Home/Federal/Federal Register/2023-12725

Proposed Rule2023-12725

Emergency Alert System; Wireless Emergency Alerts

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

June 21, 2023

Effective

July 21, 2023

Issuing agencies

Federal Communications Commission

Abstract

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

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 118 (Wednesday, June 21, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 21, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40606-40636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12725]

[[Page 40605]]

Vol. 88

Wednesday,

No. 118

June 21, 2023

Part VI

Federal Communications Commission

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

47 CFR Part 10

Emergency Alert System; Wireless Emergency Alerts; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 40606]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 10

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

Emergency Alert System; Wireless Emergency Alerts

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 15-94;
and PS Docket No. 15-91, by any of the following methods:
<bullet> Federal Communications Commission's website: <a href="https://www.apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/">https://www.apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/</a>. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
<bullet> Mail: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier,
or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings
must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Commercial overnight mail
(other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be
sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal
Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45
L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission
no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a
temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of
individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy</a>.
<bullet> People With Disabilities. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e7818484d2d7d3a7818484c9808891">[email&#160;protected]</a> or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530
(voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information regarding this
Further Notice, please contact Michael Antonino, Cybersecurity and
Communications Reliability Division, Public Safety and Homeland
Security Bureau, (202) 418-7965, or by email to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#472a2e242f26222b6926293328292e29280721242469202831">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act
information collection requirements contained in this document, send an
email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#40101201002623236e272f36">[email&#160;protected]</a> or contact Nicole Ongele, Office of Managing
Director, Performance and Program Management, 202-418-2991, or by email
to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#673735262701040449000811">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

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

Synopsis

Introduction and Background

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

[[Page 40607]]

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

Discussion

A. Making WEA More Accessible

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

[[Page 40608]]

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

[[Page 40609]]

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

[[Page 40610]]

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

B. Integrating WEA More Seamlessly Into People's Lives

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

[[Page 40611]]

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

[[Page 40612]]

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

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

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

[[Page 40613]]

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

[[Page 40614]]

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

[[Page 40615]]

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

[[Page 40616]]

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

[[Page 40617]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP21JN23.068

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

[[Page 40618]]

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

[[Page 40619]]

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

[[Page 40620]]

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

D. Promoting Digital Equality

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

E. Compliance Timeframes

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

[[Page 40621]]

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

[[Page 40622]]

F. Benefit-Cost Analysis

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

[[Page 40623]]

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

[[Page 40624]]

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

Procedural Matters

94. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document contains proposed new
and modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as
part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the
general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment
on the information collection requirements contained in this document,
as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.
In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific
comment on how we might further reduce the information collection
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
95. Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose. This proceeding this
Notice initiates shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons
making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written
presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the
presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with Rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
Rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
96. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the
agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible impact
of the rule and policy changes contained in this Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix B.
97. Filing Requirements--Comments and Replies. Pursuant to sections
1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47

[[Page 40625]]

CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
<bullet> Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
<bullet> Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
<bullet> Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
<bullet> Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
<bullet> Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19.
<bullet> During the time the Commission's building is closed to the
general public and until further notice, if more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of a proceeding, paper filers
need not submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number; an original and one copy are sufficient.
98. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#55333636606561153336367b323a23">[email&#160;protected]</a> or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice).
99. Additional Information. For further information regarding
Notice, please contact <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#edbaa8acad8b8e8ec38a829b">[email&#160;protected]</a>, or Michael Antonino, Cybersecurity
and Communications Reliability Division, Public Safety and Homeland
Security Bureau, (202) 418-0695, or by email to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#335e5a505b52565f1d525d475c5d5a5d5c735550501d545c45">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment on
potential new or revised proposed information collection requirements.
If the Commission adopts any new or revised final information
collection requirements when the final rules are adopted, the
Commission will publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting
further comments from the public on the final information collection
requirements, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The Commission, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general
public and OMB to comment on the information collection requirements
contained in this document, as required by the PRA. Public and agency
comments on the PRA proposed information collection requirements are
due August 21, 2023. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on the respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology; and (e) way to further reduce the information collection
burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Pubic Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment
on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

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

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

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

B. Legal Basis

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

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

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

[[Page 40626]]

small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.
The RFA generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same
meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and
``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern''
under the Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one
which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in
its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
6. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at
the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly
affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size
standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory
flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of
Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having
fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent
99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 32.5
million businesses.
7. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there were
approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
8. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census
Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate that there
were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United
States. Of this number there were 36,931 general purpose governments
(county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than
50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments--independent school
districts with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly,
based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at
least 48,971 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental
jurisdictions.''
9. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The
SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show
that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the
entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 797
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 715
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
10. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband
personal communications services (PCS) spectrum encompasses services in
the 1850-1910 and 1930-1990 MHz bands. The closest industry with a SBA
small business size standard applicable to these services is Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). The SBA small business
size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show
that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the
entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250
employees. Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates
that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
11. Based on Commission data as of November 2021, there were
approximately 5,060 active licenses in the Broadband PCS service. The
Commission's small business size standards with respect to Broadband
PCS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in
the auction of licenses for these services. In auctions for these
licenses, the Commission defined ``small business'' as an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years,
and a ``very small business'' as an entity that, together with its
affiliates and controlling interests, has had average annual gross
revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.
Winning bidders claiming small business credits won Broadband PCS
licenses in C, D, E, and F Blocks.
12. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these, at this time we are not able to estimate the
number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small
under the SBA's small business size standard.
13. Narrowband Personal Communications Services. Narrowband
Personal Communications Services (Narrowband PCS) are PCS services
operating in the 901-902 MHz, 930-931 MHz, and 940-941 MHz bands. PCS
services are radio communications that encompass mobile and ancillary
fixed communication that provide services to individuals and businesses
and can be integrated with a variety of competing networks. Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry
with a SBA small business size standard applicable to these services.
The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a
business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in
this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed
fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the SBA size standard, the
Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can
be considered small.
14. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were
approximately 4,211 active Narrowband PCS licenses. The Commission's
small business size standards with respect to Narrowband PCS involve
eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction
of licenses for these services. For the auction of these licenses, the
Commission defined a

[[Page 40627]]

``small business'' as an entity that, together with affiliates and
controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three
preceding years of not more than $40 million. A ``very small business''
is defined as an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling
interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of
not more than $15 million. Pursuant to these definitions, 7 winning
bidders claiming small and very small bidding credits won approximately
359 licenses. One of the winning bidders claiming a small business
status classification in these Narrowband PCS license auctions had an
active license as of December 2021.
15. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
16. Wireless Communications Services. Wireless Communications
Services (WCS) can be used for a variety of fixed, mobile,
radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite services.
Wireless spectrum is made available and licensed for the provision of
wireless communications services in several frequency bands subject to
Part 27 of the Commission's rules. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except satellite) is the closest industry with a SBA small business
size standard applicable to these services. The SBA small business size
standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that
there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire
year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees.
Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a
majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
17. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to
WCS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in
the auction of licenses for the various frequency bands included in
WCS. When bidding credits are adopted for the auction of licenses in
WCS frequency bands, such credits may be available to several types of
small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very small and
entrepreneur) pursuant to the competitive bidding rules adopted in
conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as identified
in the designated entities section in part 27 of the Commission's rules
for the specific WCS frequency bands.
18. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
19. 700 MHz Guard Band Licensees. The 700 MHz Guard Band
encompasses spectrum in 746-747/776-777 MHz and 762-764/792-794 MHz
frequency bands. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite) is the closest industry with a SBA small business size
standard applicable to licenses providing services in these bands. The
SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a
business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in
this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed
fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the SBA size standard, the
Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can
be considered small.
20. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were
approximately 224 active 700 MHz Guard Band licenses. The Commission's
small business size standards with respect to 700 MHz Guard Band
licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment
payments in the auction of licenses. For the auction of these licenses,
the Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity that, together
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross
revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and a
``very small business'' an entity that, together with its affiliates
and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not
more than $15 million for the preceding three years. Pursuant to these
definitions, five winning bidders claiming one of the small business
status classifications won 26 licenses, and one winning bidder claiming
small business won two licenses. None of the winning bidders claiming a
small business status classification in these 700 MHz Guard Band
license auctions had an active license as of December 2021.
21. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
22. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The lower 700 MHz band encompasses
spectrum in the 698-746 MHz frequency bands. Permissible operations in
these bands include flexible fixed, mobile, and broadcast uses,
including mobile and other digital new broadcast operation; fixed and
mobile wireless commercial services (including FDD- and TDD-based
services); as well as fixed and mobile wireless uses for private,
internal radio needs, two-way interactive, cellular, and mobile
television broadcasting services. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except Satellite) is the closest industry with a SBA small business
size standard applicable to licenses providing services in these bands.
The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a
business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in
this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed
fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the SBA size standard, the
Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can
be considered small.
23. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were
approximately 2,824 active Lower 700 MHz Band licenses. The
Commission's small business size standards with respect to Lower 700
MHz Band licensees involve eligibility for bidding

[[Page 40628]]

credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses. For
auctions of Lower 700 MHz Band licenses the Commission adopted criteria
for three groups of small businesses. A very small business was defined
as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling
interests, has average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million
for the preceding three years, a small business was defined as an
entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests,
has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding
three years, and an entrepreneur was defined as an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average
gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years.
In auctions for Lower 700 MHz Band licenses seventy-two winning bidders
claiming a small business classification won 329 licenses, twenty-six
winning bidders claiming a small business classification won 214
licenses, and three winning bidders claiming a small business
classification won all five auctioned licenses.
24. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
25. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. The upper 700 MHz band encompasses
spectrum in the 746-806 MHz bands. Upper 700 MHz D Block licenses are
nationwide licenses associated with the 758-763 MHz and 788-793 MHz
bands. Permissible operations in these bands include flexible fixed,
mobile, and broadcast uses, including mobile and other digital new
broadcast operation; fixed and mobile wireless commercial services
(including FDD- and TDD-based services); as well as fixed and mobile
wireless uses for private, internal radio needs, two-way interactive,
cellular, and mobile television broadcasting services. Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry
with a SBA small business size standard applicable to licenses
providing services in these bands. The SBA small business size standard
for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were
2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of that
number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the
SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of
licensees in this industry can be considered small.
26. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were
approximately 152 active Upper 700 MHz Band licenses. The Commission's
small business size standards with respect to Upper 700 MHz Band
licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment
payments in the auction of licenses. For the auction of these licenses,
the Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity that, together
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross
revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and a
``very small business'' an entity that, together with its affiliates
and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not
more than $15 million for the preceding three years. Pursuant to these
definitions, three winning bidders claiming very small business status
won five of the twelve available licenses.
27. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
28. Advanced Wireless Services (AWS)--(1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155
MHz bands (AWS-1); 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and
2175-2180 MHz bands (AWS-2); 2155-2175 MHz band (AWS-3); 2000-2020 MHz
and 2180-2200 MHz (AWS-4). Spectrum is made available and licensed in
these bands for the provision of various wireless communications
services. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is
the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable
to these services. The SBA small business size standard for this
industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893
firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this
number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the
SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of
licensees in this industry can be considered small.
29. According to Commission data as December 2021, there were
approximately 4,472 active AWS licenses. The Commission's small
business size standards with respect to AWS involve eligibility for
bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for
these services. For the auction of AWS licenses, the Commission defined
a ``small business'' as an entity with average annual gross revenues
for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million, and a ``very
small business'' as an entity with average annual gross revenues for
the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. Pursuant to these
definitions, 57 winning bidders claiming status as small or very small
businesses won 215 of 1,087 licenses. In the most recent auction of AWS
licenses 15 of 37 bidders qualifying for status as small or very small
businesses won licenses.
30. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
31. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service.
Broadband Radio Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint
Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution
Service (MMDS) systems, and ``wireless cable,'' transmit video
programming to subscribers and provide two-way high speed data
operations using the microwave frequencies of the Broadband Radio
Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) (previously
referred to as the

[[Page 40629]]

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

[[Page 40630]]

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

[[Page 40631]]

licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In
addition, the Commission estimates as of December 31, 2022, there were
383 licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations, 383
Class A TV stations, 1,912 LPTV stations and 3,122 TV translator
stations. The Commission however does not compile, and otherwise does
not have access to financial information for these television broadcast
stations that would permit it to determine how many of these stations
qualify as small entities under the SBA small business size standard.
Nevertheless, given the SBA's large annual receipts threshold for this
industry and the nature of these television station licensees, we
presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the
above SBA small business size standard.
48. Cable and Other Subscription Programming. The U.S. Census
Bureau defines this industry as establishments primarily engaged in
operating studios and facilities for the broadcasting of programs on a
subscription or fee basis. The broadcast programming is typically
narrowcast in nature (e.g., limited format, such as news, sports,
education, or youth-oriented). These establishments produce programming
in their own facilities or acquire programming from external sources.
The programming material is usually delivered to a third party, such as
cable systems or direct-to-home satellite systems, for transmission to
viewers. The SBA small business size standard for this industry
classifies firms with annual receipts less than $41.5 million as small.
Based on U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017, 378 firms operated in this
industry during that year. Of that number, 149 firms operated with
revenue of less than $25 million a year and 44 firms operated with
revenue of $25 million or more. Based on this data, the Commission
estimates that the majority of firms operating in this industry are
small.
49. Cable System Operators (Rate Regulation Standard). The
Commission has developed its own small business size standard for the
purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a
``small cable company'' is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers
nationwide. Based on industry data, there are about 420 cable companies
in the U.S. Of these, only seven have more than 400,000 subscribers. In
addition, under the Commission's rules, a ``small system'' is a cable
system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Based on industry data,
there are about 4,139 cable systems (headends) in the U.S. Of these,
about 639 have more than 15,000 subscribers. Accordingly, the
Commission estimates that the majority of cable companies and cable
systems are small.
50. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, contains a size standard for a
``small cable operator,'' which is ``a cable operator that, directly or
through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than one percent of
all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any
entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed
$250,000,000.'' For purposes of the Telecom Act Standard, the
Commission determined that a cable system operator that serves fewer
than 677,000 subscribers, either directly or through affiliates, will
meet the definition of a small cable operator based on the cable
subscriber count established in a 2001 Public Notice. Based on industry
data, only six cable system operators have more than 677,000
subscribers. Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the majority of
cable system operators are small under this size standard. We note
however, that the Commission neither requests nor collects information
on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose
gross annual revenues exceed $250 million. Therefore, we are unable at
this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system
operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the
definition in the Communications Act.
51. Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Satellite
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth
station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this
industry classifies a business with $35 million or less in annual
receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms
in this industry operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242
firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Additionally, based on
Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of
December 31, 2020, there were 71 providers that reported they were
engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of
these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 48
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently using the SBA's
small business size standard, a little more than one-half of these
providers can be considered small entities.
52. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of
establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of
internet services (e.g. dial-up ISPs) or voice over internet protocol
(VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are
also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard
for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million
or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were
1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of
those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this
data, the Commission estimates that the majority of ``All Other
Telecommunications'' firms can be considered small.
53. Direct Broadcast Satellite (``DBS'') Service. DBS service is a
nationally distributed subscription service that delivers video and
audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic ``dish'' antenna
at the subscriber's location. DBS is included in the Wired
Telecommunications Carriers industry which comprises establishments
primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission
facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the
transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired
telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a
single technology or combination of technologies. Establishments in
this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that
they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony
services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video
programming distribution; and wired broadband internet services. By
exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution
services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are
included in this industry.
54. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census

[[Page 40632]]

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

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

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

[[Page 40633]]

their field ($120,990/year), plus annual benefits ($60,495/year)
working for the amount of time that it takes to develop software (ten
months) at each of the 76 CMS Providers that participate in WEA.
62. In the Supporting Document of Study Area Boundary Data
Reporting in Esri Shapefile Format, the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs estimates that it takes an average of 26 hours for a
data scientist to modify a shapefile. We believe submitting WEA
availability information in shapefile format should require less time
than modifying a shapefile. Therefore, we believe 26 hours would be an
upper bound of the time required for a Participating CMS Provider to
report its WEA availability in shapefile format. Given that the median
wage rate is $48.52/hour for data scientists, with a 45% markup for
benefits, we arrive at $70.40 as the hourly compensation rate for a
data scientist. We estimate an aggregate cost of WEA availability
reporting to be approximately $139,000 ([ap] $70.40 per hour x 26 hours
x 76 provi

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on June 21, 2023.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.