Rule2025-04126
Wireless Emergency Alerts; Emergency Alert System
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
March 18, 2025
Effective
September 15, 2025
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) revises the Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) rules to allow alert originators the option to send "silent alerts" that do not trigger WEA's common audio attention signal or vibration cadence. This action grants alert originators greater flexibility in tailoring how WEA messages are presented. Further, to make as clear as possible to the public that any device marketed as a "WEA-capable mobile device" adheres to the full suite of WEA capabilities, the Commission also adopts its proposals to define a "WEA-capable mobile device," for the purpose of compliance with the Commission's WEA requirements.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 51 (Tuesday, March 18, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 51 (Tuesday, March 18, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12462-12468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-04126]
[[Page 12462]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 10
[PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94; FCC 25-14; FR ID 284585]
Wireless Emergency Alerts; Emergency Alert System
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) revises the Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) rules to allow
alert originators the option to send ``silent alerts'' that do not
trigger WEA's common audio attention signal or vibration cadence. This
action grants alert originators greater flexibility in tailoring how
WEA messages are presented. Further, to make as clear as possible to
the public that any device marketed as a ``WEA-capable mobile device''
adheres to the full suite of WEA capabilities, the Commission also
adopts its proposals to define a ``WEA-capable mobile device,'' for the
purpose of compliance with the Commission's WEA requirements.
DATES: The definitions of a WEA-capable mobile device and a mobile
device for the purpose of WEA (section 10.10(j) through (m)), along
with conforming edits (to the introductory text of section 10.500,
section 10.500(i) through (j), the introductory text of section 10.520,
and the introductory text of section 10.530), will become effective
September 15, 2025. The silent alert rules adopted herein (sections
10.490 and 10.530(d)) will become effective March 18, 2028.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Kirschner, Attorney-Advisor,
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#1b7f7a6d727f35707269687873757e695b7d7878357c746d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="731712051a175d181a0100101b1d1601331510105d141c05">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Seventh Report and Order (R&O), PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94; FCC 25-
14, adopted February 27, 2025, and released February 28, 2025. The full
text of this document is available by downloading the text from the
Commission's website at: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-makes-weas-more-responsive-public-safety-and-consumer-needs">https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-makes-weas-more-responsive-public-safety-and-consumer-needs</a>. The full text of this
document will also be available for public inspection and copying
during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 45 L Street
NE, Washington, DC 20554. 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#8ec8cdcdbbbebacee8ededa0e9e1f8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="094f4a4a3c393d496f6a6a276e667f">[email protected]</span></a> or call the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432
(TTY).
A proposed rule relating to Wireless Emergency Alerts and the
Emergency Alert System is published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register.
Synopsis
I. Report and Order
A. Silent Alerts
1. To ensure that WEA remains a tool that alert originators can use
to save lives and property in their states and in their communities
without prompting widespread opt out, and to promote WEA's versatility
to be used across a variety of circumstances and different times of
day, we adopt our proposal to require Participating CMS Providers to
support ``silent alerts.'' A silent alert is an alert that, at an alert
originator's discretion, is presented without either the common audio
attention signal, the common vibration cadence, or both. To ensure that
WEAs sent without the Attention Signal can remain accessible to
individuals with disabilities, we also require ``WEA-capable mobile
devices'' to include the option to enable the presentation of the
common vibration cadence for all WEA Alert Messages. If selected, that
option must override the alert originator's selection on that device.
We decline to adopt our proposal that Participating CMS Providers
provide their subscribers with the option to durably turn off WEA's
audio attention signal and vibration cadence for all alerts, which was
opposed by commenters, because we agree with commenters that giving
consumers this option risks increasing the rate at which people fail to
notice Imminent Threat Alerts to which they must react immediately to
protect their lives and property.
2. This action addresses concern in the record that the mandatory
use of the Attention Signal with every WEA is limiting the situations
where the benefits of using WEA outweigh the potential drawbacks. The
National Ashanti Alert Network Stakeholder Working Group and Pilot
Project Participants Working Group, groups established by the
Department of Justice to create and share promising practices for
missing adult alerts, jointly state that ``WEA is a fantastic tool but
is currently limited by the jarring alert tone that is currently
associated with each and every activation.'' They observe that WEA
activations cause complaints when the public does not interpret the
intrusiveness of the WEA Attention Signal as commensurate with the
alert's relevance. They characterize the ``blackout'' periods that some
alert originators have chosen to implement to spare the public from
being awoken by a WEA at night as (in the case of AMBER Alerts) a
``disservice to those who are missing and could be helped as there are
many individuals who are awake and active (e.g., truck drivers) who
could receive an alert and provide valuable assistance in locating a
missing adult.''
3. Comments reflect that alert originators are generally best
positioned to make the important decision of whether an alert will
trigger the Attention Signal. The approach that we adopt today gives
alerting authorities the ``maximum flexibility'' that alert originators
like King County, Washington Emergency Management and New York City
Emergency Management state that they need to increase the effectiveness
of alerts.
4. WEA is a powerful tool. We recognize the perspective of ATIS and
Several Colorado Agencies that ``adding an option to be exercised by
the alert originator in the moment, such as whether to include the
audio attention signal, increases the potential for human error.''
There is a risk of alert originators ``erroneously setting the `silent'
notification for alerts where a notification is needed (e.g.,
tornado)[,which] may result in citizens missing a WEA, putting them at
risk.'' We believe, however, that alert originators are the right
stakeholders in the WEA system to manage this risk. King County,
Washington Emergency Management observes that some alert originators
already have experience determining whether to associate an audio
attentional signal and vibration cadence with alerts based on the
alert's urgency when they transmit those alerts via private mass
notification systems. Even for alert originators that do not yet have
experience controlling how the Attention Signal is presented along with
their alerts, we believe that their experience managing emergencies in
their communities is the most relevant to making decisions about how
emergency alerts are presented. We therefore agree with AT&T that we
should not attempt to establish ``alert signal suppression rules for
specific classes of WEA alerts that would remove the decision-making
power from Alert Originators'' and decline New York City Emergency
Management's request that we limit alert originators' discretion in the
use of silent WEAs to
[[Page 12463]]
specific situations or specific alert message classifications. We
encourage alert origination software developers to recognize the
difficult task that alert originators confront and design this aspect
of their alert origination software to be ``configurable by each
alerting authority'' to maximize each agency's potential for effective
alerting and minimize opportunity for error.
5. The record reflects that the ability to send silent alerts will
be particularly useful in three scenarios: (1) AMBER Alerts, Missing
and Endangered Persons (MEP) Alerts, and Blue Alerts sent either
statewide or overnight; (2) follow-up messaging to relay additional,
essential actions likely to save lives and/or safeguard property during
ongoing emergencies; and (3) active shooter situations. While using
silent alerts in these scenarios cannot completely eliminate the
reasons for which people opt out of WEA, we agree with alert
originators that use of silent alerts in the first two use cases can
limit alert fatigue, which can reduce the rate of consumer opt out, and
ultimately result in more people being opted in when their local alert
originator sends an alert that could save their life. Alert originators
also state that the ability to suppress the Attention Signal would make
them more likely to send AMBER Alerts, MEP Alerts, and Blue Alerts
during the evening and night when people are likely to be asleep.
Sending these types of WEAs silently will make it possible for
individuals that are awake and interacting with their mobile devices to
receive and act upon the messages, including by rendering assistance to
law enforcement, while avoiding the risk that such message will awaken
or otherwise disturb people that might respond to the intrusion by
opting out of receiving WEAs going forward. The National Weather
Service and the United States Geological Survey recognize the value
that silent WEAs would offer for the transmission of essential
information after the initial alert about weather that poses an
imminent threat and about earthquakes, respectively. Commenters state
that the ability to suppress the Attention Signal for active shooter
alerts will make it more likely that they will use WEA as a tool to
keep people safe during such events because it will enable them to
silently deliver WEAs that can direct people to avoid the area where
the shooter is active while avoiding the risk that the Attention Signal
will betray the location of people that need to remain hidden to stay
safe. In light of this clear record, we decline CTIA's request that we
seek further comment on whether the benefits of silent alerts outweigh
the risks.
6. We agree with ATIS and CTIA that ``the absence of any attention
signal or vibration cadence will require the user to look at the mobile
device display when the WEA is presented in order to be alerted'' and
that this creates ``a risk that the user may be distracted away from
their device because of the event and may miss any incoming WEA,''
which would generally make those WEAs less effective. Accordingly, we
take this opportunity to amplify the guidance that alert originators
offer in this proceeding about how this new capability can maximize the
effectiveness of WEA:
<bullet> When there is an imminent threat to life, emergency alerts
``must get the attention of the targeted audience and compel review of
the content.'' There is an exception, however, for situations in which
the audible delivery of the WEA Attention Signal could jeopardize the
lives of those receiving the alerts, as described in the following
bullet.
<bullet> Suppress the Attention Signal (1) when its presentation
could jeopardize the lives of those receiving the alerts, including
during active shooter situations, or (2) in situations where the
receipt of a WEA has been shown to prompt recipients to opt out of
receiving alerts, such as statewide AMBER and Blue Alerts.
<bullet> Public safety messages that accompany Imminent Threat
Alerts and that provide essential advisories, like boil water orders,
may be issued as silent alerts.
<bullet> State/Local WEA Tests should use the Attention Signal
because people do not receive State/Local WEA Tests at all unless they
have affirmatively opted in to receive them. Therefore, use of the
Attention Signal ``allows for public education on what the tone sounds
like, ensuring the tone is working . . . in a controlled environment
that would not increase opt-outs.''
We encourage but do not require alert originators to follow this
guidance or to develop their own internal policies and procedures for
determining whether and how to use the Attention Signal in their
alerts. It will be important for alert originators to create and follow
best practices about the use of silent alerts so that their use
enhances, rather than limits WEA's efficacy.
7. Our action today to require that Participating CMS Providers and
equipment manufacturers may only market a mobile device for public use
under part 10 as a ``WEA-capable mobile device'' if the mobile includes
a vibration cadence capability that enables subscribers to override
alert originators' suppression of the common vibration cadence will
also enhance WEA's efficacy. Ricky Harris, a Deaf resident of Houston,
Texas, explains the challenges that individuals who are deaf and hard
of hearing face during unpredictable thunderstorms and flash floods in
his neighborhood: ``I relied on guesswork and observation to navigate.
Unfortunately, I was completely unaware that radio broadcasts were
already issuing specific evacuation routes. This lack of information
put me in danger and left me vulnerable. People later questioned my
route choice, unaware of the communication gap I had experienced.''
With the action that we take today, individuals who are deaf and hard
of hearing will have the option to ensure that the common vibration
cadence is always presented along with their WEA messages, irrespective
of the alert originator's selection, which will draw their attention to
the arrival of a WEA. New York City Emergency Management notes that
using the vibration cadence alone can be sufficient to get people's
attention in a range of scenarios. The vibration cadence can be felt,
including by many people with disabilities, when the mobile device is
in contact with their body, and can often be heard when the mobile
device is in contact with another surface. In this way, the action that
we take today realizes, in part, the advocacy objectives of New York
City Emergency Management and a coalition of Accessibility
Organizations and Academics, that ``users--not providers or alerting
authorities--decide whether to silence WEAs or cancel vibration
cadences to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach to WEA notifications.''
While the approach that we adopt today gives alerting authorities
discretion over whether to transmit a silent alert, bearing in mind the
needs of individuals with disabilities, those individuals will now be
presented with greater control over their receipt of the common
vibration cadence to strike the right balance for their individual
needs. WEA-capable mobile devices must not, however, allow individuals
to override alert originators' decision to suppress the audio attention
signal; doing so would eliminate or seriously reduce the value of WEA
in active shooter situations. If people are hiding together from an
active shooter, any one of their devices emitting the audio attention
signal would be sufficient to betray their location. While we
understand CTIA's concern that allowing consumers to override the
vibration cadence may potentially disclose a person's location during
an active shooter situation, we
[[Page 12464]]
find that supporting the ability for individuals with disabilities to
receive potentially lifesaving alerts via the vibration cadence
outweighs the low risk that the relatively quiet presentation of the
WEA vibration cadence will result in injury or loss of life.
8. We reject Several Colorado Agencies' recommended approach that
the Commission ``require the audio attention signal for both EAS and
WEA.'' We also reject the Language Accessibility in Alert and Warning
Working Group and Regional Disaster Preparedness Organization of the
Portland-Vancouver Metro Region's recommended approach that ``Alert
Originators can set the WEA alert to one of three options: silent,
follow the device's notification sound setting, or override and make
sound and vibration.'' Accepting either of these recommendations would
deprive consumers of the flexibility that they currently have under our
rules to mute the Attention Signal, e.g., by putting their device in
do-not-disturb mode. We do not find removing this consumer choice to be
in the public interest.
9. Nothing about the rule we adopt today would change functions
that allow consumers to choose to opt out of receiving certain types of
WEA messages, to mute the Attention Signal, or to specify vibration and
audio attention signal presentation during active voice or data
sessions. Participating CMS Providers and equipment manufacturers will
still have the ability to implement a binary consumer opt out feature
that defaults to have subscribers opted in to receive all WEA Alert
Message classifications and their associated Attention Signal and that
allows them to opt out of Imminent Threat Alerts, AMBER Alerts, and
Public Safety Messages entirely. Participating CMS Providers and
equipment manufacturers also may continue to enable subscribers to mute
the Attention Signal using ``do not disturb'' and other mobile device
capabilities for alerts where the Attention Signal is presented by
default. Finally, Participating CMS Providers and equipment
manufacturers may specify how the Attention Signal is presented during
an active voice or data session, insofar as they currently take
advantage of that flexibility and it remains relevant in the modern
technological environment.
B. Required Mobile Device Capabilities
10. To allow consumers to be confident that they are informed about
the WEA capabilities of the mobile devices they purchase and to more
fully describe how the requirements that we adopt today apply to those
devices, we adopt our proposed definitions of a ``mobile device'' for
the purposes of WEA and a ``WEA-capable mobile device.'' We define a
``mobile device'' for the purpose of WEA as ``any customer equipment
used to receive commercial mobile service.'' This definition of a
mobile device for the purpose of WEA reflects the WARN Act's direction
that the Commission ``adopt technical standards, protocols, procedures,
and other requirements . . . necessary to enable commercial mobile
service alerting capability.'' While it may be possible to deliver
emergency alerts to customer wireless equipment that Participating CMS
Providers sell by using a technology other than commercial mobile
service, as a legal matter, we would not consider those emergency
alerts to be WEAs. Defining a mobile device for the purpose of WEA as
customer equipment that can receive commercial mobile service is also
appropriate from a technical perspective. AT&T states that customer
equipment needs to be able to attach to the commercial mobile service
network to directly receive a WEA via cell broadcast, the technology
generally used to transmit WEAs to mobile devices. We also continue to
believe, as the Commission stated in the 2023 WEA Accessibility FNPRM,
that this definition of a ``mobile device'' for the purpose of WEA is
appropriate because, unlike the part 10 rules' current definition of a
mobile device, it acknowledges the possibility that equipment may not
be technically capable of supporting WEA (i.e., if it is not capable of
receiving commercial mobile service). Distinguish this from a Non-
service Initialized (NSI) phone. While NSI phones may not, in fact,
receive commercial mobile service at a given point in time, they are
technically capable of receiving commercial mobile service once service
is initialized for the device. Therefore, NSI phones are ``used to
receive commercial mobile service'' for the purpose of this rule and
are ``mobile devices'' for the purpose of WEA. We clarify that
Participating CMS Providers are not required to market NSI devices as
``WEA-capable,'' and may market them in this way conditionally (e.g.,
``WEA-capable upon activation of service''). NSI phones--like all
mobile devices--may only be marketed as ``WEA-capable'' if the device
complies with part 10, subpart E of our rules. At the same time, this
definition is broad enough to potentially include devices that are
commonly considered to be mobile devices, such as commercial mobile
service-enabled tablets, wearables, or other non-smartphone devices. A
device such as a tablet or wearable that connects to the internet
solely by means other than commercial mobile service (e.g., Wi-Fi)
would not fall within section 10.10's ``mobile device'' definition. By
contrast, devices such as tablets and wearables that support connection
to the internet via commercial mobile service would be considered as
mobile devices for the purpose of WEA under this rule.
11. The way that we define a mobile device for the purpose of WEA
may include some smaller equipment that, AT&T opines, is not capable of
presenting alert messages due to limitations such as chipset support,
maintaining the form factor, and maintaining battery life. While this
equipment may not have been designed with WEA in mind, the definition
of a mobile device for the purpose of WEA that we adopt today signals
to Participating CMS Providers and equipment manufacturers that
consumers may expect those devices to be WEA-capable. Our adoption of
this rule may prompt Participating CMS Providers and equipment
manufacturers to consider whether smaller, wearable equipment that does
not support WEA today can be made WEA-capable through changes to
hardware or software. The definition of a mobile device for the purpose
of WEA that we adopt today also excludes some devices that
Participating CMS Providers sell. A smartwatch that is capable of only
Wi-Fi or Bluetooth connectivity, for example, may be able to present a
WEA to its wearer by receiving it through a WEA-capable smartphone to
which it is tethered. We do not consider these devices to be ``mobile
devices'' for the purpose of WEA, however, because their ability to
receive a WEA is derivative of the device to which they are connected.
Participating CMS Providers may continue to market this equipment for
sale while continuing to participate in WEA ``in whole.''
12. As proposed, we define a ``WEA-capable mobile device'' as a
mobile device that is compliant with all of the Commission's WEA rules.
When the Commission adopted the definition of a ``mobile device'' for
the purpose of WEA in 2012 in anticipation of the system's deployment,
the primary distinction between mobile devices for the purpose of WEA
was whether they could receive alert messages. Today, the wireless
industry's public disclosures reflect that devices marketed for public
use under part 10 support a wide array of WEA functionalities, but that
not all mobile devices support all of WEA's required
[[Page 12465]]
features. The purpose of the rule we adopt today is to avoid consumer
confusion about the WEA capabilities of mobile devices. We find that
the rule we adopt today addresses any communication with consumers
about the WEA capabilities of devices, which we could consider for
purposes of these rules to be a form of marketing, regardless of
whether a Participating CMS Provider would consider that communication
to be a ``disclosure.'' We further note that sections 10.510, 10.520,
and 10.530 of our rules already restrict how Participating CMS
Providers and equipment manufacturers can ``market'' devices that
support WEA, so we believe that it is appropriate to continue to use
that language in the interest of consistency. To further ensure that
consistency, we amend section 10.500 to continue to also use that
``marketing'' language. For example, T-Mobile markets as ``alert-
capable'' Apple's iPhone 5, which is able to receive the basic 90-
character maximum WEA text, but does not support clickable links, the
preservation of alerts for user review, Spanish-language alerts, the
presentation of alerts concurrent with active voice or data sessions,
Public Safety Messages, State/Local WEA Tests, or enhanced geographic
targeting. While, generally, mobile devices released after a rule's
effective date support the features those rules require, Participating
CMS Providers and equipment manufacturers have not pushed software
updates necessary to enable new WEA features to mobile devices in the
field that no longer support software updates. To account for the
diversity among the WEA capabilities of mobile devices available today,
we find it appropriate to update our regulatory framework to account
for the extent to which the Commission has required WEA to evolve over
the years to keep pace with advances in technology and changing
consumer expectations for emergency communications. This change will
promote informed consumer choice about the emergency alerting
capabilities of mobile devices that consumers are considering for
purchase.
13. We also make explicit that WEA-capable mobile devices must
support each of the alert message requirements in part 10, subpart D.
Specifically, a WEA-capable mobile device must support the WEA Alert
Message classifications, device-based geo-targeting, Alert Messages
that contain a maximum of 360 characters of alphanumeric text, embedded
references, Spanish-language alerts, the silent alert feature we adopt
today, and the basic equipment requirements codified in subpart E of
the WEA rules. If the Commission were to adopt new alert message or
equipment requirements in the future, the rules we adopt today would
require devices to support those new requirements in order to continue
to be considered to be WEA-capable, beginning on the deadline for the
implementation of those requirements. However, devices can continue to
be considered WEA-capable prior to that implementation deadline.
Insofar as consumers make mobile device purchasing decisions based on
marketed WEA capabilities, we believe that it is usually in connection
with their purchase of a new device. According to ATIS, new mobile
devices either support all of WEA's functions as of the date of their
release, or they support none of them, which supports the binary
distinction (``WEA-capable'' or not) that we adopt. Today, the term
``WEA-capable mobile device'' is undefined in our rules but
Participating CMS Providers use it in their marketing materials to
refer to new mobile devices as well as mobile devices that are over a
decade old and support only the basic WEA functions available since
2012. The Language Accessibility in Alert and Warning Working Group,
King County, Washington Emergency Management, Michigan State Police,
the New York State Department of Homeland Security and Emergency
Services, and the County of San Diego Department of Emergency Services
support adoption of our proposed definition of a ``WEA-capable mobile
device'' because clearly labeling devices that support all WEA
functions promotes informed consumer choice about public safety
services and promotes the use of mobile devices as disaster
preparedness tools. We agree with APCO that ``the status quo approach
to mobile device eligibility may mislead consumers into mistakenly
believing that all [mobile devices marketed as] `WEA-capable mobile
devices' offer all WEA capabilities.'' Accordingly, we disagree with T-
Mobile that whether a device supports the basic receipt of a WEA
message is the most important criterion to the definition of a ``WEA-
capable mobile device,'' and we disagree with Verizon that we should
codify the WEA ``versions'' (e.g., 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0) on which existing
marketing materials rely.
14. We recognize other commenters' perspective that defining a WEA-
capable mobile device as we do today could also be confusing. Indeed,
as a result of our action today, many mobile devices that are
compatible with presentation of WEAs will no longer be marketed as
``WEA-capable.'' By contrast to the status quo, we find this potential
for confusion to be acceptable and mitigable. If a consumer is confused
about the WEA capabilities of a mobile device marketed as WEA-capable
as we define it today, it would only be the surprise of learning that a
device, in fact, has WEA capabilities that it was not marketed as
having. We find this to be preferable to the confusion that might
result from purchasing a device marketed as ``WEA-capable'' only to
discover that it supports fewer than all of WEA's capabilities. To
ensure that customers can be well informed about the WEA service that
they should expect to receive on devices marketed as ``WEA-capable,''
we direct the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to publish a
consumer guide and keep up to date information regarding the
capabilities required of such devices.
15. Pursuant to the WARN Act, our rules permit CMS Providers to
participate in WEA so long as at least one mobile device that they
offer for sale is WEA-capable. We encourage Participating CMS Providers
to make as many mobile devices as possible ``WEA-capable'' to ensure
WEA is available on the types of devices often relied on by the public,
including those with disabilities. New York City Emergency Management
emphasizes the importance of preserving WEA compatibility for older
devices that may no longer support over-the-air software upgrades
necessary to comply with all the WEA equipment requirements,
particularly for ``populations that may not have the resources to
obtain a newer device.'' As AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon recognize,
consumers with mobile devices that are no longer considered to be WEA-
capable as a result of this regulatory change will continue to be able
to receive WEAs on their mobile devices even though those devices do
not support all WEA's features.
16. Finally, we make conforming edits to reflect that Participating
CMS Providers and equipment manufacturers may market mobile devices
irrespective of their WEA capabilities, but they will be prohibited
from marketing a mobile device as a ``WEA-capable mobile device''
unless it complies with the revised WEA mobile device equipment
requirements, including the ability to support silent alerts. Similarly
included in this prohibition is marketing language that could mislead
consumers into the mistaken belief that the device they are considering
for purchase is compliant with the WEA rules (e.g., ``Wireless
Emergency Alert Compatible
[[Page 12466]]
Devices,'' ``alert-capable devices,'' or the identification of mobile
device capabilities by version number, such as 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0).
C. Compliance Timeframes
17. The deadline for compliance with the silent alert requirements
will be 36 months from the publication of this Seventh Report and Order
in the Federal Register. The record shows that compliance with these
requirements would necessitate technically feasible changes to
applicable standards and software. Specifically, support for this
capability will require updates to alert origination software, FEMA's
Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS), Participating CMS
Providers' WEA systems, and mobile devices. AT&T synopsizes as follows
how the capability to send silent alerts would be implemented: ``[i]t
may be possible for Alert Originators to include an information element
within a WEA message that would direct a user's device to suppress the
alert signal while still displaying the WEA alert.'' To support the
subscriber capability to override the alert originator's suppression of
the common vibration cadence, mobile device manufacturers and operating
system developers will need to determine how WEA-capable mobile devices
display the option to override silent alerts. We agree with AT&T that
these capabilities ``would require extensive study, standards
development, testing, and deployment, and the Commission would need to
provide sufficient time for these steps to be completed.'' We provide
sufficient time with the compliance deadline that we adopt today. ATIS,
AT&T, and FEMA recommend study ``of all potential use cases for the
`silent alert,' along with the pros/cons of a silent alert'' to give
alert originators an opportunity to prepare best practices and
procedures that enable them to use this capability effectively. We
encourage our federal partners, such as FEMA and the National Weather
Service and alert originators along with their advocacy groups, such as
the National Emergency Management Association and the International
Association of Emergency Managers, to conduct this study. We disagree
with ATIS, however, that this study must ``be undertaken prior to any
decision to move forward with design and implementation.'' Rather, we
agree with AT&T that it is sufficient for this study to be completed
before the capability's implementation because the study pertains to
alert originators' use of the capability, not the technical feasibility
of its implementation. While the record in this proceeding did not
specifically quantify the amount of time that compliance would require,
based on our experience with adopting other WEA requirements that have
entailed at least this much technical development, we anticipate that
30 months will permit ample time for industry to complete the standards
and software development work required to support this functionality
while alert originators focus on developing best practices and use
cases. However, we acknowledge that industry is already in the process
of implementing new WEA capabilities. We acknowledge that the
simultaneous adoption of several new WEA capabilities may potentially
create resource constraints and cause delays to deployment, and
therefore grant Participating CMS Providers an additional six months to
implement silent alerts.
18. In adopting this 36-month compliance timeframe, we highlight
that the date of required compliance marks the beginning, rather than
the end, of the transition to full system support for this
functionality. As AT&T and ATIS observe, at the outset there will be an
``inherent mix of handsets that can and cannot support this feature,''
but we disagree with AT&T that this will prevent the feature from being
used. Rather, alert originators will determine the extent to which they
will begin to use this feature on the date of required compliance in
full knowledge of the limitations of handset support and with a
reasonable expectation that handset support for the capability will
mature over time. Our experience suggests that it will take about three
years after the date of required compliance to reach 88% market
penetration of mobile devices that support the capability to silence
alerts. Out of an abundance of caution, and to ensure the continued
accessibility of WEA, we emphasize that any mobile devices that do not
support silent alerts as of the date of required compliance must
present the Attention Signal for all alerts, subject to the consumer
control over the presentation of the Attention Signal that our rules
otherwise provide.
19. We believe it is particularly important that we adopt a
definition of a WEA-capable mobile device in this Seventh Report and
Order because, to maintain the accessibility of silent alerts for
individuals with disabilities, the capability to support silent alerts
must be accompanied by the capability to override the suppression of
the vibration cadence. Prohibiting Participating CMS Providers and
equipment manufacturers from marketing as WEA-capable mobile devices
that support one of these capabilities, but not the other, will avoid
the possibility that the adoption of this requirement renders silent
WEAs inaccessible. To ensure that the public is able to realize the
benefits of regulatory clarity that these new definitions provide and
enable Participating CMS Providers to make any necessary adjustments to
their marketing, these rule revisions will become effective 180 days
after the publication of this Seventh Report and Order in the Federal
Register. We join FEMA in encouraging standards bodies and mobile
device manufacturers to consider solutions for the silent alerting
functionality that support backwards compatibility with older systems
to hasten the deployment of this feature and increase the availability
of WEA-capable mobile devices.
D. Analysis of Costs and Benefits
20. We find that the benefits of requiring compliance with this
requirement exceed the anticipated costs. Commenters generally agree
with our proposal that giving alert originators the ability to suppress
presentation of the Attention Signal during active shooter situations
could make WEA a more effective tool in that situation. No commenter
opposed our analysis that making WEA a better tool for active shooter
scenarios could reduce casualties by discretely warning the public,
which would yield substantial public safety benefits. According to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, there were 61 active shooter incidents
in 2021, resulting in 243 casualties, including 103 deaths and 140
injuries. These incidents continue. In 2023, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation designated an additional 48 shootings as active shooter
incidents with 244 casualties, including 105 killed and 139 injuries.
Accordingly, we continue to find it reasonable that suppressing the
audio attention signal and vibration cadence during active shooters
scenarios could generate significant public safety benefits. This is
even before considering that selective suppression could benefit the
public by reducing consumer opt out, that defining a ``mobile device''
for the purpose of WEA could benefit the public by increasing the
availability of WEA on tablets and wearables, and that defining a ``WEA
capable mobile device'' will enhance the value of marketing
disclosures.
21. We find that the value of those benefits would have to exceed
$37.7 million to exceed their anticipated cost. We find that premise is
satisfied and that the cost estimates are valid. In the Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking,
[[Page 12467]]
the Commission reasoned that these costs comprise approximately
$814,000 to update applicable WEA standards and approximately $39.1
million to update applicable software. We continue to rely on this
methodology for assessing the cost of compliance with this requirement,
to which no commenter objected. On our own initiative, however, we
update this analysis to account for changes in the wage rate of workers
likely to be engaged in the process of compliance and to update our
account of the number of CMS Providers that participate in WEA. We now
estimate that the cost is slightly less than proposed: $889,000 to
update applicable standards and $36.8 million to update applicable
software for a total of $37.7 million.
22. Since WEA's inception, the Commission has never recognized a
cost to Participating CMS Providers or equipment manufacturers
associated with the marketing of mobile devices or their WEA
capabilities. No commenter in this proceeding suggests that they will
incur any costs to comply with this requirement, so we do not diverge
from that analysis here. We continue to decline to assign a dollar
value to that activity for the purpose of this cost benefit analysis
because marketing is purely voluntary commercial activity unnecessary
to the provision of commercial mobile service or the sale of mobile
devices. CMS Providers that market their mobile devices do so because
they anticipate that the economic benefits of doing so will outweigh
the costs. Insofar as Participating CMS Providers and equipment
manufacturers market their mobile devices based on their WEA-
capabilities, the definitions that we adopt today may implicate changes
to those marketing materials. No Participating CMS Provider or
equipment manufacturer will have to change their existing marketing
materials as a result of this requirement, however, because the WEA
capabilities that they support on devices that they sell are completely
at their discretion, pursuant to the WARN Act. CMS Providers may
continue to participate in WEA ``in part'' so long as one mobile device
that they sell is a WEA-capable mobile device, as we define it today.
II. Procedural Matters
23. 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 a Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the possible impact of the rule
changes contained in this Seventh Report and Order on small entities.
The FRFA is set forth in Appendix C of the Commission document.
24. Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and
the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, concurs, that this rule is ``non-
major'' under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The
Commission will send a copy of this Seventh Report and Order to
Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A).
25. Paperwork Reduction Act. This document does not contain new or
modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore,
it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden
for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to
the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
26. 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" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e2848181d7d2d6a2848181cc858d94">[email protected]</a> or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice).
III. Ordering Clauses
27. Accordingly it is ordered, pursuant to the authority contained
in 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, and 606, as well as by
sections 602(a), (b), (c), (f), 603, 604 and 606 of the Warning Alert
and Response Network (WARN) Act, 47 U.S.C. 1201(a), (b), (c), (f),
1203, 1204 and 1206, that this Seventh Report is hereby adopted.
28. It is further ordered that part 10 of the Commission's rules is
amended as specified in Appendix A of the Commission document. The
definitions of a WEA-capable mobile device and a mobile device for the
purpose of WEA (section 10.10(j) through (m)), along with conforming
edits (to the introductory text of section 10.500, section 10.500(i)
through (j), the introductory text of section 10.520, and the
introductory text of section 10.530), will become effective 180 days
after the publication of this Seventh Report and Order in the Federal
Register. The silent alert rules adopted herein (sections 10.490 and
10.530(d)) will become effective thirty-six (36) months after
publication of this Seventh Report and Order in the Federal Register.
29. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the
Secretary shall send a copy of this Seventh Report and Order, including
the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
30. It is further ordered that the Office of the Managing Director,
Performance & Program Management, shall send a copy of this Seventh
Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 10
Communications, Communications equipment, Electronic products,
Individuals with disabilities, Telecommunications.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 10 as follows:
PART 10--WIRELESS EMERGENCY ALERTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 10 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(n), 201, 301,
303(b), 303(e), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 307, 309, 316, 403, 544(g),
606, 1201, 1202, 1203, 1204, and 1206.
0
2. Effective September 15, 2025, amend Sec. 10.10 by revising
paragraph (j), redesignating paragraph (l) as paragraph (m),
redesignating paragraph (k) as paragraph (l), and adding a new
paragraph (k) to read as follows:
Sec. 10.10 Definitions.
* * * * *
(j) Mobile Device. For the purposes of this part, any customer
equipment used to receive commercial mobile service.
(k) WEA-capable Mobile Device. A mobile device, as defined in
paragraph (j) of this section, that complies with the part 10, subpart
E equipment requirements.
(l) CMS Provider participation ``in whole.'' CMS Providers that
have agreed
[[Page 12468]]
to transmit WEA Alert Messages in a manner consistent with the
technical standards, protocols, procedures, and other technical
requirements implemented by the Commission in the entirety of their
geographic service area, and when all mobile devices that the CMS
Providers offer at the point of sale are WEA-capable.
(m) CMS Provider participation ``in part.'' CMS Providers that have
agreed to transmit WEA Alert Messages in a manner consistent with the
technical standards, protocols, procedures, and other technical
requirements implemented by the Commission in some, but not in all of
their geographic service areas, or CMS Providers that offer mobile
devices at the point of sale that are not WEA-capable.
0
3. Effective March 18, 2028, add Sec. 10.490 to read as follows:
Sec. 10.490 Silent Alerts.
A Participating CMS Provider must support an alert originator's
selection of whether an Alert Message will be presented without either
the common audio attention signal (Sec. 10.520), the common vibration
cadence (Sec. 10.530), or both.
0
4. Effective September 15, 2025, amend Sec. 10.500 by revising the
introductory text, adding and reserving paragraph (i), and adding
paragraph (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 10.500 General requirements.
A mobile device marketed for public use under part 10 as a ``WEA-
capable mobile device'' is required to perform the following functions:
* * * * *
(i) [Reserved]
(j) Support the Alert Message Requirements in subpart D of this
part.
0
5. Amend Sec. 10.520 by revising the introductory text to read as
follows:
Sec. 10.520 Common audio attention signal.
A Participating CMS Provider and equipment manufacturers may only
market a mobile device for public use under part 10 as a ``WEA-capable
mobile device'' if the mobile device includes an audio attention signal
that meets the requirements of this section.
* * * * *
0
6. Effective September 15, 2025, amend Sec. 10.530 by revising the
introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 10.530 Common vibration cadence.
A Participating CMS Provider and equipment manufacturers may only
market a mobile device for public use under part 10 as a ``WEA-capable
mobile device'' if the mobile device includes a vibration cadence
capability that meets the requirements of this section.
* * * * *
0
7. Effective March 18, 2028, further amend Sec. 10.530 by adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 10.530 Common vibration cadence.
* * * * *
(d) A device must include the option to enable the presentation of
the common vibration cadence for all Alert Messages. If selected, that
option overrides the alert originator's selection to present an Alert
Message without the common vibration cadence.
[FR Doc. 2025-04126 Filed 3-17-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on March 18, 2025.
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.