business size standard for this industry classifies businesses having $41.5 million or less in annual

estimate that the majority of television broadcasters are small entities under the SBA small business size

standard.

143

146

147

148

149

151

152

financial information for these television broadcast stations that would permit it to determine how many

industry as establishments primarily engaged in operating studios and facilities for the broadcasting of

programs on a subscription or fee basis.

(e.g., limited format, such as news, sports, education, or youth-oriented). These establishments produce

programming in their own facilities or acquire programming from external sources.

material is usually delivered to a third party, such as cable systems or direct-to-home satellite systems, for

annual receipts less than $41.5 million as small.

Commission estimates that the majority of firms operating in this industry are small.

159

152

156

157

159

161

the U.S.

amended, contains a size standard for a “small cable operator,” which is “a cable operator that, directly or

and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed

system operator that serves fewer than 677,000 subscribers, either directly or through affiliates, will meet

the definition of a small cable operator based on the cable subscriber count established in a 2001 Public

Notice.

Based on industry data, only six cable system operators have more than 677,000 subscribers.

169

164

165

166

169

170

$25 million.

Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring

engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications

telemetry, and radar station operation.

This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in

providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial

systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from,

satellite systems.

Providers of Internet services (e.g. dial-up ISPs) or voice over Internet protocol

The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million

on this data, the Commission estimates that the majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms can be

considered small.

171

172

175

176

177

times would be simpler and less costly to submit. We also recognize however, that our proposal may

worked out between alerting authorities, PBS, and Participating CMS Providers.

we seek comment on the utility of WEA performance information communicated by email directly to

alerting authorities, either in addition or as an alternative to a WEA database, and encourage WEA

have on small entities, as an alternative to the compliance timeframes we propose in the Further Notice

we inquire and seek comment on whether it is appropriate to allow Participating CMS Providers that are

and benefits analyses. Having data on the costs and economic impact of proposals and approaches will