Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Improving Wireless Emergency Alerts and 
Community-Initiated Alerting
)
)
)
)
PS Docket No. 15-91
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Adopted:  November 19, 2015 Released:  November 19, 2015
Comment Date:  (30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register)
Reply Comment Date:  (60 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register)
By the Commission: Chairman Wheeler, Commissioners Clyburn, Rosenworcel, Pai and O’Rielly issuing 
separate statements.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1
II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 3
III. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING.......................................................................................... 7
A. WEA Messaging .............................................................................................................................. 7
1. Increasing Maximum WEA Character Length.......................................................................... 7
2. Classifying Emergency Government Information................................................................... 17
3. Content in WEA Alerts ........................................................................................................... 23
4. Providing Multilingual WEA Messages.................................................................................. 31
B. WEA Geo-Targeting...................................................................................................................... 34
C. WEA Testing and Proficiency Training......................................................................................... 43
1. Promoting State and Local Testing and Proficiency Training ................................................ 44
2. Requiring Alert Logging and Test Reporting.......................................................................... 55
D. Participating CMS Providers and Subscribers ............................................................................... 61
E. WEA Attention Signals and Public Service Announcements........................................................ 68
F. Non-commercial Educational and Public Broadcast Television Station Testing .......................... 71
G. WEA Prioritization ........................................................................................................................ 76
H. Participating CMS Provider Election Process ............................................................................... 78
I. Implementation Timeframe ........................................................................................................... 82
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS................................................................................................................ 89
A. Ex Parte Rules................................................................................................................................ 89
B. Comment Filing Procedures .......................................................................................................... 90
C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis........................................................................................... 91
D. Initial Paperwork Reduction Analysis ........................................................................................... 92
E. Further Information........................................................................................................................ 93
V. ORDERING CLAUSES....................................................................................................................... 94
APPENDIX A – Proposed Rules
APPENDIX B – Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
2
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Today we take steps to strengthen Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) by proposing
revisions to our rules based on the Commission’s experience and stakeholder feedback during the first 
three years of the WEA’s deployment.  Specifically, in order to empower state and local alert originators 
to participate more fully in WEA,
1
and to enhance the utility of WEA as an alerting tool,
2
this Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) proposes revisions to our rules designed to improve the clarity of WEA 
messages, to ensure that WEA alerts reach only those individuals to whom a WEA alert is relevant, and to 
establish a WEA testing program that will improve the effectiveness of the system for public safety 
officials and the public.  This Notice also seeks comment on issues necessary to ensure that WEA keeps
pace with evolving technologies and thus empowers communities to initiate these life-saving alerts.  Our 
proposals are tailored to impose minimum burdens on stakeholders, while ensuring “that all Americans 
have the capability to receive timely and accurate alerts.”
3
2. Our proposals fall into three categories: improving the effectiveness of WEA message 
content, improving geo-targeting,
4
and facilitating testing and proficiency training.  With respect to WEA 
messaging, we propose to expand the maximum character length of WEA messages from 90 to 360
characters, create a new class of WEA alerts (Emergency Government Information) to provide an 
additional mechanism for critical communications between alert originators and their communities, and to 
remove our prohibition on embedded references to allow the provision of phone numbers and URLs in 
WEA messages.
5
We also seek comment on whether it is technically feasible to enhance the utility of 
WEA messages by supplementing WEA alerts with multimedia, and by providing WEA alerts in 
languages other than English.  With respect to geo-targeting, we propose to require Participating 
Commercial Mobile Service (CMS) Providers to distribute WEA messages to a geographic area that more 
                                                     
1
The term “alert originator” refers to a federal, state, territorial, tribal, or local entity authorized by FEMA to use the 
Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) to issue critical public alerts and warnings in emergency 
situations.  The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) recognizes “alerting authorities,” e.g., federal, 
state, territorial, tribal, and local authorities that have completed the necessary authentication steps to use IPAWS.  
See FEMA, ALERTING AUTHORITIES, https://www.fema.gov/alerting-authorities (last visited Jun. 3, 2015). 
2
WEA was formerly known as the Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS).  In 2013, the Public Safety and 
Homeland Security Bureau amended its Part 10 rules to change the name “Commercial Mobile Alert System” 
(CMAS) to “Wireless Emergency Alert” (WEA).  See Commercial Mobile Alert System, PS Docket No. 07-287, 
Order, 28 FCC Rcd 1460 (PSHSB 2013).  With this action we close CMAS PS Docket No. 07-287, and open a new 
docket, PS Docket No. 15-91, for WEA.
3
The Commercial Mobile Alert System, PS Docket 07-287, Third Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 12561, 12562, ¶ 
3 (2008) revised by Erratum (dated Sept. 5, 2008) (Third Report and Order).
4
“Geo-targeting” alerts refers to the ability of the WEA architecture to direct an alert to a geographic area that 
matches that desired by the alert originator.  See CSRIC IV, WORKING GROUP TWO, WIRELESS EMERGENCY 
ALERTS, GEO-TARGETING, MESSAGE CONTENT AND CHARACTER LIMITATION SUBCOMMITTEE, FINAL REPORT 8 
(2014), available at https://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/advisory/csric4/CSRIC_CMAS_Geo-
Target_Msg_Content_Msg_Len_Rpt_Final.pdf (last visited Jun. 9, 2015) (CSRIC WEA Messaging Report).  The 
Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council (CSRIC) is a federal advisory committee charged 
with providing recommendations to the FCC to ensure, among other things, the optimal security and reliability of 
communications systems, including telecommunications, media, and public safety systems, subject to the 
requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).  See 5 U.S.C.A. § 10.  The CSRIC WEA Messaging 
Report has been endorsed by the Disability Advisory Committee (DAC).  See Letter From Susan Mazrui, Co-Chair, 
Disability Advisory Committee (DAC), to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 15-91 (filed Jun. 25, 
2015).
5
Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) are the fundamental network identification for any resource connected to the 
web, and are used to specify addresses on the Internet in the following format: “protocol://hostname/other 
information.”  See INDIANA UNIVERSITY, KNOWLEDGE BASE, WHAT IS A URL?, https://kb.iu.edu/d/adnz (last visited 
May 12, 2015).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
3
accurately matches the target area specified by the alert originator.
6
  With respect to WEA testing and 
training, we propose to establish requirements and procedures to facilitate state and local WEA testing
and proficiency training, and seek comment on logging and reporting requirements for Participating CMS 
Provider Alert Gateways.
7
  We also seek comment on steps the Commission can take to promote 
participation in WEA by CMS Providers and by wireless customers.  With respect to consumer 
participation, we seek comment on different alternatives for displaying and receiving WEA messages, in 
order to reduce the likelihood that consumers will “opt out” of WEA.  We also address the election 
process by which CMS Providers choose to participate in WEA.  Finally, we also ask whether we should 
allow transmission of the WEA Attention Signal as part of government-developed Public Safety 
Announcements (PSAs), whether and how testing of the broadcast-based WEA infrastructure should be 
implemented, and whether WEA alerts should take priority over all mobile device activity except for 
certain voice and data sessions.
8
II. BACKGROUND
3. In 2008, pursuant to processes required by the Warning, Alert and Response Network 
(WARN) Act,
9
the Commission adopted rules allowing CMS Providers to voluntarily deliver timely and 
accurate emergency alerts over subscribers’ mobile devices.
10
  The WARN Act required that the 
Commission undertake a series of actions, including the establishment and convening of an advisory 
committee to recommend technical requirements for WEA.
11
  Accordingly, the Commission formed the 
                                                     
6
  A “Participating CMS Provider” is a Commercial Mobile Service Provider that has voluntarily elected to transmit 
Alert Messages under Part 10 of the Commission’s rules.  47 C.F.R. § 10.10(f). For purposes of Section 602 of the 
Warning, Alert and Response Network (WARN) Act, Congress specifically defined “commercial mobile service” as 
that found in section 332(d)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 332(d)(1) (the term 
“commercial mobile service” means any mobile service that is provided for profit and makes interconnected service 
available to the public or to such classes of eligible users as to be effectively available to a substantial portion of the 
public, as specified by regulation by the Commission).  See Warning, Alert and Response Network (WARN) Act, 
Title VI of the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-347, 120 Stat. 1884 (2006) 
(WARN Act).  The term “Commercial Mobile Service” (CMS) is co-extensive with the term “Commercial Mobile 
Radio Service” (CMRS) as defined in 47 C.F.R. § 20.3.  47 C.F.R. § 20.3.  
7
To “log” an alert is to maintain a list of alerts received and/or rejected in order to provide a mechanism to audit the 
provision of such alerts.  See FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION COMMERCIAL MOBILE SERVICE ALERT 
ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PMG-0035 COMMERCIAL MOBILE ALERT SERVICE ARCHITECTURE AND REQUIREMENTS 66 
(2007) (CMSAAC Report).
8
The WARN Act required the Commission to “complete a proceeding to require licensees and permittees of 
noncommercial educational broadcast stations or public broadcast stations (as those terms are defined in section 
397(6) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 397(6))) to install necessary equipment and technologies on, 
or as part of, any broadcast television digital signal transmitter to enable the distribution of geographically targeted 
alerts by commercial mobile service providers that have elected to transmit emergency alerts under this section.”  
See WARN Act § 602(c).  This broadcast-based WEA infrastructure serves as a back-up to the C-Interface. See infra 
¶ 4 (describing the C-Interface).
9
On October 13, 2006, the President signed the Security and Accountability for Every Port (SAFE Port) Act into 
law.  Title VI of the SAFE Port Act, also known as the WARN Act, establishes a process for the creation of a 
national mobile alerting system, now known as WEA, whereby Participating CMS Providers transmit emergency 
alerts to their subscribers.  
10
See 47 C.F.R. § 10; see also The Commercial Mobile Alert System, PS Docket No. 07-287, First Report and 
Order, 23 FCC Rcd 6144 (2008) (First Report and Order); The Commercial Mobile Alert System, PS Docket No. 
07-287, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 23 FCC Rcd 10765 (2008) (Second 
Report and Order); Third Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 12561.
11
WARN Act §§ 603(a), (d).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
4
Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee (CMSAAC).
12
  The CMSAAC submitted its 
report to the Commission on October 12, 2007, as required by the WARN Act.
13
  The Commission 
subsequently promulgated rules governing WEA, within the timeframes established by the WARN Act.
14
  
The WARN Act gives the Commission authority to adopt “relevant technical standards, protocols, 
procedures and other technical requirements based on the recommendations of such Advisory Committee 
necessary to enable commercial mobile service alerting capability for commercial mobile service 
providers that voluntarily elect to transmit emergency alerts.”
15
  The WARN Act also gives the 
Commission authority to adopt procedures whereby CMS Providers could specify their intent to the 
Commission to participate in WEA.
16
  Many CMS Providers, including the four nationwide wireless 
carriers, elected to participate in WEA, at least in part.
17
  Since it was deployed in April 2012,
18
WEA has 
been used to issue timely and accurate emergency alerts, including severe weather warnings, evacuate and 
shelter-in place alerts, and America’s Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response (AMBER) Alerts.
19
4. The WEA system that arose out of the WARN Act is a tool for authorized federal, state 
and local government entities to geographically target 90-character Presidential, Imminent Threat, and 
AMBER Alerts to the WEA-capable mobile devices of Participating CMS Providers’ subscribers.
20
  As 
depicted in Figure 1 below, a WEA alert is sent by an authorized federal, state or local government entity 
using the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-
operated Alert Aggregator via a secure, Internet-based interface (the A-Interface) where it is 
                                                     
12
See Notice of Appointment of Members to the Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee, Agenda 
for December 12, 2006 Meeting, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 14175 (PSHSB 2006).  
13
CMSAAC Report.   
14
WARN Act § 602(a) (requiring the Commission to promulgate technical standards for WEA within 180 days of 
receipt of the CMSAAC’s recommendations); id. at § 602(c) (requiring the Commission to promulgate requirements 
for noncommercial educational broadcast stations or public broadcast stations to enable the distribution of 
geographically targeted messages within 90 days of the publication of its technical standards); id. at § 602(b) 
(requiring the Commission to promulgate election procedures for CMS Providers within 120 days of the publication 
of its technical standards); id. at § 602(f) (requiring the Commission to require by regulation technical testing for 
commercial mobile service providers that elect to transmit emergency alerts and for the devices and equipment used 
by such providers for transmitting such alerts).
15
Id. at § 602(a).
16
Id. at § 602(b).  Under the WARN Act, CMS Providers could elect to participate in whole, in part, or not at all.  
Id. at § 602(b)(1)(B) (electing to participate “in part” signifies that a Participating CMS Provider only elects to 
provide WEA alerts in select regions of the United States).  CMS Providers who intended to participate in WEA 
were required to specify their intent to the Commission in writing.  See id. at § 602(B)(2)(A) (requiring that “within 
30 days after the Commission issues its order under [Section 602(b)], each licensee providing commercial mobile 
service shall file an election with the Commission with respect to whether or not it intends to transmit emergency 
alerts”).
17
See FCC, MASTER CMAS REGISTRY, available at
https://www.fcc.gov/pshs/docs/services/cmas/MasterCMASRegistry.xls (last visited Oct. 21. 2015); see also PS 
Docket No. 08-146 (containing a record of all Participating CMS Providers’ elections to participate in WEA).
18
See FCC's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Sets Timetable in Motion for Commercial Mobile 
Service Providers To Develop a System That Will Deliver Alerts to Mobile Devices, PS Docket No. 07-287, Public 
Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 14388 (PSHSB 2009).
19
See CTIA, WIRELESS EMERGENCY ALERTS, http://www.ctia.org/your-wireless-life/consumer-tips/wireless-
emergency-alerts (last visited Oct. 20, 2015).  The AMBER (America’s Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response) 
program is a nationwide alerting program designed to help bring missing children to safety.  See Office of Justice 
Programs, AMBERAlert.gov, http://www.amberalert.gov/about.htm (last visited May 7, 2015).
20
See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 10.450 (geo-targeting); 47 C.F.R. § 10.430 (character limit); 47 C.F.R. § 10.400 
(classification).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
5
authenticated, validated and delivered to FEMA’s Alert Gateway (the B-Interface).
21
  At the FEMA Alert 
Gateway, the alert is prepared for delivery to the Participating CMS Provider by being converted to 
Commercial Mobile Alert for C-Interface (CMAC) format to render it readable by mobile devices.  The 
alert is then disseminated across a secure Internet-based interface (the C-Interface) to the Participating 
CMS Provider’s Alert Gateway (CMSP Gateway) for distribution to mobile customers over cell broadcast 
(CMSP Infrastructure).
22
Figure 1: WEA Architecture
5. While the response to WEA from Participating CMS Providers and alert originators has 
been overwhelmingly positive, stakeholders, including state and local alert originators, have raised 
several concerns about WEA capabilities and opportunities for system testing and proficiency training for 
alert originators.  For example, state and local alert originators raise concerns about the inability of non-
federal government entities to conduct end-to-end tests of the system.
23
  Alert originators also have raised 
                                                     
21
See infra Figure 1.
22
From a technical standpoint, the WEA system currently deployed by FEMA and Participating CMS Providers is 
based on standards created by the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS), the 
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) (jointly, ATIS/TIA), and the 3rd Generation Partnership Project 
(3GPP).  See CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 7.  We note that nothing in the WARN Act requires WEA to be a 
cell-broadcast-based service.
23
See CSRIC IV, WORKING GROUP TWO, WIRELESS EMERGENCY ALERTS, TESTING SUBCOMMITTEE, FINAL REPORT
7, 9 (2014), available at http://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/advisory/csric4/CSRIC_IV_WG-2_Testing-Rprt_061814.pdf 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
6
concerns that the 90-character limit for WEA messages does not allow them to provide sufficient 
information to their constituents about emergencies.
24
Further, alert originators believe that it would be 
ideal for all WEA-enabled mobile devices in an alert area to receive a WEA message, while excluding 
mobile devices outside of the alert area.
25
  This need for more accurate geo-targeting of WEA alerts is 
supported by research findings in the START Report, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, 
Study of Terrorism and Response to Terrorism (START), which state that “the effectiveness of WEA 
Alert Messages may remain suppressed until they can be distributed to finer geospatial targeted 
populations so that messages only reach people who are at risk.”
26
  The Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) also recommended that the FCC, in conjunction with FEMA, review and update rules 
governing character limitations, geo-targeting, and testing procedures.
27
  
6. In light of these concerns, and considering the many advancements in wireless 
technology since the adoption of the Commission’s WEA rules in 2008, including the widespread use of 
smartphones and the development of 4G technologies,
28
the Commission tasked its Communications 
Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council (CSRIC) IV, a federal advisory committee, with 
reviewing the current WEA rules and recommending any changes, as appropriate.
29
  In 2014, CSRIC IV 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
(last visited Apr. 16, 2015) (CSRIC WEA Testing Report).  Under the Commission’s rules, there is no method for 
state and local alert originators to test the WEA system.  See CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 7, 9.
24
First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 6174, ¶ 82; see also CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 22-23.
25
See CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 17, 28.
26
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY STUDY OF TERRORISM AND RESPONSES TO TERRORISM, COMPREHENSIVE 
TESTING OF IMMINENT THREAT PUBLIC MESSAGES FOR MOBILE DEVICES 37 (2014) (START Report).  START is a 
university-based research and education center, headquartered at the University of Maryland, comprised of an 
international network of scholars committed to the scientific study of the human consequences of terrorism in the 
United States and around the world.  START was established in 2005 with Department of Homeland Security grant 
funding as a U.S. Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence, tasked with utilizing state-of-the-art 
theories, methods, and data from the social and behavioral sciences to improve the understanding of the origins, 
dynamics, and social and psychological impacts of terrorism.  See NATIONAL CONSORTIUM FOR THE STUDY OF 
TERRORISM AND RESPONSES TO TERRORISM (START), ABOUT START, http://www.start.umd.edu/about/about-start 
(last visited May 12, 2015).  Further, as required by the WARN Act, the Department of Homeland Security has 
sponsored research by START to improve WEA geo-targeting and message interpretation. WARN Act § 604.  
27
See GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, EMERGENCY ALERTING: CAPABILITIES HAVE IMPROVED, BUT 
ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE AND TESTING ARE NEEDED, GAO 13-375 (2013).   
28
Fourth generation (4G) mobile telecommunications technology standards include Long Term Evolution (LTE) 
and Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (mobile WiMAX). See Implementation of Section 6002(b) 
of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993; Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions 
With Respect to Mobile Wireless, Including Commercial Mobile Services, WT Docket 13-135, Seventeenth Report, 
29 FCC Rcd 15311, 15333, ¶ 59 (2014) (2014 Competition Report).  “LTE increases the capacity and speed of 
wireless networks by redesigning and simplifying the network architecture to transition from the existing 
combination of circuit and packet switching to an all-IP architecture system.” See Promoting Interoperability in the 
700 MHz Commercial Spectrum, WT Docket Nos. 12-332, 12-69, Report and Order and Order of Proposed 
Modification, 28 FCC Rcd 15122, 15126-27, ¶ 7 (2013).  A “smartphone” is a cellphone and handheld computer that 
has the functionality of a personal computer, but is compact, has a high-resolution screen, and supports voice 
recognition.  See PCMAG ENCYCLOPEDIA, http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/51537/smartphone (last 
visited May 14, 2015).
29
See LARISSA HERDA, CSRIC IVWORKING GROUP DESCRIPTIONS AND LEADERSHIP 2-3 (2014), available at 
http://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/pshs/advisory/csric4/CSRIC%20IV%20Working%20Group%20Descriptions%2010
%2023%2014.pdf (last visited Oct. 2, 2015).  CSRIC is a federal advisory committee charged with providing 
recommendations to the FCC to ensure, among other things, the optimal security and reliability of communications 
systems, including telecommunications, media, and public safety systems, subject to the requirements of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (FACA).  See 5 U.S.C.A. § 10.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
7
submitted two reports recommending rule changes and other actions to facilitate improvements to WEA.
30
  
Informed by the CSRIC IV recommendations, as well as by the START Report, we now seek comment on 
several proposals designed to improve WEA and to facilitate more effective community-initiated alerting. 
III. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
A. WEA Messaging 
1. Increasing Maximum WEA Character Length
7. Under the Commission’s rules, WEA messages are currently limited to a maximum 
length of 90 characters.
31
  In the First Report and Order the Commission concluded that adopting a 90-
character text message protocol would serve the public interest because it would allow Participating CMS 
Providers to transmit WEA messages without requiring technical changes to their underlying 
infrastructure, and because 90-character messages were considered to be of sufficient length to get the 
consumer’s attention, so they could then seek out other media for confirmation of the alert and for further 
information.
32
  Importantly, the Commission envisioned that Participating CMS Providers would 
eventually deploy technologies capable of messages longer than 90 characters.
33
  
8. In its recent report CSRIC IV finds that the majority of commercial mobile wireless 
networks and network technologies, such as GSM, UMTS, and LTE, can support messages with a larger 
number of characters.
34
  Moreover, CSRIC IV recommends that the Commission expand the character 
limit for WEA messages sent using 4G LTE-based infrastructure and devices to a maximum of 280 
characters, pending confirmation by the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS), and 
the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) (jointly, ATIS/TIA) that such an increase of the 
character length is feasible.
35
  CSRIC IV recommends that the necessary modifications to industry 
standards supporting the coexistence of 90- and 280-character alerts can be completed within one year of 
the issuance of an appropriate report and order.
36
  Subsequent to CSRIC IV’s recommendations, 
ATIS/TIA released its Feasibility Study for LTE WEA Message Length in October 2015, and confirms 
that extending WEA message character length is feasible.
37
  The Feasibility Study for LTE WEA Message 
Length recommends a maximum WEA message length of 360 characters,
38
where a minimum of 280 and 
                                                     
30
See CSRIC WEA Testing Report (exploring various facets of the current WEA testing paradigm with the goal of 
developing an approach that would support an option for state and local “end-to-end” testing); CSRIC WEA 
Messaging Report (examining the feasibility and desirability of expanding the maximum character limit for WEA 
messages; enhancing WEA message content with multimedia; and improving WEA geo-targeting).
31
See 47 C.F.R. § 10.430.
32
First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 6174, ¶ 83.
33
See id. at 6162, ¶ 42.  This conclusion was consistent with the CMSAAC recommendation that WEA alerts be 
limited in size to accommodate the capabilities of CDMA2000, one of the primary wireless network technologies 
deployed at that time.  See CMSAAC Report at 43, 56; CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 15.
34
See CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 16 (“LTE is capable of broadcasting more than 90 characters”).  Global 
System for Mobile (GSM) Communications is a standard developed by the European Telecommunications 
Standards Institute (ETSI) to describe protocols for second-generation (2G) digital cellular networks used by mobile 
phones.  Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) is the third generation 3G) of mobile 
telecommunications technology developed and maintained by 3GPP.  Long-Term Evolution (LTE) is the standard 
for modern, fourth generation mobile telecommunications developed by 3GPP.
35
See id. at 44. 
36
See id.
37
See ATIS/TIA, FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR LTEWEAMESSAGE LENGTH 19 (2015) (ATIS/TIA Feasibility Study for 
LTE WEA Message Length).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
8
a maximum of 372 characters can be included in two transmission segments.
39
  The study also notes, 
however, that additional WEA enhancements, such as improved geo-targeting and support for multimedia 
and multilingual alerts, may decrease their maximum recommended character length, pending further 
study.
40
9. Consistent with the CSRIC IV recommendations and the recent ATIS/TIA study, we 
propose to amend Section 10.430 of our rules to expand the maximum permissible length of WEA 
messages from 90 to 360 characters of alphanumeric text.  Specifically, we propose to extend the 
character limit for those networks and devices for which it is technically feasible to deliver and process 
360-character messages, as discussed in greater detail below, while continuing to allow the delivery of 
90-character messages on 2G and 3G networks and devices.
41
In this regard, we seek to balance the 
capabilities of 4G LTE networks with the limitations of legacy networks.  We seek comment on this 
proposal, and the extent to which it would serve the needs of state and local governments to provide more 
detailed alert information to the public sufficient to motivate appropriate and swift action to save lives and 
protect property.
10. Expanding the maximum character length for WEA messages to 360 characters could 
address alert originators’ concerns that they are unable to motivate the public to take appropriate 
protective action using messages limited to 90 characters.
42
  According to the National Center for Missing 
and Exploited Children (NCMEC), “[i]t can be extremely difficult to fit sufficient descriptive information 
within a 90-character limit in a meaningful and understandable manner that doesn't confuse the public.”
43
  
The National Weather Service (NWS) states that increasing the maximum WEA message length “would 
improve the ability of NWS and non-weather alerting authorities to convey critical life-saving 
information over WEA, such as spelling out key terms which are not abbreviated and may not be well 
understood.”
44
  CSRIC IV and START concur that longer alert messages make it easier for the public to 
understand the nature of an emergency and the responsive action alert originators advise them to take.
45
For example, according to the START Report, longer alert messages improve message interpretation, 
reduce “milling” by personalizing alert messages, and hasten a protective response.
46
FEMA also 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
38
Id.  The display characters in a WEA message are always encoded using GSM 7-bit format.  With GSM 7-bit, 
each display character takes 7 bits of data.  See id. at 3.  Bits of data are compiled into octets.  See id. 82 octets 
constitutes a Cell Broadcast (CB) Data Page.  See id. at 4.  Data pages are transmitted over the air as System 
Information Blocks (SIBs).  See id. at 8.  Partial SIBs are transmitted as segments formatted either as 1A (263 
octets) or 1C (203 octets).  See id. at 9.  SIB12 messages are transmitted with a periodicity defined by the CMS 
Provider which can be 80 milliseconds (ms), 169ms, 320ms, 640ms, 1.28 seconds (s), 2.56 s and 5.12 s.  Thus, 
periodicity varies proportionally with message delivery delay.  See id. at 12.  “Lower value of periodicity would 
reduce the delay, but could increase battery consumption at the mobile device.”  Id.
39
See id. at 11.
40
See id.
41
2G and 3G networks are collectively referred to as “legacy” networks.
42
See CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 31-33; see also START Report at 34.
43
Letter from Linda Kreig, Acting Chief Executive Officer for the National Center for Missing and Exploited 
Children, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 2, 3 (filed May 5, 2015) (NCMEC May 5, 
2015 Ex Parte Letter).  
44
Letter from Michael E. Gerber, Meteorologist, Office of Communications, NOAA/National Weather Service, to 
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed May 21, 2015) (NWS May 21, 2015 Ex Parte
Letter) (providing, for example, the use of “Mountain Daylight Time” instead of “MDT,” or “Georgia Emergency 
Management Agency” instead of “GEMA”).
45
See CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 56, Appendix B; see also START Report at 34.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
9
strongly supports increasing the character length of WEA messages.
47
  We seek comment on whether 
expanding WEA messages to 360 characters would be likely to promote public understanding and swifter 
action in response to an emergency.  We also seek comment on how an increase in the length of WEA 
messages would affect the accessibility of such messages by individuals with disabilities, senior citizens, 
and persons with limited English proficiency.
48
  We seek comment on how to quantify the potential life-
saving benefits of increasing the maximum character length of WEA messages, as well as of the rules we 
propose today.
49
11. If we expand the maximum character length for WEA messages, we seek comment on 
whether 360 characters is the optimal maximum.  We seek comment on the number of characters 
necessary to provide the public with sufficiently detailed information about the emergency situations that 
WEA is designed to address, and to encourage swift and effective public action in response to such 
emergencies.  For example, the START Report’s finding that longer alerts improve public response was 
based on 1,380 character messages.
50
  Is such a message length technically feasible?  Would a 1,380 
character message would better serve the public interest?  The START Report also found that some alert 
originators expressed a preference for 140-character messages, based on their view that the public may be 
unlikely to read longer messages.
51
  In this regard, we observe that the social media service Twitter uses 
messages limited to 140 characters in order to disseminate information about socially relevant 
phenomena, including emergency alerts and warnings.
52
  What can we learn about the way that people use 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
46
START Report at 34. “Milling” is a behavior in which “individuals interact with others to confirm information and 
develop a view about the risks they face at that moment and their possible responses.  Milling creates a delay 
between the time a warning is received and the time protective action is taken.”  See COMPUTER SCIENCE AND 
TELECOMMUNICATIONS BOARD; DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES; NATIONAL RESEARCH 
COUNCIL, PUBLIC RESPONSE TO ALERTS AND WARNINGS USING SOCIAL MEDIA: REPORT OF A WORKSHOP ON 
CURRENT KNOWLEDGE AND RESEARCH GAPS 4 (2013), available at 
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=15853 (last visited Jun. 9, 2015).  Specifically, the START Report finds 
that shorter (90- or 140-character) messages are substantially less effective at helping people overcome their 
preconceptions about specific threats, and, consequently, are less likely than longer messages (1,380 characters) at 
guiding people to take protective action. START Report at 30.
47
See Letter from Wade Witmer, Deputy Director, FEMA IPAWS Division, and Mark Lucero, Chief Engineer, 
FEMA IPAWS Division, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed Jun. 18, 2015) 
(FEMA Jun. 18 Ex Parte Letter).
48
See Ex Parte Filing from Wireless RERC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Re:  Open Proceedings of the 
Emergency Alert System and the Commercial Mobile Alert System, April 25, 2011 at 28 (indicating that 46% of 
survey participants who were deaf found the 90 character message length “too short”), available at
http://www.wirelessrerc.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Ex%20Parte%20WEC%20filing%20%28final%2
9.doc; http://www.wirelessrerc.gatech.edu/content/publications/emergency-communications-and-people-disabilities 
(last visited June 19, 2015). 
49
In other items, the Commission has used the Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) as the basis for quantifying benefits 
in terms of lives saved.  See, e.g., Review of the Emergency Alert System, EB Docket 04-296, Sixth Report and 
Order, 30 FCC Rcd 6520, 6545, n.178 (2015) (Sixth Report and Order).
50
START Report at 30.  At the same time, however, the START Report finds that “[t]here is nothing inherently better 
about 1,380-character messages.” Id. at 35. Rather, “people need to be provided with sufficiently detailed 
information about exactly what steps to take to protect themselves, and the number of characters needed to 
accomplish this likely varies across hazards.” Id. at 31.
51
Id. at 31.
52
See Gabriela Pena, Twitter Alerts: Critical Information When You Need it Most, TWITTER BLOG (Sep. 25, 2013, 
4:58 PM), https://blog.twitter.com/2013/twitter-alerts-critical-information-when-you-need-it-most (last visited Jun. 
9, 2015) (announcing the launch of Twitter Alerts, “a new feature that brings us one step closer to helping users get 
important and accurate information from credible organizations during emergencies, natural disasters or moments 
when other communications services aren’t accessible.”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
10
Twitter and other social media platforms that can inform our policymaking with respect to the length of 
WEA messages?  
12. We seek comment on the technical feasibility of supporting WEA messages longer than 
90 characters.  As confirmed by ATIS/TIA, CSRIC IV states that 4G LTE networks and devices are 
capable of delivering 360-character alerts,
53
and we anticipate that future network iterations will continue 
to support messages with a maximum character length of at least 360 characters.  We observe that the 
nation’s four largest CMS Providers have all but completed their transition to 4G technologies.
54
  In 
addition to the nation’s largest CMS Providers, smaller Participating CMS Providers are also transitioning 
to 4G technologies; for example, more than 93 percent of U.S. Cellular’s customers have access to 4G 
LTE,
55
and Sprint and NetAmerica Alliance have partnered with the Competitive Carriers Association to 
accelerate smaller Participating CMS Providers deployment of 4G LTE across rural America.
56
  We also 
seek comment regarding how the incorporation of the additional WEA enhancements we propose below 
(such as support for multimedia and multilingual alerts) may affect the implementation of WEA messages 
with a maximum length of 360 displayable characters.
57
  For instance, would the metadata associated with 
the inclusion of a URL compete with the maximum text limitation for WEA messages?
13. CSRIC IV concludes that the existing 90-character limit should remain for legacy
networks and devices due to these networks’ limitations and its expectation that the overwhelming 
majority of CMS Provider infrastructure and mobile devices will soon achieve 4G LTE capability.
58
  We 
seek comment on this view.  We seek comment on whether the coexistence of 90- and 360-character 
alerts might cause public confusion.  We also seek comment on the extent to which it would be feasible 
                                                     
53
See CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 44; see also ATIS/TIA Feasibility Study for LTE WEA Message Length at 
19 (2015).
54
See 2014 Competition Report, 29 FCC Rcd at 15402, ¶ 183 (AT&T); id. at 15402-03, ¶ 184 (Verizon); id. at 
15403-04, ¶¶ 185-86 (Sprint); id. at 15404, ¶¶ 187 (T-Mobile); Cam Bunton, T-Mobile’s LTE Coverage Map Will 
Look Like This by the End of 2015, T-MO NEWS, http://www.tmonews.com/2015/02/t-mobiles-lte-coverage-map-
will-look-like-this-by-the-end-of-2015/ (last visited Oct. 20, 2015) (stating that T-Mobile’s LTE service covered 265 
million people as of February 2015, and that their target is to reach 300 million (94 percent of Americans) by the 
end of 2015). AT&T’s 4G LTE build was reported “essentially complete” by the summer 2014.  See CSRIC WEA 
Messaging Report at 25.  As of January 2014, Sprint had rolled out LTE in 340 of 416 markets nationwide and 
Sprint’s LTE network covered more than 200 million people as of February 2014.  See Sprint, Sprint Rolls Out 4G 
LTE in More Cities, News Release (Jan. 27, 2014), available at http://newsroom.sprint.com/news-releases/sprint-
rolls-out-4g-lte-in-more-cities.htm; see also Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Provides Details About Partial 
Economic Areas, GN Docket No. 12-268, Public Notice, 29 FCC Rcd 6491 (WTB 2014).  T-Mobile’s 4G LTE 
network covers 250 million people and the company has announced its expectation to expand its coverage to 300 
million people in 2015.  See T-Mobile, T-Mobile US Reports Third Quarter 2014 Results, News Release (October 
27, 2014), available at http://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news/company-news/t-mobile-us-reports-third-quarter-2014-
results.htm.  Verizon Wireless has implemented LTE in at least 500 markets covering 303 million people (95 
percent of the U.S. population), noting that it had “virtually wrapped up its deployment” as of June 2013.  See 
Verizon, LTE Information Center, News Release, available at
http://www.verizonwireless.com/news/LTE/Overview.html (last visited Apr. 23, 2015).  
55
See 2014 Competition Report at 15404, ¶ 188.  Additionally, regional carriers, many of whom also participate in 
WEA, continue to roll out expanded LTE service.  See CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 26.
56
See Sprint, Sprint, Competitive Carriers Association and Net America Alliance Join Forces to Accelerate 
Deployment and Utilization of 4G LTE Across the United States, News Release, Mar. 27, 2014), available at 
newsroom.sprint.com/news-releases/sprint-competitive-carriers-association-and-netamerica-alliance-join-forces-to-
accelerate-deployment-and-utilization-of-4g-lte-across-the-united-states.htm (last visited May 19, 2015).
57
See ATIS/TIA Feasibility Study for LTE WEA Message Length at19 (observing that the inclusion of additional 
WEA enhancements, such as the inclusion of map information, may affect maximum WEA message length).  
58
See CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 44.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
11
for alert originators and Participating CMS Providers to support the coexistence of both 90- and 360-
character alerts.
59
14. CSRIC IV considered multiple approaches that would accommodate the existing base of 
legacy networks and mobile devices, while accounting for 4G technology’s ability to deliver and receive 
longer messages.  For example, one approach would be for the alert originator to “create two WEA [a]lert 
[m]essages, the first adhering to the 90 displayable character maximum and the second to support the 
longer displayable character length.”
60
  Alternatively, one WEA message could be generated, the first 90 
characters could be delivered to legacy devices, “and the full longer displayable characters [could be] 
delivered to future enhanced WEA LTE mobile devices.”
61
  A third alternative would be the transmission 
of a longer message in four parts over legacy networks (and in a single message over 4G networks, where 
feasible).
62
  We seek comment on the feasibility of these alternatives and any other approaches for 
implementing an expanded WEA message. FEMA states that standards applicable to the Integrated 
Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) would need to be updated in order for IPAWS to accept 
longer messages, and that a software update would likely be necessary to enable alert origination software 
to initiate longer messages.
63
  NWS states that it could provide a longer WEA message in addition to the 
90-character message, if necessary.
64
  Is commercially available alert origination software capable of 
automatically generating 90- and 360-character alerts from one message?  Are there additional 
technological solutions, not considered by CSRIC IV, which would more effectively enable the 
transmission of longer alerts across all technologies, including legacy networks and devices?  We also 
seek comment on the extent to which existing standards would need to be modified to accommodate the 
coexistence of 90- and 360-character maximum messages.
65
  
                                                     
59
CSRIC IV supports the coexistence of 90- and 280-character message length standards.  See id. at 44 (“It is 
recommended that the industry modify existing CMAS/WEA standards to support coexistence of both the legacy 90 
characters of displayable text for use on 2nd and 3rd Generation CMS Provider Infrastructure, and a message length 
of 280 displayable characters for 4G LTE CMS Provider Infrastructure including the addressing of backward 
compatibility issues.”).
60
Id. at 61, Appendix C.
61
Id.
62
See id.
63
See FEMA June 18, 2015 Ex Parte Letter at 1 (“[T]he Federal Alert Gateway software will need to change and the 
IPAWS Division will need to coordinate the change with the software tool vendors that support alerting authority 
users with tools enable sending of alert messages through IPAWS.”).  Federal, State, local, tribal and territorial 
alerting authorities can use IPAWS and integrate local systems that use Common Alerting Protocol standards with 
the IPAWS infrastructure. IPAWS provides public safety officials with an effective way to alert and warn the public 
about serious emergencies using the Emergency Alert System (EAS), Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA), the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Weather Radio, and other public alerting systems from 
a single interface.  See FEMA, INTEGRATED PUBLIC ALERT &WARNING SYSTEM, https://www.fema.gov/integrated-
public-alert-warning-system (last visited Jun. 25, 2015).
64
See NWS May 21, 2015 Ex Parte Letter at 1.
65
CSRIC IV observes that these standards and associated supplements would include, but are not limited to, the 
following: (1) ATIS-0700008 (Cell Broadcast Entity (CBE) to Cell Broadcast Center (CBC) Interface 
Specification); (2) ATIS-0700010 (CMAS via EPS Public Warning System Specification); (3) ATIS-0700014 
(Implementation Guidelines for CMAS Handling of CMAS, Supplemental Information Broadcast); (4) J-STD-100 
(Joint ATIS/TIA CMAS Mobile Device Behavior Specification); (5) J-STD-101 (Joint ATIS/TIA CMAS Federal 
Alert Gateway to CMSP Gateway Interface Specification); (6) J-STD-102 (Joint ATIS/TIA CMAS Federal Alert 
Gateway to CMSP Gateway Interface Test Specification); (7) 3GPP TS 23.041 (3GPP Technical realization of Cell 
Broadcast Service (CBS)); and (8) OASIS CAP v1.2 (IPAWS Profile for the OASIS Common Alerting Protocol 
IPAWS USA).  See CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 50.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
12
15. We propose that Participating CMS Providers should be required to come into 
compliance with our proposed WEA messaging rules within one year of the adoption of final rules.
66
  
With respect to our proposal to allow the continued delivery of 90-character messages to legacy networks 
and devices, would it be preferable to adopt a date certain by which all Participating CMS Providers must 
be able to deliver 360-character WEA messages, rather than allowing the co-existence of 90- and 360-
character WEA messages?  If so, in what timeframe should we sunset the 90-character WEA message 
length?  Should the date of any sunset be contingent upon the satisfaction of a particular condition, such 
as the achievement of a particular milestone (e.g., the completion of a 4G network deployment milestone 
or the completion of any necessary standards work by ATIS/TIA or other standards bodies)?  
16. Finally, we seek comment on the costs associated with changing the maximum character 
length for WEA messages.  To what extent can Participating CMS Providers leverage existing resources 
and infrastructure deployed for commercial purposes to satisfy the requirement we propose today? What
additional network resources, if any, are necessary to comply with our proposed rule?  If the delivery of 
expanded WEA messages can be accomplished through a software upgrade, would such upgrades fall 
within the scope of Participating CMS Providers’ fixed-maintenance contracts, thus resulting in a cost of 
near zero?  We also seek comment on mitigating factors that could offset potential costs, including those 
for small and rural Participating CMS Providers. We seek comment on any burden associated with 
allowing Participating CMS Providers to continue delivering shorter WEA messages using legacy devices 
and networks, while simultaneously delivering the expanded WEA messages on their 4G networks.  We 
also seek comment on the costs and benefits of any potential alternative approaches.  Specifically, we 
seek comment on the extent of cost savings expected to result from expanding the maximum character 
length to 360, as opposed to requiring that longer messages be issued as sequential 90-character alerts.
2. Classifying Emergency Government Information
17. The WEA rules currently provide for three classifications of WEA message: Presidential 
Alerts, Imminent Threat Alerts, and AMBER Alerts.
67
  For an alert to be issued through WEA, it must fall 
within one of these three categories. In the First Report and Order, the Commission adopted these three 
categories in the public interest because they aligned with the Commission’s interpretation of 
“emergency” alerts under the WARN Act, and because additional alert categories could cause the public 
to disregard WEA alerts or cause the delivery of alerts to be delayed.
68
  In this regard, the Commission’s 
conclusion was consistent with the CMSAAC’s finding that supporting these three alert classes achieves 
the best balance between warning of imminent threats to life and property and the limitations of 
Participating CMS Provider networks at that time.
69
  However, FEMA suggests that communities need the 
ability to share information beyond the nature of an emergency and how to respond to that emergency; 
they need the ability to provide additional instructions and information that may contribute to saving 
lives.
70
18. We propose to amend the WEA rules to create an additional class of WEA message, 
“Emergency Government Information.”  We propose to define an Emergency Government Information 
message as an essential public safety advisory that prescribes one or more actions likely to save lives 
and/or safeguard property during an emergency.  According to CSRIC IV, examples of Emergency 
                                                     
66
We discuss the timeframe for implementing this proposal, as well as for implementing the other proposals in this 
Notice, in greater detail in Section III(I) below.  See infra § III.I.
67
See 47 C.F.R. § 10.400.
68
First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 6155-6156, ¶ 26-27.
69
See CMSAAC Report at 42.
70
See FEMA Jun. 18, 2015 Ex Parte Letter at 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
13
Government Information messages include “boil water” advisories,
71
and messages indicating shelter 
locations in the event of long-term or severe flooding, hurricanes, or tornados.
72
  We seek comment on 
our proposed definition of Emergency Government Information, and on whether enabling the delivery of 
Emergency Government Information messages would expand the alerting toolkit available to government 
entities in a meaningful way, complementing existing WEA classes and allowing the provision of more 
detailed information about how to protect life and property.
19. We seek comment on how we can ensure that Emergency Government Information 
messages are used appropriately and in circumstances where they would be most effective at precipitating 
protective action.  According to CSRIC IV, “[a]n Emergency Government Information message should 
only be used to provide information to assist citizens regarding actions to take resulting from an imminent 
threat to life and property.”
73
  Would Emergency Government Information be most effective if defined as 
a standalone message, the issuance of which is predicated upon the fulfillment of certain necessary 
conditions?  Or, on the other hand, should Emergency Government Information messages be used only to 
supplement Imminent Threat Alerts?  What guidelines and parameters would ensure that Emergency 
Government Information messages are used in an appropriate manner?  CSRIC IV recommends that only 
“appropriate agencies” become authorized to issue Emergency Government Information messages.
74
  We 
seek comment on whether we should adopt that approach.  If we do, are there particular entities which
would be particularly appropriate sources of Emergency Government Information?
75
  
20. We seek comment on the benefits and costs of creating this additional class of WEA 
alert.  Would such messages help to save lives and protect property?  What costs, if any, would be 
imposed on Participating CMS Providers, alert originators, and consumers?  Are there any measures that 
could be taken to mitigate these costs?  Is alert origination software currently capable of issuing 
Emergency Government Information messages using predefined CAP fields and free-form text, or would 
a software update be required?  Would creating an additional category of alerts desensitize the public to 
other types of alerts?  We believe that Participating CMS Providers could use the same hardware to 
                                                     
71
A “Boil Water Advisory” is a notification issued by a public utility as a preventative measure if there is a strong 
possibility of bacterial contamination in the drinking water system that could make people sick.  Boil Water 
Advisories often go into effect as a result of microbial violations, natural disasters, vandalism to water treatment 
equipment or equipment failure.  See CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, DRINKING WATER 
ADVISORY COMMUNICATION TOOLBOX 11 (2013).
72
See CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 46.
73
Id.
74
Id.
75
Under FEMA guidelines, a federal, state, local, tribal or territorial entity that applies for authority for the use of 
the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) is designated as a Collaborative Operating Group (COG) 
by the IPAWS Program Management Office.  A COG may have members from multiple jurisdictions with each 
individual member account administered through its software system.  Before a public safety entity may generate 
WEA alert messages through IPAWS, it must undergo a four-step process administered by FEMA.  First, an 
organization must procure IPAWS compatible software.  Second, to become a COG, a Memorandum of Agreement 
(MOA) must be executed between the sponsoring organization and FEMA.  MOAs govern system security.  Third, 
alerting authorities that wish to send alerts to the public through IPAWS must complete an application defining the 
types of alerts they intend to issue and the prescribed geographic warning area.  Fourth, alerting authorities must 
complete FEMA’s IPAWS web-based training, which includes skills to draft appropriate warning messages and best 
practices for effective use of CAP.  Once these steps are completed, alerting permissions will be implemented in 
IPAWS, and the alerting entity will be able to send alerts and warnings in the geographically prescribed areas.  See 
FEMA, HOW TO SIGN UP FOR IPAWS https://www.fema.gov/how-sign-ipaws (last visited May 14, 2015).  Several 
PSAPs have obtained alerting authority to generate WEA alert messages through IPAWS.  See FEMA, INTEGRATED 
PUBLIC ALERT &WARNING SYSTEM AUTHORITIES, https://www.fema.gov/integrated-public-alert-warning-system-
authorities (last visited May 8, 2015).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
14
deliver an Emergency Government Information WEA message as they would to deliver another 
classification of WEA message and seek comment on this view.
21. As required by the WARN Act, we propose to amend Section 10.280 of our rules to 
allow Participating CMS Providers to enable consumers to opt out of receiving Emergency Government 
Information messages.
76
  CSRIC IV recommends that subscribers should be allowed to opt out of 
receiving Emergency Government Information, and states that this option need not imply a new device 
setting, but rather, should be combined with existing settings on the device.
77
  The CSRIC IV’s report
states that the subscriber opt-out capability recommended to be offered for Emergency Government 
Information would need to be “defined and specified in the Joint ATIS/TIA mobile Device Behavior 
Specification” in order to ensure that the option to opt out is provided consistently and uniformly across 
devices, operating systems and software versions.
78
  Is this the case?  What, if any, other standards or 
specifications would need to be modified in order to support the provision of Emergency Government 
Information?  Alternatively, would it be preferable for Emergency Government Information to be 
presented to consumers on an opt-in basis? Would providing such an opt-in option be consistent with the 
WARN Act?
79
  
22. We also seek comment on whether there are other classes of alerts that should be added 
to WEA.  FEMA, for example, asserts that we should revisit the manner in which WEA messages are 
classified, and recommends that we amend our rules to create the following classes: Federal Alerts 
(authorized by the President), AMBER Alerts, Severe Weather Alerts, and Local Threat Alerts, each of 
which would have its own unique attention signal and vibration cadence.
80
  As recommended by FEMA, 
Local Threat Alerts are alerts that may not meet each of the criteria for an imminent threat alert (certainty, 
urgency and immediacy) but nonetheless may be appropriate for a WEA alert.  We seek comment on this 
approach.  Are additional alert types, such as those currently offered by private mass notifications systems 
on an opt-in basis, appropriate for WEA?
81
  Such additional alert notifications would include weather-
related closings, severe traffic incidents, and road closures due to special events.  Would such additional 
classifications help adequately capture the variety of events that merit an alert or warning, and help 
provide clear instructions to alert originators on the kinds of events where use of the WEA system is 
appropriate?  In addition, could additional alert types provide consumers with a more nuanced range of 
opt-out choices, in terms of the types of alerts they choose to receive, that could encourage consumer 
participation in WEA?  Parties suggesting additional classes should explain how their proposed classes 
substantively differ from any of the current classes, or the proposed Emergency Government Information 
class, and the benefits of their proposed class, including why an additional or alternative alert 
classification is necessary to help save lives and protect property.  
                                                     
76
WARN Act § 602(b)(2)(E).
77
See CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 46-47.
78
Id.
79
Section 602(b)(2)(E) of the WARN Act provides that “[a]ny commercial mobile service licensee electing to 
transmit emergency alerts may offer subscribers the capability of preventing the subscriber’s device from receiving 
such alerts, or classes of such alerts, other than an alert issued by the President.”  WARN Act § 602(b)(2)(E).  With 
regard to the opt-in provision raised above, we envision that subscribers would affirmatively elect to activate the 
capability to receive Emergency Government Information; failure to opt in would prevent the subscriber’s device 
from receiving Emergency Government Information alerts.  
80
See FEMA Jun. 18 Ex Parte Letter at 3.  
81
See, e.g., ARLINGTON ALERTS, https://emergency.arlingtonva.us/ (last visited Oct. 19, 2015); ALERTDC, 
http://hsema.dc.gov/page/alertdc (last visited Nov. 17, 2015) (providing information such as traffic conditions and 
government closures).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
15
3. Content in WEA Alerts
23. The WEA rules currently prohibit the inclusion of embedded references, including 
telephone numbers and URLs, in all WEA messages except the Presidential Alert.
82
  In the First Report 
and Order, the Commission found that allowing URLs or telephone numbers to be included in WEA 
messages could exacerbate wireless network congestion in the wake of an emergency when wireless 
networks are already burdened by calls for help from police, fire, and rescue personnel, as well as to 
family and friends.
83
  In this regard, the Commission’s conclusion was consistent with the CMSAAC’s 
recommendation that including telephone numbers and URLs in WEA messages would encourage mass 
usage and potential congestion of wireless networks.
84
  
24. The WEA rules currently provide minimum standards for text-based alerts only.
85
  The 
Commission did not adopt technical requirements for WEA alerts with multimedia capability in the First 
Report and Order because, at that time, the Commission believed “it would be premature and not 
consistent with our obligations under section 602(a) of the WARN Act to adopt standards and 
requirements for technologies that are still under development.”
86
  In this regard, the Commission’s 
conclusion was consistent with the CMSAAC’s recommendation that support for text should be the 
minimum requirement for Participating CMS Providers.
87
25. Given the advancement of time and technology since the adoption of the WEA rules, we 
believe that it would serve the public interest to reconsider the prohibition on the inclusion of telephone 
numbers and URLs in WEA messages.  We propose to remove Section 10.440 from our Part 10 WEA 
rules, in order to allow embedded phone numbers and URLs to be included in WEA messages.  In doing 
so, we seek to ensure that Americans may be provided with an immediately accessible method of 
contacting public safety officials or finding additional information about emergency situations by 
leveraging the existing capabilities of Participating CMS Provider networks and devices. We believe this 
approach furthers our goal of using the system to advance public safety.  We seek comment on this 
proposal and on our rationale. 
26. We believe that allowing embedded references in WEA messages will improve alert 
quality and accessibility by offering additional, specific information, and could reduce the risk of network 
congestion by focusing consumer response, thereby minimizing “milling” behavior.  We seek comment 
on this analysis.  To what extent do individuals currently respond to the receipt of a WEA message by 
using the Internet to confirm the existence of the emergency condition in their area or to search for 
additional information?  Could a synchronized push of link content to device cache reduce non-alert 
congestion?  CSRIC IV, START and FEMA agree that “consideration should be given to including a 
URL” in WEA messages,
88
but recommend further study on whether the inclusion of URLs in WEA 
messages could cause network congestion when many people access a link within seconds of alert 
                                                     
82
See 47 C.F.R. § 10.440 (“A WEA Alert Message processed by a Participating CMS Provider must not include an 
embedded Uniform Resource Locator (URL), which is a reference (an address) to a resource on the Internet, or an 
embedded telephone number. This prohibition does not apply to Presidential Alerts.”).  
83
First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 6162, ¶ 43.
84
See CMSAAC Report at 47.
85
See 47 C.F.R. §§ 10.400 – 10.470.
86
First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 6174, ¶ 81.
87
See CMSAAC Report at 56.
88
CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 57, Appendix B; see also START Report at 33; FEMA Jun. 18 Ex Parte Letter 
at 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
16
receipt.
89
We seek comment on whether such further studies would be helpful, given existing network 
management technologies that could be deployed to mitigate any potential alert congestion.  
27. We believe the potential benefits of allowing embedded phone numbers and URLs in 
WEA messages may be particularly applicable where AMBER Alerts are concerned.  NCMEC states that 
the ability to provide a URL directing recipients to a website specifically used for AMBER Alerts would 
be the most important possible enhancement to WEA that the Commission can require at this time.
90
  
FEMA recommends that a phone number be included in AMBER Alerts, noting that the ATIS/TIA 
specification for the interface between IPAWS and participating wireless carrier gateways already 
contains provisions for including a phone number.
91
  Every type of missing child advisory issued by 
NCMEC (e.g., bulletin, notice or poster) includes a phone number to contact with potentially helpful 
information, except WEA AMBER Alerts.
92
According to the Boston Globe, “[i]n cases in which an 
abducted child is murdered, 75% of the killings happen within the first three hours.”
93
  We believe that 
providing WEA AMBER Alert recipients with URLs linking to images of missing children, their 
suspected abductors, and potentially the abduction vehicle could make it easier for the public to assist 
alert originators in locating missing children,
94
and that providing a phone number to call could hasten the 
provision of such information during a critical period when every second may count.  We seek comment 
on this analysis, and on other potential benefits of allowing alert originators to include embedded 
references in AMBER Alerts and in WEA messages more generally. 
28. We seek comment regarding the potential costs that may be associated with incorporating 
embedded references in WEA messages, including any costs associated with the potential for increased 
call volume or network congestion.  If alerts were more narrowly geo-targeted, would these potential 
burdens be mitigated?  What network management techniques could be deployed to counter any potential 
network congestion?  We also seek comment on any technical considerations that we should take into 
account with regard to Participating CMS Providers’ ability to support embedded references in WEA 
messages.  According to CSRIC IV, adding URLs to WEA messages would necessitate the revision of 
                                                     
89
See CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 35-36, 42, 47-48 (CSRIC IV recommends further study by ATIS/TIA to 
determine how the inclusion of a clickable link/URL might affect network congestion, compared to subscriber 
milling absent such a link.  CSRIC IV also recommends that ATIS/TIA study technical options for mitigating 
potential network congestion associated with the inclusion of a clickable link).
90
See NCMEC May 5, 2015 Ex Parte Letter at 2.
91
See FEMA Jun. 18, 2015 Ex Parte Letter at 2.
92
See NCMEC May 5, 2015 Ex Parte Letter at 3.
93
See Drake Bennett, Abducted!, BOSTON GLOBE (July 20, 2008), 
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/07/20/abducted/?page=full (last visited May 7, 2015); see 
also NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN KEY FACTS,
http://www.missingkids.com/KeyFacts (last visited May 12, 2015) (citing KATHERINE BROWN, ET AL., CASE 
MANAGEMENT FOR MISSING CHILDREN HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION ROB MCKENNA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 
WASHINGTON AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION  13 
(2006), available at https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Archive/218936NCJRS.pdf (last visited Jun. 10, 2015) (stating 
that in 89 percent of the abduction cases, the missing child died within 24 hours of disappearing, and that in nearly 
60 percent of the cases, more than two hours passed between the time someone realized the child was missing and 
the time police were notified).
94
AMBER Alert bulletins to which alert recipients could be linked also include more identifying information about 
missing children than can be fit within a 90-character message, such as the date the child went missing, the city and 
state from which the child went missing, the child’s current age, sex, race, hair color, eye color, height, weight, the 
known circumstances of the child’s abduction, and a brief description of the child, including personality
characteristics and the clothing the child was last seen wearing.  See, e.g., NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING AND 
EXPLOITED CHILDREN, MISSING: HELP BRING ME HOME, DAISY ROJAS,
http://www.missingkids.com/poster/NCMC/1254544/1/screen (last visited Oct. 1, 2015).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
17
standards for displaying content generated by the URL.
95
  We seek comment on CSRIC IV’s assertion.  
What technical challenges would need to be addressed to support the synchronized push of content to be 
stored in cache for all URL links used in WEA CAP messages?  Would it be possible to include 
interactive links in WEA messages, such that an alert recipient could provide real-time feedback to alert 
originators that would improve emergency responders’ situational awareness and help ensure that 
adequate and appropriate resources are deployed to the scene of the emergency?  For example, a WEA 
message warning about a developing fire in a multi-story building could ask alert recipients whether they 
see smoke by responding “yes” or “no,” helping emergency responders make decisions about building 
ventilation that could help to prevent the fire from further spreading.  We observe that the CMSAAC 
Report recommended guidelines for translating embedded references from CAP into a format suitable for 
communication with mobile devices.
96
  We also observe, however, that a data connection may be required 
in order to access content made available through URLs,
97
and that appropriate protocols and 
cybersecurity protections may need to be developed in order to protect these functions from malicious 
intrusion.
98
  How should these concerns be addressed?  Finally, we seek comment on how much, if any, 
additional data would be necessary to transmit embedded references, along with text, in WEA messages, 
and on the impact, if any, that transmitting this additional data would have on message delivery latency 
and mobile device battery life.  We also seek comment on the extent of any end-to-end latency in the 
delivery of WEA messages today, and whether there are ways to employ new technologies to reduce 
latency for WEA’s current functionalities.  We seek comment on these and other technical issues that 
could affect the implementation of this proposal.  We observe that AT&T suggests that the use of phone 
numbers and URLs in WEA alerts should be limited to WEA AMBER Alerts.
99
  We seek comment on 
this alternative. 
29. We also seek comment on the efficacy of using embedded URLs to enhance accessibility 
of WEA for people with disabilities, senior citizens and persons with limited English proficiency,
100
in 
addition to the general public.  Wireless RERC conducted field trials and focus groups regarding 
disability access to WEA messages and found that users with sensory disabilities prefer to have access to 
additional information beyond that supplied by the 90-character alert via URLs.
101
  We seek comment on 
                                                     
95
See CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 36.
96
See CMSAAC Report at 74; see also id. at 83 (stating that the hyperlink data must be in a domain that is accessible 
by the Participating CMS Provider Gateway).
97
See CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 42.
98
The “appropriate cyber security protections and protocols” for URLs added to WEA messages will likely be the 
result of the WEA community (including originators, service providers, and vendors) following the guidelines 
established in the CSRIC IV Cybersecurity Risk Management and Best Practices Final Report and the WEA 
Cybersecurity Risk Management Strategy for Alert Originators. See CSRIC IV, WORKING GROUP FOUR,
CYBERSECURITY RISK MANAGEMENT AND BEST PRACTICES WORKING GROUP, FINAL REPORT (2015), 
https://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/advisory/csric4/CSRIC_IV_WG4_Final_Report_031815.pdf (last visited Jun. 9, 
2015) (CSRIC Cybersecurity Report); see also SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE, WEA PROJECT TEAM,
WIRELESS EMERGENCY ALERTS (WEA) CYBERSECURITY RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR ALERT ORIGINATORS
(2014), available at http://resources.sei.cmu.edu/asset_files/SpecialReport/2014_003_001_87729.pdf (last visited 
Jun. 9, 2015) (Software Engineering Institute WEA Security Report).
99
See Letter from Joseph P. Marx, Assistant Vice President, AT&T Services, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 
FCC, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1-2 (filed May 6, 2015) (AT&T May 6, 2015 Ex Parte Letter).
100
See infra Section III.A.4 (discussing further the provision of multilingual WEA messages).
101
See Ex Parte Filing from Wireless RERC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Re:  Open Proceedings of the 
Emergency Alert System and the Commercial Mobile Alert System, April 25, 2011 at 33, available at 
http://www.wirelessrerc.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Ex%20Parte%20WEC%20filing%20%28final%2
9.doc (last visited Nov. 9, 2015).  The study participants had sensory limitations that ranged from those who were 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
18
this conclusion, and on how the inclusion of URLs and phone numbers may facilitate access to 
information.  For example, could a URL provide non-English speakers with access to emergency 
information in their preferred language?  
30. Finally, we seek comment on whether it would serve the public interest to adopt rules 
governing the provision of multimedia-based alerts, including alerts that contain high-information maps 
that demonstrate the location of the alert recipient relative to an area affected by an imminent threat, and 
images of children, suspected abductors and vehicles in AMBER Alerts.
102
  We believe that providing 
multimedia-based alerts could significantly enhance the usefulness of the system, thereby advancing our 
public safety goals.  For example, NWS strongly supports the incorporation of graphical content in WEA 
messages, stating that this improvement would provide greater clarity in WEA messaging.
103
  We 
recognize that CSRIC IV concludes that it is impractical for current cell broadcast technology, including 
4G LTE, to support sending multimedia, such as images and maps, as part of WEA messages without 
“significant impacts” to Participating CMS Provider infrastructure.
104
  However, we observe that mobile 
alerting technology vendors and Participating CMS Providers agree that other technologies may be able to 
support multimedia functionality.
105
  How much additional data would be associated with the transmission 
of multimedia content in WEA messages, and what impact, if any, would transmitting this additional data 
have on message delivery latency and mobile device battery life?  We seek comment on these issues, as 
well as any technical solutions that may serve to enhance the usefulness of WEA alerts for the general 
public.  
4. Providing Multilingual WEA Messages 
31. The WARN Act allows Participating CMS Providers to transmit alerts in languages other 
than English, if technically feasible.
106
The Commission determined in the First Report and Order that it 
was not technically feasible for CMS Providers to deliver commercial mobile alerts in languages in 
addition to English and that further study was necessary to ensure that system capacity and message 
latency were not adversely affected.
107
  The Commission’s conclusion in this regard is consistent with the 
CMSAAC’s observation that rendering multilingual alerts would require additional character sets that 
would limit the amount of text that could be transmitted in WEA messages and that more precise geo-
targeting increases the number of non-English languages that will be encountered.
108
  Accordingly, the 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
fully deaf or fully blind, to those with enhanced hearing (hearing aid/cochlear implants) or enhanced vision 
(glasses/contacts).  See id.
102
Multimedia content would not count against the limit on alphanumeric characters for WEA messages.  See 47 
C.F.R. § 10.430.  The START Report defines “high-information maps” as “specifying the areas affected, areas not 
affected and the receiver’s location.” START Report at 2.
103
See NWS May 21, 2015 Ex Parte Letter at 1.
104
CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 47.
105
See AT&T May 6, 2015 Ex Parte Letter, at 2; see also Hutch McClendon, May 29, 2015 Ex Parte Letter at 2.
106
See CMSAAC Report at 53 (stating that “commercial mobile service providers who elect to transmit emergency 
alerts may transmit in languages in addition to English to the extent practical and feasible”); see also WARN Act §
603(c) (tasking CMSAAC with developing recommendations “for the technical capability to transmit emergency 
alerts by electing commercial mobile providers to subscribers in languages in addition to English, to the extent 
practicable and feasible”).
107
First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 6170-6172, ¶¶ 71-77.
108
See CMSAAC Report at 53 (noting that “[a]dditional character sets to support multiple languages also will 
potentially limit the amount of data that can be transmitted; for example, some character sets require 2 Bytes per 
character versus 1 Byte per character, and thus 90 characters available in the text profile for a CMAM now reduces 
the text message to 45 characters.”). See CMSAAC Report at § 5.7.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
19
Commission found it premature to require that Participating CMS Providers transmit alerts in languages 
other than English,
109
but encouraged WEA stakeholders to develop multilingual alerting capabilities.
110
  
32. We seek comment on whether the fundamental technical problems that limited the ability 
of Participating CMS Providers in 2008 to provide alerts in languages other than English remain barriers 
to implementing Congress’ vision.  To the extent these problems remain, are they device-based, network-
based, or both?  FEMA recommends that WEA should be enhanced to support delivery of alert messages 
in languages other than English if the alert is made available by the originator in other languages.
111
  
FEMA observes that “[t]he IPAWS system as currently deployed and based upon the Common Alerting 
Protocol standards is capable of supporting multiple languages beyond English if the originator of the 
alert message provides the alert in additional languages.”
112
  Alert originators state that they want to 
“[u]se language in the WEA Alert Message that best conveys who is at risk given message length 
constraints.”
113
  That could reasonably include a language, other than English, that best serves a particular 
community.  Accordingly, we seek comment on the benefits of supporting multilingual WEA alerts in 
order to advance our goals for promoting community participation.
33. In raising the issue of multilingual alerts, we note that the Multicultural Media, Telecom 
and Internet Council (MMTC) has highlighted the importance of providing information about 
emergencies in languages other than English on numerous occasions.
114
  We agree with MMTC that all 
Americans, regardless of the language they speak, should have access to emergency information.  In this 
Notice, we seek comment on the technical implications and potential costs of supporting multilingual 
WEA alerts.  We also seek comment on the impact of requiring WEA alerts in languages other than 
English on the ability of Participating CMS Providers to comply with the rules we propose today.  For 
example, we seek comment on whether Participating CMS Provider networks continue to experience
technical limitations that restrict their ability to offer WEA alerts in languages other than English.  How 
much additional data, if any, would be necessary to support additional languages and/or character sets in 
WEA messages, and how would the transmission of this additional data affect mobile device battery life
and message delivery latency?  We seek comment on whether there are other factors that should be 
                                                     
109
See First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 6173, ¶ 71.
110
Id. at 6175, ¶ 77.  The Commission further acknowledges that some individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, 
and deaf-blind may prefer to receive information via American Sign Language (ASL), and that ASL cannot be 
readily conveyed unless delivered via video alerts.  The Commission encourages the exploration of such technology 
to make available the delivery of ASL video alerts.  
111
See FEMA Jun. 18 Ex Parte at 2-3.
112
Id.  Based on FEMA’s interaction with alert originators, “automatic translation into multiple languages is not 
desired due to inaccuracy of current automatic translation method.”  Id.
113
CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 28. 
114
See The Independent Spanish Broadcasters Association, the Office of Communication of the United Church of 
Christ, Inc., and the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council, Petition for Immediate Interim Relief, EB 
Docket 04-296 (filed Sept. 22, 2005).  We note that MMTC is now called The Multicultural, Media, Telecom and 
Internet Council.  MMTC has made subsequent ex parte filings to expand upon and to revise its petition. See e.g., 
Letter from the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, ET Docket 
No. 04-296, filed June 18, 2008; Letter from the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, ET Docket No. 04-296 (filed Aug. 17, 2012); Letter from the Minority Media and 
Telecommunications Council to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, EB Docket No. 04-296 (filed Aug. 4, 2010); 
Letter from the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, EB
Docket No. 04-296 (filed Dec. 12, 2013).  The Commission is addressing the MMTC Petition in a separate 
proceeding.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
20
considered in determining whether to support multilingual alerts, and on how states and local alert 
originators can best determine which languages are appropriate for their communities.
115
B. WEA Geo-Targeting
34. In the First Report and Order, the Commission adopted a geo-targeting requirement for 
WEA messages in order to ensure that WEA messages would only be received by those individuals 
affected by a specific emergency.
116
  Under Section 10.450 of the WEA rules, Participating CMS 
Providers may not transmit WEA messages to areas greater than the county (or county equivalent) that 
approximates the geocode, circle, or polygon specified by the WEA alert.
117
  The Commission anticipated 
that as more refined and cost effective geo-targeting capabilities became available to Participating CMS 
Providers they would voluntarily elect to target alerts more granularly.
118
  Similarly, the CMSAAC 
recommended county-based geo-targeting, but acknowledged that it would be desirable to allow for 
“more flexible geo-targeting to alert areas [to] evolve as technology advances,” and recommended that 
the geo-targeting to alert areas smaller than a county “should be reviewed as part of the biennial review 
process.”
119
35. Since the Commission adopted its WEA geo-targeting rules in 2008, there has been
considerable interest among alert originators in developing more finely targeted WEA messages.
120
  
Additionally, research scientists at Carnegie Mellon have developed several polygon compression 
techniques that enable efficient transmission of polygons representing geographical targets.
121
These 
                                                     
115
Recently, the Public Safety & Homeland Security Bureau granted a request from Emergency and Community 
Health Outreach (ECHO), in partnership with Twin Cities Public Television (tpt) and FEMA, for a waiver of the 
Commission’s rules to allow use of the WEA and EAS attention signal, as well as an audible portion of the EAS 
tones in PSAs, in conjunction with providing EAS PSAs in languages other than English, including Spanish, Hmong 
and Somali.  See Request for Waiver of Sections 10.520, 11.45 and 11.46 of the Commission’s Rules to Allow 
Broadcast of Public Service Announcements Produced by Emergency, Community, Health and Outreach to Educate 
the Public on the Wireless Emergency Alert System and the Emergency Alert System, PS Docket Nos. 07-287, 15-
94, Order, 30 FCC Rcd 10182 (2015).
116
First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 6166, ¶ 56; but see id. at 6164-65, ¶¶ 51-52 (citing support by Alert 
Systems, Purple Tree Technologies, Acision, Cell Cast, DataFM, the National Emergency Number Association 
(NENA), and the California Public Utilities Commission (CAPUC) for the Commission to adopt a sub-county geo-
targeting requirement on grounds that such a requirement is technologically possible, and that county-level geo-
targeting will likely lead to over-alerting); Francisco Sanchez, April 21, 2015 Ex Parte Letter at 1; Letter from 
William Hutchinson McClendon IV, CEO of Advanced Computer & Communications (AC&C), LLC, to Marlene 
H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1-2 (filed, May 6, 2015) (Hutch McClendon, May 6, 2015 Ex 
Parte Letter).
117
47 C.F.R. § 10.450 (“A Participating CMS Provider must transmit any Alert Message that is specified by a 
geocode, circle, or polygon to an area not larger than the provider’s approximation of coverage for the Counties or 
County Equivalents with which that geocode, circle, or polygon intersects.  If, however, the propagation area of a 
provider's transmission site exceeds a single County or County Equivalent, a Participating CMS Provider may 
transmit an Alert Message to an area not exceeding the propagation area.”).
118
See First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 6164, ¶ 49.
119
CMSAAC Report at 48.
120
See, e.g., First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 6164-65, ¶¶ 51-52; NWS May 21, 2015 Ex Parte Letter at 2
DANIEL GONZALES, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, WIRELESS EMERGENCY 
ALERTS MOBILE PENETRATION STRATEGY 120, 131 (2013) (WEA Mobile Penetration Strategy) (expressing that 
alert originators desire improvements in geo-targeting to prevent alert fatigue and recommending improvements to 
geo-targeting “as soon as possible”).
121
See ABHINAV JAUHRI, MARTIN GRISS AND HAKAN ERDOGMUS, CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, SILICON 
VALLEY CAMPUS, SMALL POLYGON COMPRESSION FOR INTEGER COORDINATES (2015), available at 
https://ams.confex.com/ams/43BC3WxWarn/webprogram/Paper273645.html.  A polygon may be used to describe 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
21
techniques are intended to enable compressed polygon vertices to be embedded in emergency alert 
messages that have strict length restrictions, such as WEA messages.
122
36. Further, CSRIC IV and START observe that the effectiveness of WEA alert messages 
may remain suppressed until they can be distributed to finer geospatial areas, so that messages only reach 
the people who are at risk.
123
“[O]therwise, people who receive WEA Alert Messages may be trained to 
think they don’t apply to them.”
124
  As CSRIC IV notes, some Participating CMS Providers have made 
voluntary enhancements to geo-targeting that exceed the Commission’s current county-level geo-targeting 
rules.
125
  The enhancements include using an algorithm to geo-target the WEA broadcast to transmission 
sites capable of best approximating the polygon-based alert area provided by the alert originator,
126
and, in 
LTE networks, using cell sectorization, a technique whereby a WEA alert is broadcast to only certain 
sectors within a transmission site.
127
  CSRIC IV thus recommends that the Commission amend Section 
10.450 of its WEA rules to state “that a Participating CMS Provider may voluntarily transmit any Alert 
Message that is specified by the Alert Originator using a geocode, circle, or polygon, to an area that best 
approximates the geocode, circle, or polygon given the constraints of CMS Provider infrastructure 
topology, propagation area, and other radio and network characteristics.”
128
  CSRIC IV further 
recommends that, at a minimum, the Commission should adopt a geo-targeting standard constituting an 
area no larger than the coverage area of a single transmission site.
129
  
37. We propose to revise the Commission’s rules to require that Participating CMS Providers 
must transmit any alert message that is specified by a geocode, circle, or polygon to a target area not 
larger than the specified geocode, circle, or polygon. If, however, the Participating CMS Provider cannot 
broadcast the alert to an area that accurately matches the target area, we propose that a Participating CMS 
Provider may transmit an Alert Message to an area that closely approximates the target area, but in any 
case not exceeding the propagation area of a single transmission site. In this regard, as a backstop, 
Participating CMS Providers would be permitted to geo-target WEA alerts with the same level of 
granularity currently allowed by our WEA rules.
130
  CSRIC IV recommends that CMS Providers be 
allowed to transmit alert messages, on a voluntary basis, to an area that best approximates the target area, 
“given the constraints of Participating CMS Provider infrastructure topology, propagation area, and other 
radio and network characteristics.”
131
  Would this approach weaken our current requirement that WEA 
alerts be geo-targeted to at least the county level, and would potentially allow Participating CMS 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
the complex shapes of alert areas desired to be targeted by alert originators, for example, to describe a flood plain at 
risk of flooding during a storm surge, and may be of any size.
122
See id.
123
See CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 59, Appendix B; see also START Report at 37.
124
CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 39; see also WEA Mobile Penetration Strategy at 126 (stating that “[o]ver 
alerting is a significant risk to WEA as long as geo-targeting capabilities are at the county level” and “[i]mproved 
geo-targeting of WEA messages may be one of the most significant ways to reduce message fatigue”).
125
See CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 40.
126
See id. at 8 (stating that, as a best practice, many Participating CMS Providers already geo-target WEA messages 
on a sub-county basis, including by using proprietary “algorithms for mapping the intended alert area to the relevant 
cell sites/sectors in the CMSP network”).
127
See id. at 40; see also id. at 85, Appendix D.
128
Id. at 44.
129
See id.
130
See 47 C.F.R. § 10.450.
131
CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 44.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
22
Providers to geo-target alerts to any area, so long as it could be justified by reference to network 
constraints.  We seek comment on our proposal and on this rationale.  
38. We seek comment on the technical feasibility of complying with these more granular 
geo-targeting proposals.  Both the WARN Act and the Commission envisioned that WEA technology 
would evolve to encompass more precisely geo-targeted alerts.
132
  In light of the advances in network 
technology observed by CSRIC IV, specifically network-based solutions already deployed by 
Participating CMS Providers, is it technically feasible for Participating CMS Providers, utilizing currently 
available technology, to more accurately geo-target WEA alerts?
133
  We specifically seek comment on the 
state of network-based enhancements needed to implement this process.  CSRIC IV states that “the 
algorithms for mapping the intended alert area to the relevant cell sites/sectors in the CMSP network are 
considered proprietary and there is no standard method to perform this mapping.”
134
  How can we ensure
that all Participating CMS Providers have access to any relevant techniques that are necessary to 
implement more granular geo-targeting?  
39. Further, we seek comment on other approaches to improve geo-targeting, including 
device-based geo-targeting solutions.  CSRIC IV recommends that ATIS/TIA conduct feasibility studies 
of the ability of Participating CMS Providers to more narrowly geo-target WEA using network-based, 
device-based, and third-party-assisted solutions.
135
  Network-based geo-targeting solutions include cell 
sectorization and algorithm-based transmission site selection.
136
  A device-based solution entails an alert 
originator transmitting geographic coordinates for the target area along with the WEA message,
137
and an 
end-user device using the device’s location-based technology to display only those WEA messages that 
are relevant to the geographic area in which the device is located.
138
  CSRIC IV recommends that 
ATIS/TIA evaluate the extent to which device-based solutions could be optimized by minimizing the 
amount of data necessary to transmit alert area coordinates, either by compressing the data, circularizing 
the polygon, or embedding the geographic data in the alert message itself.
139
  A third-party-assisted 
solution (i.e., a service provided by a party other than the mobile device and the Participating CMS 
Provider) would utilize an external source of geo-location to determine whether the WEA message should 
be displayed, without relying on the device’s own location services.
140
40. Could a device-based solution improve WEA geo-targeting without burdening 
Participating CMS Provider infrastructure?  Could device-based solutions complement network-based 
solutions to facilitate the delivery of even more granular WEA messages?  Would the provision of alert 
area coordinates in a WEA message potentially reduce the amount of data available for other message 
                                                     
132
WARN Act § 604(b)(2); First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 6164 ¶ 49; see also CMSAAC Report at 48 (“It 
is desired that more flexible geo-targeting to alert areas evolve as technology advances.”).  
133
CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 40 (describing network based geo-targeting solutions currently used by some 
Participating CMS Providers voluntarily).
134
Id. at 8.  
135
See id. at 41, 45-46.
136
See supra ¶ 36.
137
Alert area coordinates could also be made available to the device over WiFi, or a cellular data connection.  See 
CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 40.
138
See id. at 40-41.  This technique is sometimes referred to as “geo-fencing.”  See, e.g., NWS May 21, 2015 Ex 
Parte Letter at 2.  FEMA agrees that “[g]eo-targeting proficiency can be improved by implementing geographical 
targeting for WEA broadcasts by cell-sector, including delivery of alert area specifications to the phone enabling 
mobile-assisted geographical targeting (aka geo-fencing), and other techniques.”  FEMA Jun 18 Ex Parte Letter at 2.  
139
See CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 40.
140
See id. at 41.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
23
elements, such as text and multimedia, and if so, what measures could mitigate this possibility?  Carnegie 
Mellon University has “developed a technique which significantly reduces the amount of data required to 
convey the location, size, and shape of an NWS alert polygon,” suggesting that only a small amount of 
data may be necessary to transmit alert coordinates to a mobile device.
141
  To what extent can the amount 
of data needed to transmit geographic coordinates be reduced through such optimization methods?  Are 
such methods feasible or advisable?  Are there other techniques for efficiently sending alert area 
coordinates to a device that should be examined?  We also seek comment on whether the use of device-
based solutions might implicate privacy issues and on the protective measures that might be necessary to 
implement before a device’s location-based services are used for the provisioning of WEA alerts.  Finally, 
we seek comment on the extent to which third-party developers are in the process of developing services
to improve WEA geo-targeting. 
41. We seek comment on the potential benefits that more accurate geo-targeting may 
provide.  By proposing measures to ensure that WEA messages are more finely targeted and delivered 
only to recipients who are likely to be affected by the emergency event, we intend to minimize over-
alerting and reduce alert fatigue. Do alerts sent to too wide an area result in significant problems?  Does 
or could inaccurate geo-targeting lead to alert fatigue, and, if so, would it cause many individuals to 
disregard or opt-out of receiving all but the Presidential message?
142
CSRIC IV and START conclude 
that finer geo-spatial targeting is necessary to ensure WEA Alert Messages only reach those people at 
risk, and that the “effectiveness of WEA Alert Messages may remain suppressed until they can be 
distributed to finer geospatial targeted populations so that messages only reach the people who are at 
risk.”
143
  We seek comment on these findings and encourage commenters to offer statistical evidence of 
the anticipated benefits resulting from tightening our geo-targeting requirements.  Further, we seek 
comment on whether improved geo-targeting technology will increase opportunities for wireless 
providers to offer beneficial services to the companies currently providing mass notification products to 
localities, employers, and school systems.
144
Specifically, will improved geo-targeting capabilities 
expand opportunities for wireless carriers and other parties to contract for services outside of WEA that 
are beneficial to the alert-originating community?  We seek comment on whether there are other potential 
public/private partnerships that could further leverage WEA capabilities and bring additional innovative 
alerting services to communities.  
42. Finally, we seek comment on the potential costs that would result from implementing the 
more granular geo-targeting requirements we propose today, including through the implementation of 
network-based, device-based, or third-party-assisted solutions.  Would the cost of compliance with our 
proposed rules through the use of network-based enhancements likely be minimal because Participating 
CMS Providers are already engaging in such practices voluntarily?  What costs would be entailed for 
Participating CMS Providers that are not currently using geo-targeting best practices?  Would the 
                                                     
141
ABHINAV JAUHRI, MARTIN GRISS AND HAKAN ERDOGMUS, CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY, SILICON VALLEY 
CAMPUS, SMALL POLYGON COMPRESSION FOR INTEGER COORDINATES (Presented at 3rd Conference on Weather 
Warnings & Communication, AMS June 2015, available at 
https://ams.confex.com/ams/43BC3WxWarn/webprogram/Paper273645.html ; see also NWS May 21, 2015 Ex 
Parte Letter at 2 (stating that “by applying this technique to NWS alert polygons whose latitude/longitude pairs 
consumed 43 to 331 characters per alert, the polygons could be compressed down to 8 to 55 characters”).
142
See DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORATE, BEST PRACTICES IN 
WIRELESS EMERGENCY ALERTS 22 (2013), available at 
http://www.firstresponder.gov/TechnologyDocuments/Wireless%20Emergency%20Alerts%20Best%20Practices.pdf 
(last visited May 8, 2015) (stating that, “[a]s county residents receive alerts that are not relevant to them, over time 
this could result in alert fatigue, as the recipients become desensitized to the alerts.”).
143
CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 28; see also START Report at 37.
144
See Hutch McClendon, May 29, 2015 Ex Parte Letter at 4 (referencing ways in which WEA providers might 
leverage their alerting capabilities).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
24
implementation of device-based improvements to geo-targeting likely entail a software update to mobile 
devices?  If a software update would be needed, could it be bundled into software updates that 
Participating CMS Providers would issue for their mobile devices in the regular course of business?  
What costs might be associated with the delivery of such software updates?  Lastly, what costs might be 
associated with the implementation of a third-party-assisted solution? 
C. WEA Testing and Proficiency Training 
43. Section 602(f) of the WARN Act provides that “[t]he Commission shall require by 
regulation technical testing for commercial mobile radio service providers that elect to transmit 
emergency alerts and for devices and equipment used by such providers for transmitting alerts”.
145
  Under 
the current WEA rules, the Commission requires Participating CMS Providers to support Required 
Monthly Testing (RMT) initiated by FEMA,
146
and testing of the C-Interface.
147
  The Commission 
adopted these testing requirements in the Second Report and Order to satisfy the WARN Act’s testing 
requirement in a manner that would ensure the reliability and performance of the new WEA system and 
the availability and viability of both of its gateway functions.
148
  The Commission further noted that the 
CMSAAC proposed that, in order to ensure the reliability and performance of this new system, certain 
procedures for logging alerts at the Alert Gateway and for testing the system at the Alert Gateway and on 
an end-to-end basis should be implemented.
149
  Since the deployment of WEA in 2012, the system has 
grown, technology has changed, and new community-based alert initiators have begun to use WEA to 
                                                     
145
Id. at § 602(f).
146
A WEA RMT is a WEA message that uses a specifically designed test message defined by J-STD-101 and is 
delivered from the Federal Alert Gateway Administrator to the commercial mobile service provider gateway.  See 
ALLIANCE FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY SOLUTIONS, JOINT ATIS/TIA CMAS FEDERAL ALERT GATEWAY 
TO CMSP GATEWAY INTERFACE SPECIFICATION, J-STD-101 90 (2008) (defining the text of the test alert message as 
“This is a test of the Wireless Emergency Alert System  This is only a test.”).  Upon receipt of the RMT message, 
Participating CMS Providers currently have a 24-hour window to distribute the test message in their WEA coverage 
areas in a manner that avoids congestion or causes other adverse effects on their networks.  See 47 C.F.R. § 
10.350(a)(2).  The Participating CMS Provider’s gateway routes the test message to the Participating CMS 
Provider’s core infrastructure which, in turn, distributes that broadcast to the targeted network base stations in the 
WEA coverage area.  Most Participating CMS Providers have operational processes in place to receive the RMT on 
certain handsets that can be configured to receive the RMT message without signaling its receipt on subscribers’ 
handsets.  There is no geography selection associated with the RMT in current standards; RMTs are assumed to be 
nationwide. 
147
See 47 C.F.R. § 10.350; see also supra ¶ 4 (stating that the C-Interface is a secure, Internet-based interface 
between the Federal Alert Gateway and Participating CMS Providers’ Alert Gateways).  In addition to the RMTs, 
Section 10.350(b) of the rules requires Participating CMS Providers to participate in “periodic testing” of the 
interface between the Federal Alert Gateway and its CMS Provider Gateway.  47 C.F.R. § 10.350(b).  This periodic 
testing is intended to ensure the availability/viability of both gateway functions.  See id.   
148
Second Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 10771-10775, ¶¶ 17, 21, 23.  Because WEA was still subject to 
“significant development” and the Federal Alert Aggregator and Gateway had just recently been identified, the 
Commission believed that it would be premature to adopt more specific testing requirements.  See id. at 10775, ¶ 23.
149
Id. at 10771, ¶ 17.  CMSAAC defined end-to-end testing as “testing from the Alert Initiator to the CMSP 
Gateway.”  See CMSAAC Report at 66.  FEMA brought a redundant Federal Alert Gateway into operation in May 
2013.  Redundant gateways are necessary to improve system availability and to reduce single points of failure.  The 
J-STD-101 supports redundant gateways and defines the message transmission requirements.  Because redundant 
gateways are optional, each Participating CMS Provider may employ a different network design to connect 
Participating CMS Provider gateway(s) to the Federal Alert Gateways.  Although the network designs are different, 
the message transmission arrangement, including test messages, remains consistent regardless of network 
architecture.  We note that Section 10.350(a)(7) of the Commission rules provides that a Participating CMS Provider 
“must retain an automated log of RMT messages received by the CMS Providers Gateway from the Federal Alert 
Gateway.”  47 C.F.R. § 10.350(a)(7).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
25
address the safety needs of their communities.  In the course of analyzing our proposals below, 
commenters should address whether the proposal is consistent with our statutory authority under the 
WARN Act or the Communications Act.
1. Promoting State and Local Testing and Proficiency Training 
44. GAO and alert originators have raised concerns about the lack of a state/local WEA 
testing regime.
150
  In response, the Commission tasked CSRIC IV with making recommendations on how 
the Commission could address these concerns.
151
  In its report, CSRIC IV observes that, according to state 
and local alert originators, training and proficiency-building exercises constitute a “fundamental 
component” of emergency management programs.
152
  Additionally, according to CSRIC IV, WEA testing 
would provide state and local alert originators with opportunities to evaluate their preparedness for 
responding to life-threatening events, to ensure the software used to generate and the infrastructure used 
to disseminate WEA messages are operating correctly, and to test for downstream issues.
153
45. Readiness Testing.  CSRIC IV considered three potential models for WEA testing: (1) 
allowing alert originators to utilize the current RMT process; (2) allowing alert originators to conduct 
WEA tests that could be received by wireless customers that opt in to receive alerts; and (3) allowing alert 
originators to conduct WEA tests that would be received by all wireless customers, unless they opt out of 
receiving the test.
154
FEMA currently issues nationwide RMTs that are held up to 24 hours before they 
are delivered to (but not displayed on) WEA-enabled devices.
155
CSRIC IV concluded that a localized
test to opt-in participants’ WEA-enabled devices would achieve alert originators’ goals of providing 
system verification, as well as opportunities for alert originator proficiency training, and enhancing public 
awareness of the WEA service.
156
  
46. Pursuant to CSRIC IV’s recommended opt-in testing model, an alert originator would 
submit its test message to FEMA/IPAWS, which would then send the test message to Participating CMS 
Providers that have coverage within the described alert area.
157
  Participating CMS Providers would then 
receive and process the test message, distributing it to devices configured to opt-in to receiving state and 
local WEA tests.
158
  CSRIC IV’s recommended end-to-end process flow for local, opt-in WEA testing is 
shown in Figure 2 below.
                                                     
150
See GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, EMERGENCY ALERTING: CAPABILITIES HAVE IMPROVED, BUT 
ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE AND TESTING ARE NEEDED, GAO 13-375 (2013); CSRIC WEA Testing Report at 7.
151
See LARISSA HERDA, CSRIC IVWORKING GROUP DESCRIPTIONS AND LEADERSHIP 2-3 (2014), available at 
http://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/pshs/advisory/csric4/CSRIC%20IV%20Working%20Group%20Descriptions%2010
%2023%2014.pdf (last visited Oct. 2, 2015).  
152
CSRIC WEA Testing Report at 7, 9.
153
See id. at 7; see also WEA Mobile Penetration Strategy at 120 (stating that “awareness and understanding of 
WEA is low, especially among local” emergency managers).
154
See id. at 22, Appendix E (allow alert originators to utilize the current RMT process); id. at 24, Appendix E 
(alerting authorities conduct WEA test to opt-in participants); id. at 27, Appendix E (alerting authorities conduct 
WEA test to opt-out participants).
155
See id. at 22, Appendix E.
156
See id. at 15; see also WEA Mobile Penetration Strategy at 131 (recommending end-to-end WEA testing to 
promote opportunities for system verification and public awareness).
157
See CSRIC WEA Testing Report at 24.
158
See id. at 24-25 (including further details of CSRIC IV’s recommended model for localized, end-to-end, WEA 
testing).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
26
Figure 2: Process for Alerting Authorities to Conduct WEA Testing with Opt-in Participants
159
47. We propose to add a new Section 10.350(c) to the WEA rules to require Participating 
CMS Providers to ensure their systems support the receipt of “State/Local WEA Tests” from the Federal 
Alert Gateway Administrator, and to distribute such tests to the desired test area in a manner consistent 
with Section 10.450 of the rules.
160
  In order to allow State/Local WEA Tests to mirror an actual event, as 
                                                     
159
The data in this table is based on the diagram provided by the CSRIC WEA Testing Report.  Id. at 24.  While the 
assumptions in this diagram suggest State/Local WEA tests would be subject to a 24-hour window for delivery, we 
propose that State/Local WEA tests be delivered upon receipt, as discussed below.  
160
47 C.F.R. § 10.450 (establishing our current minimum requirement for the geographic targeting of alert messages 
that “[a] Participating CMS Provider must transmit any Alert Message that is specified by a geocode, circle, or 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
27
recommended by the CSRIC,
161
we propose that the 24-hour delivery window that currently applies to 
RMTs under Section 10.350(a)(2) would not apply to State/Local WEA Tests conducted under proposed 
Section 10.350(c).  We believe that the local, geographically focused nature of these tests would allow 
Participating CMS Providers to distribute the State/Local WEA Tests within their networks upon receipt 
in a manner consistent with necessary traffic load management and network maintenance.  We seek 
comment on this analysis.  In this regard, we also seek comment on whether there still remains a 
justification for the 24-hour window for RMTs.  Does the 24-hour window allow for efficient testing that 
provides adequate data about any weaknesses in the system, including potential message delivery 
latencies?  Do Participating CMS Providers still require a 24-hour window “to manage traffic loads and to 
accommodate maintenance windows,” as indicated by Section 10.350(a)(2)?  We further propose that 
Section 10.350(c), consistent with Section 10.350(a), should specify that a Participating CMS Provider 
may forgo accepting or delivering a State/Local WEA Test if the test message is preempted by actual alert 
traffic, or if an unforeseen condition in the Participating CMS Provider infrastructure precludes 
distribution of the State/Local WEA Test.
162
In the event that a Participating CMS Provider cannot accept 
or deliver a test under these circumstances, we propose to require that Participating CMS Providers shall 
indicate such an unforeseen condition by sending a response code to the Federal Alert Gateway.  Finally, 
we propose that Section 10.350(c) state that Participating CMS Providers may provide their subscribers 
with the option to opt-in to receiving State/Local WEA Tests.  We seek comment on these proposals.
163
  
We also seek comment on whether we should require State/Local WEA Test messages to be clearly 
identified as test messages to prevent confusion.  
48. We seek comment on whether any new or revised technical standards or processes would 
be necessary to facilitate state and local testing, and if so, whether such standards would be best 
developed through industry standards bodies or best practices.  We seek further comment on whether alert 
originators at the federal, state and local levels would be best positioned to coordinate with Participating 
CMS Providers and determine the proper method of outreach to testing participants.  Accordingly, would 
our goal of promoting alert origination proficiency be best achieved by affording alert originators
flexibility to develop a WEA testing model that best fits the needs of their individual communities?
Similarly, would industry organizations such as ATIS/TIA be best positioned to create the device and 
network specifications that may be necessary to support state and local WEA testing?  We seek comment 
on whether any additional requirements would be necessary to realize the specific opt-in testing regime 
recommended by CSRIC IV.
164
  Should we revise section 10.500 of the WEA rules, which specifies 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
polygon to an area not larger than the provider's approximation of coverage for the Counties or County Equivalents 
with which that geocode, circle, or polygon intersects. If, however, the propagation area of a provider's transmission 
site exceeds a single County or County Equivalent, a Participating CMS Provider may transmit an Alert Message to 
an area not exceeding the propagation area.”).  We propose to revise this requirement as specified in Section III(B) 
above. See supra § III.B.
161
See CSRIC WEA Testing Report at 24-25.
162
47 C.F.R. § 10.350(a) (describing RMTs).
163
In proposing to adopt rules to facilitate State/Local WEA Testing, we address CSRIC IV’s recommendation that 
the Commission clarify that WEA end-to-end testing beyond the RMT is not precluded by any of its existing rules, 
and that the Commission grant a waiver of its Part 10 rules to the extent necessary to allow state and local testing of 
WEA to begin immediately in light of the critical need for this service.  See CSRIC WEA Testing Report at 16.  
While Section 10.350 of the WEA rules specifies that RMT and C-Interface testing are required, it does not prohibit 
other testing from being undertaken voluntarily. 47 C.F.R. § 10.350. Accordingly, no waiver is necessary to permit 
state and local alert originators, FEMA/IPAWS, and Participating CMS Providers to agree to deliver state and local 
WEA tests on a voluntary basis during the pendency of this rulemaking.
164
CSRIC IV states that “any change to existing testing procedures would need a review of the effects of the 
solutions upon” standards and documents governing the performance and operation of mobile devices, the C-
Interface, Participating CMS Provider networks.  See CSRIC WEA Testing Report at 14.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
28
general requirements for WEA mobile device functionality (including monitoring for alert messages and 
presenting alert content) to include the ability to monitor for State/Local WEA Tests and to be able to 
receive and display State/Local WEA Test messages?
165
49. We also seek comment on the periodicity with which state and local alert originators 
would likely want to engage in readiness testing, and on the maximum readiness testing periodicity 
Participating CMS Providers are able to support.  With what frequency should State/Local WEA Tests be 
conducted, in order to optimize and ensure system readiness, without introducing alert fatigue or 
otherwise imposing undue burdens on Participating CMS Providers?
50. We seek comment on the public safety benefits likely to result from requiring 
Participating CMS Providers to support State/Local WEA Testing.  According to FEMA, a localized, opt-
in, end-to-end approach to testing, as described above, offers the public safety benefits that alert 
originators state that they need.
166
  Specifically, FEMA asserts that requiring Participating CMS Provider 
support for local testing would improve WEA by (1) demonstrating to the public that their handsets are 
(or are not) capable of receiving a WEA message; (2) demonstrating WEA capability in coordinated 
public warning exercises and tests such as those required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for local 
emergency preparedness programs; and (3) providing the public with reassurance that local emergency 
management is capable of alerting them in times of disaster.
167
  We seek comment on FEMA’s analysis.  
51. Alternatively, would another approach to state and local WEA testing address alert 
originators’ needs more efficiently? As mentioned above, CSRIC IV considered two alternatives to 
localized, end-to-end, opt-in WEA testing, including local testing on an opt-out basis, and using the 
current RMT process.
168
  We seek comment on these alternative testing regimes. While CSRIC IV 
concludes that opt-out testing would afford substantial benefits in terms of system verification, alert 
originator proficiency, and public awareness, it also finds that opt-out testing is unnecessarily broad, and 
that large-scale public response may unduly stress emergency call centers.
169
  We seek comment on 
CSRIC IV’s analysis.  With respect to utilizing the current RMT process, CSRIC IV finds that this testing 
model poses little to no network reliability risk for Participating CMS Providers, but also offers little, if 
any, benefit in the areas of system verification, alert originator proficiency and public awareness because 
the test alert would not be displayed on end-user devices.
170
We seek comment on CSRIC IV’s findings.  
52. We also seek comment on any potential costs that may be imposed by our proposed 
testing requirements.  Because the proposed testing regime is largely based on the current RMT model, 
with test recipients likely comprised of a limited number of voluntary, opt-in participants, we anticipate 
that the proposed testing regime would likely not lead to network congestion.  We seek comment on this 
observation, as well as the extent to which Participating CMS Providers would incur costs, including 
costs related to the development of any technical standards or necessary modifications to end user 
devices. Are there any measures we could take to minimize any attendant costs while still achieving our 
public safety goals?
                                                     
165
47 C.F.R. § 10.500 (containing general requirements for WEA mobile device functionality, including that the 
device be able to authenticate interactions with Participating CMS Provider infrastructure, monitor for alert 
messages, maintain subscriber opt outs, maintain language preferences, extract alert content, present alert content, 
and detect and suppress duplicate alerts).
166
See FEMA Jun. 18, Ex Parte Letter at 3.
167
See id.
168
See supra ¶ 45.  
169
See CSRIC WEA Testing Report at 28.
170
See id. at 22.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
29
53. Liability Protection for State/Local WEA Testing.  Finally, CSRIC IV recommends that 
the Commission confirm that liability protection provided under the WARN Act extends to Participating 
CMS Providers for their engagement in State/Local WEA Testing.
171
Based on the plain language of the 
WARN Act, we believe that liability protection would reasonably extend to Participating CMS Provider 
engagement in State/Local WEA Testing as proposed in this Notice, provided that the Participating CMS 
Provider otherwise satisfies its obligations under the WARN Act and complies with our testing 
requirements.
172
  We note that Section 602(f) provides that “[t]he Commission shall require by regulation 
technical testing for commercial mobile radio service providers that elect to transmit emergency alerts and 
for devices and equipment used by such providers for transmitting alerts.
173
  Further, Section 602(e)(1)(A) 
states that “[a]ny commercial mobile service provider [. . .] that transmits emergency alerts and meets its 
obligations under this title shall not be liable to any subscriber, or user of, such person’s service or 
equipment for – (A) any act or omission related to or any harm resulting from the transmission of, or 
failure to transmit, an emergency alert.”
174
  We seek comment on our analysis.
54. Proficiency Training.  We observe that it may be helpful for state and local alert 
originators to send WEA test messages in the context of proficiency training exercises.  We envision that 
proficiency training exercises would help develop the preparedness of state and local emergency 
response, ensuring that emergency managers are able to respond swiftly and efficiently to emergencies 
through the use of WEA.  We seek comment on whether we should provide alert originators with the 
option of delivering such proficiency training messages to a single, dedicated end-user device, such as the 
mobile device of an emergency management official, rather than to a larger set of wireless customers, in 
order to provide alert originators with an opportunity to develop alert originator proficiency through 
regular exercises without involving the general public.  Further, in order to minimize any potential burden 
on Participating CMS Providers, we propose that proficiency training exercises would not be subject to 
the same reporting requirements that we discuss below.  We seek comment on this proposal, and any 
other approaches we could adopt that would achieve our public safety objectives. 
2. Requiring Alert Logging and Test Reporting
55. Section 10.350 of the WEA rules requires Participating CMS Providers to keep an 
automated log of RMT messages received by the Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateway from the 
FEMA Alert Gateway.
175
  The Commission adopted this requirement in the Second Report and Order
based on the CMSAAC’s recommendation that alert logs should be kept and preserved as an integral part 
of the Trust Model for maintaining WEA system integrity, for protecting system security, and for testing 
and troubleshooting purposes.
176
  The Commission declined to adopt more specific test reporting 
requirements at that time because the WEA system was still in a nascent stage.
177
  According to CSRIC 
IV, there is no established procedure for Participating CMS Providers to inform alert originators or 
government entities of the success or failure of WEA tests under the current WEA testing model (i.e., 
RMT and C-Interface Testing),
178
and thus no available method to analyze these results in the interest of 
public safety. We seek comment on CSRIC IV’s conclusions.
                                                     
171
See id. at 12.
172
WARN Act § 602(e)(1).
173
Id. at § 602(f).
174
Id. at § 602(e)(1)(A).
175
47 C.F.R. § 10.350(a)(7).
176
WEA Second Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 10774, ¶ 23; see also CMSAAC Report at 66.
177
See WEA Second Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 10774, ¶ 23.
178
See CSRIC WEA Testing Report at 16.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
30
56. We propose to require Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateways to provide the logging 
functionality recommended by the CMSAAC Report.
179
  Specifically, we propose to adopt a new Section 
10.320(g) that would require Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateways to: 
? Provide a mechanism to log messages with time stamps that verify when messages are 
received, and when the messages are acknowledged or rejected by the Participating CMS 
Provider Alert Gateway, and if an alert is rejected, to provide the specific error code 
generated by the rejection; 
? Maintain an online log of active and cancelled alert messages for 90 days, and maintain 
archived logs for at least 36 months that should be accessible by Participating CMS Providers 
for testing and troubleshooting purposes; and 
? Generate monthly system and performance statistics reports based on category of alert, alert 
originator, alert area, and other alerting attributes.  
We observe that these logging requirements were recommended by the CMSAAC after extensive efforts 
to arrive at a consensus among CMS Providers, vendors, public safety entities, organizations representing 
broadcast stations, and organizations representing people with disabilities and the elderly.
180
  Are 
Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateways currently capable of performing the logging functions 
specified by the CMSAAC? If not, how difficult would it be to add this functionality?  Would alert 
logging allow Participating CMS Providers to monitor whether the WEA system is working as intended?  
In order to develop a full view of how the WEA system is working, from alert initiation all the way 
through to receipt of the message by the mobile device, should CMS Providers also log when the alert is 
received by a representative, dedicated, end-user device (such as a mobile device controlled by and in the 
possession of the Participating CMS Provider)?  Aside from the Commission, should alert logs be 
accessible only by Participating CMS Providers?  We seek comment on whether other federal or state 
governmental entities, such as FEMA, may have a legitimate need for access to alert logs.  We seek 
comment any confidentiality protections that would be required to protect Participating CMS Provider 
alert logs.  The CMSAAC described message logging as part of the Trust Model necessary to ensure 
WEA system security and reliability because it allows all WEA messages to be attributed reliably to an 
individual, sender, and to identify when the sender is not properly credentialed.
181
  We also seek comment 
on whether implementing these CMSAAC-recommended procedures, along with the test reporting 
requirements described below, would be beneficial in harmonizing our proposed WEA test reporting and 
logging procedures with our EAS rules.
182
57. We note that CSRIC IV recommends that industry and government stakeholders 
“develop a best practices ATIS/TIA standard for defining and reporting on significant problems.”
183
  We 
seek comment on CSRIC IV’s recommendation.  Should we formalize a reporting process for alert 
originators?  If we do formalize a test reporting procedure, what form should that reporting take, and what 
specific information should be reported? We also seek comment on the extent to which reporting 
procedures could provide alert originators with useful feedback on alert delivery latency,
184
accuracy of 
                                                     
179
See CMSAAC Report at 66.
180
WARN Act § 602(a); see also CMSAAC Report at 63; First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 6151, ¶ 13.
181
See CMSAAC Report at 62.
182
See id. at 66; see also 47 C.F.R. § 11.35 (requiring EAS Participants to “determine the cause of any failure to 
receive . . . required tests or activations,” indicating reasons why a test was not received in a log, and requiring such 
a log to be maintained for two years); 47 C.F.R. § 11.61(3)(iv) (requiring EAS Participants to log tests results in the 
Electronic Test Reporting System (ETRS)). 
183
CSRIC WEA Testing Report at 16.
184
“Latency refers to several types of delays typically incurred during network data processing, and is typically 
measured in milliseconds (ms).”  2014 Competition Report at 15412, ¶ 204.  “One common measure is round-trip 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
31
geo-targeting, and quality of public response that otherwise would be unavailable.  Could feedback on the 
quality of public response be leveraged to improve alert originators’ alert origination proficiency?  We 
seek comment on the extent to which reported data would be useful to empower alert originators with the 
ability to ensure the WEA system will work as designed and when needed.  What, if any, characteristics 
of alert dissemination, beyond geo-targeting and latency, would state and local alert originators seek to 
evaluate through State/Local WEA Testing and thus require reports on?  How can a test reporting system 
be optimized to protect potentially confidential information?
58. Should we also require Participating CMS Providers to report WEA test data?  We note 
that the Commission has required that EAS Participants file nationwide EAS test result data with the 
Commission on a confidential basis through an Electronic Test Reporting System (ETRS).
185
  Should the 
Commission require Participating CMS Providers to use this system as a model for the reporting of WEA 
test data to the Commission?  If we were to require reporting of WEA test data, we seek comment 
regarding the frequency with which such reporting should take place.  For example, should Participating 
CMS Providers file test data on an annual basis, based on test data collected from the RMT process?  We 
also seek comment regarding the elements of the test data that should be provided in any such report.  For 
example, should the report include data regarding the time of the receipt of the alert from the FEMA Alert 
Gateway, and the time of alert transmission?  Should Participating CMS Providers include data regarding 
when an alert is received by a representative mobile device, as discussed above with respect to logging 
requirements? We also seek comment on whether such information should be considered presumptively 
confidential, to be shared with federal, state and local alert originators that have confidentiality protection 
at least equal to that provided by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), consistent with our data-
protection practices in the EAS context.
186
  Alternatively, are there differences in the type of data that we 
might collect from CMS Providers versus EAS Participants that would suggest WEA test data should be 
treated differently?  Should access to WEA test data be limited, and if so, to whom?  We seek comment 
on the optimal method of filing test result data with the Commission in a manner that fulfills the primary 
goal of WEA testing to provide alert originators with verification that the system works as designed, and 
provides the Commission with an opportunity to analyze the performance of the WEA system in order to 
bring to light any potential weaknesses in the WEA system that we may be able to address through 
rulemaking, public-private partnerships, or both.  
59. We also seek comment on three alternative test reporting mechanisms: third-party 
software using Application Programming Interfaces (APIs),
187
informal communication among alert 
originators, and use of the Public Safety Help Center.  We anticipate that these alternatives could 
minimize the filing burden on Participating CMS Providers, but could also present significant drawbacks.  
First, we seek comment on whether Participating CMS Providers could allow third-party application 
developers to create software and APIs to satisfy their test reporting requirements.  Could third-party 
software be designed to automate the process of filing test result data with the Commission by sending 
such data from the consumer’s mobile device directly to a Commission-operated server or account using a 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
latency, which measures the amount of time it takes a data packet to travel from a source to a destination and back.”  
Id. “Latency is often affected by factors such as the specifics of the cellular network architecture or processing 
delays that may occur when the packets need to pass through proxy servers.” Id.  4G networks significantly reduce 
latency relative to earlier network technologies.  See id.
185
See Sixth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 6533, ¶ 27.
186
See 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2006), amended by OPEN Government Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-175, 121 Stat. 2524 
(stating the FOIA confidentiality standard, along with relevant exemptions); see also Sixth Report and Order, 30 
FCC Rcd at 6533, n.90 (requiring federal, state and local entities to have confidentiality protections at least as strong 
as FOIA in order to receive test result data filed in ETRS).
187
APIs provide a way to connect computer software components and make it possible for organizations to open 
their backend data and functionality for reuse in new application services.  See API ACADEMY, 
http://www.apiacademy.co/lessons/api-strategy/what-api (last visited May 14, 2014).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
32
the cell broadcast network, a data connection, or WiFi?  Second, we seek comment on whether it would 
be preferable to leave test reporting to person-to-person interaction without the adoption of formal rules.  
Could the goals of test reporting be achieved through informal communication between alert originators 
and their associates?  Finally, we seek comment on the use of the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) 
section of the Public Safety Help Center to satisfy the need for feedback on State/Local WEA Tests.  
Would a consumer-complaint based reporting mechanism adequately capture shortcomings in State/Local 
WEA Tests?  
60. We also seek comment on the potential costs that Participating CMS Providers would be 
likely to incur if we were to adopt rules for alert logging and test reporting.  What costs, if any, would 
logging alerts at the Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateway cause Participating CMS Providers to 
incur?  What costs would reporting test data to the Commission impose?  How could we optimize the 
WEA test reporting process to minimize the filing burden on Participating CMS Providers, and to protect 
confidential information?  How, if at all, could a best-practice-based test reporting system be leveraged to 
provide comparable benefits at a lower cost? 
D. Participating CMS Providers and Subscribers 
61. We seek comment on whether there are additional measures we can take to promote 
participation in WEA, both by consumers and by CMS Providers.
188
  Section 602(b)(2)(E) of the WARN 
Act provides that “any commercial mobile service licensee electing to transmit emergency alerts may 
offer subscribers the capability of preventing the subscriber’s device from receiving such alerts, or classes
of such alerts, other than an alert issued by the President.”
189
  In the Third Report and Order, the 
Commission addressed this section of the WARN Act by adopting section 10.280 of the WEA rules, 
which states that Participating CMS Providers “may provide their subscribers with the option to opt out of 
both, or either, the ‘Child Abduction Emergency/AMBER Alert’ and ‘Imminent Threat Alert’ classes of 
Alert Messages,”
190
and that Participating CMS Providers “shall provide their subscribers with a clear 
indication of what each option means, and provide examples of the types of messages the customer may 
not receive as a result of opting out.”
191
  The Commission also allowed Participating CMS Providers the 
flexibility to provide opt-out choices consistent with their own infrastructure in order to accommodate 
variations among Participating CMS Provider networks and devices.
192
The Commission reasoned that 
this approach would allow consumers the flexibility to choose what type of messages they wish to 
receive, while also ensuring that customers would be apprised of the most severe threats as communicated 
by Presidential Alert messages.
193
  Further, the Commission reasoned that this approach would 
accommodate “differences in how CMS providers and device manufacturers provision menus and user 
interfaces.”
194
  The Commission’s approach was consistent with the CMSAAC recommendation that a 
simple opt-out program should allow consumers the choice to opt out of Imminent Threat Alerts and 
AMBER Alerts.
195
                                                     
188
See WEA Mobile Penetration Strategy at 120, 128 (stating that the rate of WEA adoption among is lowest among 
the smallest CMS Providers); see also id. at 123 (projecting that, by 2016, the rate of mobile device penetration will 
be ninety percent, or about 260 million devices); id. at 125 (“User acceptance of WEA is an important consideration 
in ensuring the overall effectiveness of the system”).
189
WARN Act § 602(b)(2)(E).
190
Third Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 12578, ¶ 41; 47 C.F.R. § 10.280.
191
Id.
192
See Third Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 12578, ¶ 41.
193
See id.  Pursuant to the WARN Act, consumers cannot opt out of receiving Presidential Alerts.  WARN Act § 
602(b)(2)(E); see also 47 C.F.R. § 10.280.
194
Third Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 12578, ¶ 41.
195
See CMSAAC Report at 52.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
33
62. Section 602 (b)(2)(E) of the WARN Act required the Commission to send a report to 
Congress making recommendations on whether Participating CMS Providers should continue to be 
permitted to offer their subscribers the ability to opt out of receiving Imminent Threat and AMBER
Alerts.
196
  As required by the WARN Act, the Commission filed the report on August 5, 2010, but initial 
deployment of WEA was not scheduled until April 2012.  Accordingly, although the Commission 
adopted opt-out rules in 2008, at the time the Commission submitted its report to Congress there was no 
WEA service from which customers could opt-out, so the Commission made no recommendations 
regarding subscriber opt-out capability.  
63. Now that WEA has been deployed for over three years, we seek comment on the opt-out 
provisions currently used by Participating CMS Providers.  Further, we seek comment on specific factors 
that lead consumers to opt out of receiving WEA messages.
197
  For example, do consumers regularly opt 
out of receiving WEA messages because they receive alerts that are not relevant to their geographic 
location?  If so, would the new geo-targeting rules we propose today reduce consumer opt-out?  Has 
message length, particularly the 90-character limit, been a factor in consumer decisions to opt out?  
Would the provision of further details about the nature of life-threatening situations and instructions on 
how to respond make it more or less likely that consumers would choose to opt out of receiving WEA 
messages?  Similarly, would the availability of WEA messages in languages other than English, 
Emergency Government Information, embedded URLs, embedded phone numbers or multimedia content 
have an impact on consumer opt out, and if so, then to what extent?
64. We note that many Participating CMS Providers supply, display, or refer the customer to 
instructions on how to opt out of receiving WEA messages on Participating CMS Provider web sites.
198
  
Does the manner in which Participating CMS Providers offer their customers information regarding 
consumer choice have an impact on whether consumers opt out of receiving WEA messages?  Would the 
goals of the statute be better served by requiring a more neutral approach?  If so, should the Commission 
prescribe a consistent, transparent and uniform opt-out procedure for WEA messages, or are there other 
regulatory responses that would effectively prevent such favoritism while providing Participating CMS 
Providers with more flexibility in how they inform consumers of the options?  
65. We seek comment on the extent to which Participating CMS Providers can provide 
consumers with a greater number of opt-out choices that might facilitate consumer participation in WEA.  
For example, could Participating CMS Providers offer users the option to receive AMBER Alerts only 
during certain times, such as during the day, so they will not be disturbed during the evening or at night?  
Are consumers currently able to silence some or all WEA alerts by using “silent mode” or “do not 
disturb” functions on their mobile devices?
199
  Are there other ways to personalize alert receipt options 
that would help optimize the balance between encouraging WEA participation and providing consumers 
                                                     
196
WARN Act § 602(b)(2)(E).
197
See WEA Mobile Penetration Strategy at 126 (stating that “[i]f users find the content and structure of WEA 
messages to be confusing, they may decide to opt out of the system”).
198
See, e.g., AT&TWIRELESS SUPPORT, http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?&sid=KB410692&cv=820 (last 
visited Jun. 12, 2015); VERIZON, OTHER WIRELESS TOPICS, http://www.verizonwireless.com/support/wireless-
emergency-alerts-faqs/ (last visited Jun. 12, 2015).
199
See CTIA, WIRELESS EMERGENCY ALERTS, http://www.ctia.org/your-wireless-life/consumer-tips/wireless-
emergency-alerts (last visited Oct. 20, 2015) (“If your phone is on silent or vibrate only, you will receive the alert, 
but will not get the WEA sound”); IPHONE USER GUIDE FOR IOS 8.4 SOFTWARE 14 (2015), available at
https://manuals.info.apple.com/MANUALS/1000/MA1565/en_US/iphone_user_guide.pdf (“You can also silence, 
calls, alerts, and notifications using Do Not Disturb.”); HTCONE (M8) USER GUIDE 175 (2014) (“Use Do not 
disturb mode to reject calls, and silence audible alerts and notifications”); but see dcd00d, iPhone Amber Alerts 
Discussion, REDDIT (“WEA messages do respect the silent switch but ignore ‘Do Not Disturb’ mode”); Amber Alert 
Woke Me Up Despite “Do Not Disturb” Setting, APPLE SUPPORT COMMUNITIES (Mar. 23, 2014, 5:16 PM),  
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5219951?tstart=0.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
34
with sufficient information to make an informed opt out decision? Should the Commission require 
Participating CMS Providers to offer any of these types of personalized alert receipt options, and, if so, 
what costs, if any, would such a requirement impose on the Provider?  What benefits would be associated 
with such a requirement?  For example, would a greater number of consumers decide not to disassociate 
completely from WEA if they had a more nuanced range of choices in how they could receive alerts, such 
as having the option to cache certain types of alerts received during the evening or night for later delivery 
during a more convenient time, or to limit the types of weather alerts they would receive, for example, to 
tornadoes but not thunderstorms?
66. We seek comment on the extent that public perception of WEA contributes to consumer 
opt-out and to CMS Provider election to participate in WEA.  To the extent that the rules we propose 
today will heighten public awareness and improve public perception of the value of WEA, to what extent 
is this expected to affect consumer opt out and CMS Provider participation?  
67. Finally, we seek comment on what potential barriers may exist that prevent full 
participation in WEA by all wireless providers, particularly any barriers confronting smaller providers.  
What measures could lower any barriers to participation for CMS Providers?  Are there particular actions 
the Commission or other stakeholders could take to facilitate the voluntary participation of non-
participating CMS providers, particularly smaller providers, in WEA?  For instance, do smaller providers 
encounter issues obtaining WEA-capable devices?
E. WEA Attention Signals and Public Service Announcements
68. Section 11.45 of our EAS rules provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]o person may transmit 
or cause to transmit the EAS codes or Attention Signal, or a recording or simulation thereof, in any 
circumstance other than in an actual National, State or Local Area emergency or authorized test of the 
EAS.”
200
  While our WEA rules do not include a comparable bar against the use of the WEA Attention 
Signal,
201
because the WEA and EAS Attention Signals use identical frequencies,
202
absent a waiver of 
our rules, the broadcast or transmission of the WEA Attention Signal may violate Section 11.45 of the 
Commission’s rules, particularly insofar as the respective signals may be indistinguishable to the 
listener.
203
  
69. FEMA, in collaboration with Ready.gov and the Ad Council, has developed a public 
education campaign consisting of PSAs, which it has distributed to strategic local markets and state and 
local IPAWS partners.
204
  In November 2015, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB 
or Bureau), on delegated authority, temporarily waived Sections 11.45 and 10.520 of the Commission’s 
rules,
205
in order to allow FEMA to raise public awareness about WEA and its attention signal through a 
                                                     
200
47 C.F.R. § 11.45.
201
47 C.F.R. § 10.520(d) (“[The WEA] audio attention signal must be restricted to use for Alert Messages under 
Part 10.”).  
202
Compare 47 C.F.R. § 10.520(b) with 47 C.F.R. § 11.31(a)(2) (stating that both the WEA and EAS attention 
signals are consist of the fundamental frequencies of 852 Hz and 960 Hz transmitted simultaneously).
203
For example, a casual listener may mistake hearing a broadcast of the WEA Attention Signal in the FEMA PSA 
as an actual EAS alert, or advertisers might think that they could avoid the prohibition against using the EAS 
Attention Signal by claiming that they are using the WEA Attention Signal instead.  SeeWaiver of Section 11.45 of 
the Commission’s Rules To Allow Broadcast of Public Service Announcements Produced by the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency to Educate the Public on the Wireless Emergency Alert System, PS Docket No. 
07-287, Order, DA 15-1326,¶ 4 (2015).
204
See Letter from Roger L. Stone. Assistant Administrator (Acting) National Continuity Programs, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, to David Simpson, Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, FCC 
(dated Nov. 6, 2015) (FEMA Letter, Nov. 6, 2015).
205
47 C.F.R. §§ 11.45 and 10.520.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
35
PSA campaign.
206
  The waiver, which will expire on May 19, 2017, permits the PSAs to play the WEA 
Attention Signal to familiarize the public with the sounds that they may hear from their mobile device 
when they receive a WEA Alert.
207
  The Bureau, however, conditioned the waiver upon the WEA PSA 
making clear that the WEA Attention Signal was being used “in the context of the PSA and for the 
purpose of educating the viewing or listening public about the functions of their WEA-capable mobile 
devices and the WEA program.”
208
  
70. We propose to amend our rules to allow broadcast or transmission of the WEA Attention 
Signal as part of government-developed PSAs in order to address alert originators’ need to raise public 
awareness about WEA.
209
Specifically, we propose to amend Sections 11.45 and 10.520 to allow federal, 
state and local governments to use the attention signal common to EAS and WEA to raise public 
awareness about WEA, provided the relevant entity makes it clear that the WEA Attention Signal is being 
used in the context of the PSA, “and for the purpose of educating the viewing or listening public about the 
functions of their WEA-capable mobile devices and the WEA program,” including by explicitly stating 
that the WEA attention signal is being used in the context of a PSA for the purpose of educating the 
public about WEA.
210
  We also seek comment on whether we should further amend Section 10.520 to bar 
the use of the WEA Attention Signal in a manner parallel to the bar on use of the EAS Attention Signal in 
Section 11.45 of the Commission’s rules.
211
  In the context of increasing the maximum WEA character 
limit, FEMA notes that it will “need to . . .  conduct additional public information efforts to inform people 
of the new format of WEA messages they may receive on their cellular phones.”
212
  Would PSAs be 
useful for this purpose?  If we were to amend our rules to allow the broadcast or transmission of the WEA 
Attention Signal in PSAs intended to educate the public about WEA, should we limit this exception to 
PSAs that are developed by FEMA, or should we extend this exception to PSAs created by any alerting 
authority recognized by FEMA?  If we were to extend the exception in this manner, should any such 
PSAs be subject to prior review or approval by FEMA as a condition of being considered compliant under 
our amended rules?
F. Non-commercial Educational and Public Broadcast Television Station Testing
71. The WARN Act and the Commission’s rules require Non-commercial Educational (NCE) 
and public broadcast television station licensees and permittees “to install necessary equipment and 
technologies on, or as part of, any broadcast television digital signal transmitter to enable the distribution 
of geographically targeted alerts by commercial mobile service providers that have elected to transmit 
emergency alerts” as a back-up to the C-Interface.
213
  
                                                     
206
Waiver of Section 11.45 of the Commission’s Rules to Allow Broadcast of Public Service Announcements 
Produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to Educate the Public on the Wireless Emergency Alert 
System, PS Docket No. 07-287, Order, DA 15-1326, ¶ 6 (2015).
207
See id. at ¶ 9.
208
Id. at ¶ 8.
209
See CSRIC WEA Testing Report at 9 (concluding that raising public awareness is among the primary reasons that 
emergency managers desire testing).
210
Waiver of Section 11.45 of the Commission’s Rules to Allow Broadcast of Public Service Announcements 
Produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to Educate the Public on the Wireless Emergency Alert 
System, PS Docket No. 07-287, Order, DA 15-1326,¶ 8 (2015).
211
47 C.F.R. § 11.45 (“No person may transmit or cause to transmit the EAS codes or Attention Signal, or a 
recording or simulation thereof, in any circumstance other than in an actual National, State or Local Area emergency 
or authorized test of the EAS.”).
212
FEMA Jun. 18 Ex Parte Letter at 1.
213
WARN Act § 602(c); see also 47 C.F.R. § 10.340.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
36
72. In a companion Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice) to the Second 
Report and Order,
214
the Commission sought comment on whether it should adopt rules that require NCE 
and public broadcast television station licensees and permittees to test the installed equipment.
215
  In the 
Further Notice, the Commission noted that NCE and public broadcast television station licensees and 
permittees will, in essence, provide a redundant path by which Participating CMS Providers will be able 
to receive geo-targeted alerts.
216
  The Commission also noted that it adopted rules to implement 602(f) of 
the WARN Act to require technical testing of this back-up path for Participating CMS Providers.
217
73. Against that background, the Commission sought comment on whether NCE/public 
broadcast television stations should participate in WEA testing, and if so, how this testing should be 
implemented.
218
  The Commission asked whether it should implement similar requirements as those it 
adopted for Participating CMS Providers.
219
  Additionally, the Commission sought comment on whether a 
different testing regime should be implemented given the unique circumstances of NCE/public broadcast 
television stations and digital television technology.
220  
Only two parties commented in response, both of 
which noted that, although they supported testing of the NCE/public television portion of the system, 
there were inherent limits in what such testing would show.
221
  
74. Given the passage of time, and the advances in WEA technology that have occurred 
during that time,
222
we ask that interested parties refresh and update the record on whether and how testing 
of the broadcast-based WEA infrastructure should be implemented.  We also seek comment on whether 
NCE/public broadcast television stations have the capability to test and analyze the transport of messages, 
and if not, would they be required to purchase testing equipment?  Would special procedures and test 
signals need to be developed to NCE/public broadcast television stations to effectively test message 
transmission and diagnose delivery problems?  Additionally, how would NCE/public broadcast television 
stations report problems?  As an alternative, would it be sufficient to require NCE/public broadcast 
television stations to simply receive tests originated by the Federal Alert Gateway and re-transmit them to 
the CMS Provider Alert Gateway? 
75. Additionally, we ask commenters to specify the benefits and costs of adopting 
NCE/public broadcast television station testing requirements.  For example, would the public benefits 
associated with ensuring the reliability of a redundant, back-up system outweigh the costs to NCE and 
public broadcast station licensees and permittees in testing equipment?  Would an extended 
implementation timeframe mitigate such costs?
                                                     
214
Second Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 10771-72, ¶¶ 13-16. 
215
Id. at 10775, ¶ 24.
216
Id. at 10776, ¶ 25.
217
See id. at 10775, ¶ 24.
218
See id. at 10776, ¶ 25.
219
See id.
220
See id.
221
See Comments of the Association of Public Television Stations (APTS) to the CMAS Second Report and Order 
and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at 2 (NCE/public broadcast stations play a passive, automatic role in the CMAS 
and so do not have the ability to actively test the CMAS); Comments of the University of North Carolina to the 
CMAS Second Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at 2 (NCE stations are passive participants 
that do not have return-path capability by which to report test, nor do they have any way to know whether a test was 
received at the CMS Provider Gateway end point).
222
We observe that PBS has since initiated the “WARN” project, which provides Participating CMS Providers with 
a redundant path for the delivery of geo-targeted WEA alerts.  See THE PBSWARN PROJECT, 
http://www.pbs.org/about/contact-us/warn/ (last accessed Oct. 27, 2015).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
37
G. WEA Prioritization
76. Section 10.410 of the Commission’s WEA rules requires Participating CMS Providers’ 
Alert Gateways to process alerts on a first in-first out (FIFO) basis, except for Presidential Alerts, which 
must be processed before all non-Presidential alerts.
223
  Section 10.320 reiterates this requirement, and 
further requires Participating CMS Provider’s Alert Gateways to support “a mechanism to manage 
congestion within the CMS provider’s infrastructure.”
224
  Further, in the First Report and Order, the 
Commission concluded that “it would be contrary to the public interest if alert messages were to preempt 
certain active voice or data sessions,” observing that it would not be in the public interest if urgent calls 
for help during crises were preempted by alert traffic.
225
  This conclusion was consistent with the 
recommendations of the CMSAAC, which stated that “the presentation of the received [ ] alert message 
should take priority over other mobile device functions except for the preemption of an active voice or 
data session.”
226
  
77. Given the passage of time, and the advances in WEA technology that have occurred 
during that time, we seek comment on whether we should amend Section 10.320 of the Commission’s 
rules to address prioritization at the Alert Gateway, in transit, and on the mobile device.  Specifically, 
with respect to prioritization at the Alert Gateway, we seek comment on whether WEA alerts should 
continue to be processed on a FIFO basis, with the exception of the Presidential Alert?  Should Imminent 
Threat Alerts attaining a certain threshold level of urgency, severity and certainty be processed before 
other, less extreme Imminent Threats potentially affecting the same geographic area?
227
  In the event 
commenters believe a particular type of alert should be prioritized over another, we seek comment on the 
order of prioritization and basis for such prioritization.  With respect to the prioritization of WEA alerts in 
transit, should the Commission require that WEA alert data have priority over all other data in transit?  
Would this have any unintended practical consequences, given that all traffic is increasingly data?  
H. Participating CMS Provider Election Process
78. The Commission’s WEA rules allow Participating CMS Providers to elect to transmit 
WEA alert messages “in a manner consistent with the technical standards, protocols, procedures, and 
other technical requirements implemented by the Commission.”
228
  The WEA rules also allow 
Participating CMS Providers to withdraw their election to participate in WEA “without regulatory penalty 
or forfeiture.”
229
  The Commission adopted these rules based on the WARN Act’s requirements that CMS 
providers that elect to transmit emergency alerts must agree to follow the technical rules adopted by the 
Commission,
230
and the WARN Act’s provision that Participating CMS Providers may withdraw their 
election to transmit emergency alerts at any time without penalty upon written notification to 
subscribers.
231
  CSRIC IV recommends that the Commission modify these election procedures to provide 
                                                     
223
47 C.F.R. §§ 10.410.
224
47 C.F.R. §§ 10.320(e)(3), (5); see also 47 C.F.R. § 10.410 (“A Participating CMS Provider is required to 
transmit Presidential Alerts upon receipt. Presidential Alerts preempt all other Alert Messages. A Participating CMS 
Provider is required to transmit Imminent Threat Alerts and AMBER Alerts on a first in–first out (FIFO) basis”).
225
First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 6173, ¶ 80.
226
CMSAAC Report at 60.
227
See 47 C.F.R. § 10.400(b) (stating that an “Imminent Threat Alert” is an alert that meets a minimum value for 
each of three CAP elements: “Urgency,” “Severity” and “Certainty”).
228
47 C.F.R. § 10.210(a)(1).
229
47 C.F.R. § 10.220.
230
WARN Act § 602(b)(2)(B)(ii).
231
Id. at § 602(b)(2)(D).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
38
CMS Providers with multiple election options.
232
  Under CSRIC IV’s recommendations, a CMS Provider 
could elect to continue to participate in WEA under the new rules adopted by the Commission, or “under 
the rules in place at the time of the original election.”
233
  CSRIC IV recommends that CMS Providers 
should be required to electronically file with the Commission, within 180 days following the adoption of 
changes or enhancements to WEA rules, a letter attesting to the CMS Provider’s election as recommended 
above.
234
  
79. We believe that Participating CMS Providers should continue to provide WEA service in 
a manner consistent with our WEA rules, including any amendments we might adopt as a result of this 
proceeding.  Under the WARN Act, CMS Provider election to participate in WEA is voluntary, but once a 
CMS provider elects to participate in WEA, participation must be consistent with the Commission’s rules. 
The WARN Act plainly states that a CMS Provider that elects to transmit alerts under the WARN Act 
must do so “in a manner consistent with the technical standards, protocols, procedures, and other 
technical requirements implemented by the Commission.”
235
  There is nothing in the WARN Act that 
gives a Participating CMS Provider the authority to select which technical standards, protocols, 
procedures and other requirements with which it will comply.  We observe that to allow each 
Participating CMS Provider to support a substantively or technically different WEA service could 
introduce confusion and potentially impede interoperability, unnecessarily complicating the task of alert 
originators at the very instant when lives may depend on getting an accurate and timely alert to the 
community.  Moreover, if the Commission were to adopt CSRIC IV’s recommended revisions to our 
election procedures, it would threaten to eliminate or severely inhibit the Commission’s ability to 
implement the WARN Act’s vision that the WEA service should evolve, consistent with advancements in 
the underlying technology.  
80. We believe that the record and stakeholder practice support our position that the 
Commission should revisit its technical rules for WEA as technology evolves in order to ensure that 
WEA remains an effective, life-saving service.
236
  It was the common understanding among all the 
CMSAAC stakeholders that WEA would evolve with technology.
237
  Indeed, many of the proposals in 
this Notice are based upon the CMSAAC recommendations that were not adopted by the Commission in 
previous reports and orders because of technological limitations present at the time of their adoption.  
When the Commission adopted the WEA rules, it retained the “discretion and flexibility” to evaluate the 
CMSAAC’s recommendations in order to advance the policy goal underlying the WARN Act, i.e., “the 
creation of a [WEA system] in which CMS Providers will elect to participate, and which will effectively 
deliver alerts and warnings to the public.”
238  
We believe this is consistent with the intent of Congress.
                                                     
232
See CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 48.
233
Id. at 48-49.  Under CSRIC IV’s recommendations, CMS Providers’ ability to withdraw their election, or elect 
not to participate remain the same.  Id.  
234
See id. at 49.
235
WARN Act § 602(b)(ii).
236
See, e.g., CMSAAC Report at 42 (“The CMSAAC recommends that this document be treated as a living 
document, with periodic updates to account for experiences with initial CMAS deployments and experiences with 
new technologies and their applicability to CMAS. An industry group consisting of government and industry 
stakeholders should be created after the CMSAAC’s activity is complete to review and update this document on a 
periodic basis.  This review should occur no less frequently than biennially.”). 
237
See id. at 48 (stating that “[i]t is desired that more flexible geo-targeting to alert areas evolve as technology 
advances,” and recommending that the geo-targeting to alert areas smaller than a county “should be reviewed as part 
of the biennial review process” they proscribed for WEA).
238
First Report and Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 6148, ¶ 9.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
39
81. In light of the rapid deployment of smart handsets and 4G technology as discussed above, 
we believe that the statutory provisions giving rise to WEA authorize the Commission to continue to take 
a leadership role, in cooperation with other federal entities, states, localities and Participating CMS
Providers, to promote the continued effectiveness of WEA as a technologically current element of the 
nation’s overall alerting strategy.
239
  We also believe that competitive forces provide Participating CMS
Providers with strong incentives to continue to transmit emergency alerts to consumer mobile devices and 
that these market incentives, along with the public safety benefits we expect to result from these proposed 
rules, provide a strong argument for continued participation in WEA.  We seek comment on our analysis, 
as well as CSRIC IV’s recommendation to allow Participating CMS Providers to offer WEA pursuant to 
different requirements.
I. Implementation Timeframe
82. As discussed below, we propose that Participating CMS Providers must comply with our 
WEA messaging rules within one year of their effective date, and with our WEA geo-targeting and testing 
rules within sixty days of their effective date.  While all of our proposed rules are intended to leverage 
commercially available technologies to improve public safety at minimal cost to Participating CMS 
Providers, we recognize that compliance with our WEA messaging rules, unlike our WEA testing and 
geo-targeting rules, would likely require modifications to existing network and device standards in order 
to ensure that Participating CMS Providers are able to comply with these proposed rules in a uniform 
manner.  
83. CSRIC IV recommends that “within 180 days of the FCC adoption of rules for WEA 
enhancements, the FCC, Participating CMS [P]roviders, FEMA, and Alert Originators jointly identify the 
timelines for enhanced WEA development, testing and deployment,” taking into consideration ATIS/TIA 
feasibility studies scheduled to be completed within one year.
240
  In response to this CSRIC IV 
recommendation, and for ease of reference and comment, we provide the table below to set forth the 
timeframes for those instances where we propose specific implementation deadlines.
241
  
PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENT PROPOSED IMPLEMENTATION TIMEFRAME
Increasing Maximum WEA Character Length Within 1 year of the rules’ effective date
Classifying Emergency Government 
Information
Within 1 year of the rules’ effective date
Embedding Telephone Numbers and URLs Within 1 year of the rules’ effective date
Multimedia Alerting We seek comment on a reasonable timeline for 
Participating CMS Providers to support 
multimedia in WEA messages
Multilingual Alerting We seek comment on a reasonable timeline for 
Participating CMS Providers to support 
                                                     
239
See supra ¶ 12.
240
CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 49.
241
The deadlines in this chart are based on the Commission’s analysis of feasible timeframes for compliance, and 
follow the CSRIC IV recommendations to the extent those recommendations have record support.  See, e.g., CSRIC 
WEA Messaging Report at 40 (stating that Participating CMS providers have already made voluntary enhancements 
to improve geo-targeting); but see CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 44 (recommending that “Participating CMS 
Provider LTE infrastructure and the FEMA IPAWS Federal Alert Gateway should support 280 displayable 
characters within two years after the completion of industry standards”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
40
multilingual WEA messages
WEA Geo-targeting Within 60 days of the rules’ effective date
Adopting State and Local WEA Testing and 
Proficiency Training
Within 60 days of the rules’ effective date
Requiring Alert Logging Test Reporting Within 60 days of the adoption of final State/Local 
WEA Testing and proficiency training rules, or 
within 60 days of the launch of ETRS, whichever 
is later
WEA Attention Signals and Public Service 
Announcements
Within 60 days of the rules’ effective date
Non-commercial Educational and Public 
Broadcast Television Station Testing
We seek comment on a reasonable timeline for 
testing of the broadcast-based WEA infrastructure 
to commence
Figure 3: Proposed Implementation Timeframes
84. Proposed WEA Messaging Rules.  We propose that all Participating CMS Providers 
should comply with our proposed WEA messaging rules – specifically, our proposed requirements to 
extend the maximum WEA message length to 360 characters, provide Emergency Government 
Information alert messages, and be capable of including phone numbers and URLs in WEA alerts – one 
year from the adoption of final rules.  While we believe these proposed requirements leverage 
commercially available technologies, we recognize that implementation of these requirements would 
necessitate standards modifications.
242
  In particular, according to CSRIC IV, the standards revision 
process associated with increasing the maximum WEA character length would take one year to 
complete.
243
  We seek comment on this timeframe.  Commenters are encouraged to specify an alternative 
timeline if compliance within one year is considered infeasible, or if compliance can be met earlier, 
including by specifying whether compliance with our proposed rules should be completed in stages.  We 
also seek comment on benefits and costs relating to our analysis and transition period.  
85. Proposed Geo-targeting, Testing, Logging, and Reporting Rules. We propose that all 
Participating CMS Providers should be required to comply with our WEA testing and geo-targeting rules 
within sixty days of their effective date.
244
Given that some Participating CMS Providers are already 
utilizing a variety of techniques discussed above to voluntarily deliver more finely geo-targeted WEA 
messages,
245
and that CSRIC IV recommends that the Commission establish a waiver process to the extent 
necessary to allow State/Local WEA Testing during the pendency of this rulemaking,
246
we believe that 
Participating CMS Providers are already capable of complying with our proposed geo-targeting and 
testing rules, and that it would serve the public interest to implement these requirements in a swift 
manner.  We seek comment on this timeframe and on our rationale.  
                                                     
242
See supra ¶ 12 (stating that, according to CSRIC IV, 4G LTE networks can already accommodate 280-character 
alerts); supra ¶ 13 (stating that, according to FEMA, standards would need to be modified to accommodate the 
coexistence of 90- and 280-character WEA messages); supra ¶ 28 (stating that, according to CSRIC IV, standards 
would need to be revised in order to accommodate URLs and phone numbers in AMBER Alerts).
243
See CSRIC WEA Messaging Report at 44 (recommending “that standards modifications be complete within one 
year of the issuance of an FCC Report & Order”).
244
See 47 U.S.C. § 1.427(a) (stating that “[a]ny rule issued by the Commission will be made effective not 
less than 30 days from the time it is published in the Federal Register except as otherwise specified”). 
245
See supra ¶ 36.
246
See CSRIC WEA Testing Report at 16.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
41
86. We further propose that Participating CMS Providers should comply with WEA alert 
logging and test reporting requirements within sixty days of the adoption of final State/Local WEA 
Testing and proficiency training rules, or within sixty days of the launch of ETRS, whichever is later.  We 
note that we required EAS Participants to file test report data in ETRS within sixty days of the effective 
date of the ETRS rules, or within sixty days of the launch of the ETRS, whichever was later.
247
We 
anticipate that filing test result data in ETRS will present Participating CMS Providers with obligations 
similar to those of EAS Participants.  If ETRS is not operational within sixty days of the adoption of final 
State/Local WEA Testing rules, we propose to encourage state and local alert originators who engage in 
State/Local WEA Testing to file self-recorded test results in PS Docket No. 15-91 using the Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS) until ETRS becomes operational.
248
  In this manner, any meaningful data 
from initial State/Local WEA Tests would be captured and recorded, and could be leveraged to help 
improve WEA.  Finally, we propose that any amendments to our WEA rules to allow the use of the WEA 
tones in government-produced PSAs would be effective sixty days from their effective date.  
87. Providing Multilingual and Multimedia Alerts.  We seek comment on timeframes within 
which it would be reasonable to expect Participating CMS Providers to support WEA messages in 
languages other than English, and messages that contain multimedia.  In responding to our requests for 
comment on the form that rules regarding these issues should take, commenters are encouraged to provide 
timetables along which the Commission should reasonably expect Participating CMS Providers to comply 
with such requirements, including any interim milestones that the Commission might expect Participating 
CMS Providers to reach along the way to fulfilling the Commission’s ultimate objectives. 
88. NCE and Public Broadcast Television Station Testing.  We ask commenters to propose a 
specific implementation timeframe to enable NCE and public broadcast television station licensees and 
permittees to test the installed equipment.  For example, if we were to require NCE/public broadcast 
television station testing of equipment, should such a requirement be phased in over a specific period of 
time?  Under a phased-in approach, what would be appropriate milestones to guide implementation of 
such testing requirements? What would be the costs and benefits of a phased in approach?
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A. Ex Parte Rules
89. The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding
in accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
249
  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 
                                                     
247
See Sixth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 6546, ¶ 56.
248
ELECTRONIC COMMENT FILING SYSTEM, http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display (last visited Jun. 17, 2015).
249
47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200 et seq.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
42
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.
B. Comment Filing Procedures
90. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR §§ 1.415, 
1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments in response to this Notice 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).
? Electronic Filers:  Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the 
ECFS:  http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
? Paper Filers:  Parties that 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 hand or messenger delivery, 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.
1. All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission’s Secretary 
must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12
th
St., SW, Room TW-A325, 
Washington, DC 20554.  The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.  All hand deliveries 
must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners.  Any envelopes and boxes must be 
disposed of before entering the building.
2. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority 
Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD  20743.
3. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12
th
Street, SW, Washington DC  20554.
? People with Disabilities:  To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities 
(braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
91. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5 U.S.C. § 604, the 
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this document.  The IRFA is set 
forth in Appendix B.  Written public comments are requested in the IRFA.  These comments must be 
filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments filed in response to this Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking as set forth on the first page of this document, and have a separate and distinct 
heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.
D. Initial Paperwork Reduction Analysis  
92. 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.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
43
E. Further Information.  
93. For further information regarding the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contact James 
Wiley, Attorney Advisor, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, at 
(202) 418-1678 or james.wiley@fcc.gov or John A. Evanoff, Attorney-Advisor, Policy and Licensing 
Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-0848 or john.evanoff@fcc.gov.  
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
94. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i) and (o), 201, 303(r), 403, 
and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i) and (o), 201, 303(r), 
403, and 606, as well as by sections 602(a),(b),(c), (f), 603, 604 and 606 of the WARN Act, this Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking IS hereby ADOPTED. 
95. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
44
APPENDIX A
Proposed Rules
The rules in this part are issued pursuant to the authority contained in the Warning, Alert, and Response 
Network Act, Title VI of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-347, 
Titles I through III of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Executive Order 13407 of June 
26, 2006, Public Alert and Warning System, 71 Federal Register 36975 (2006).
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 
47 C.F.R. Part 10 and 47 C.F.R. Part 11 to read as follows: 
PART 10 – WIRELESS EMERGENCY ALERTS
1. Amend § 10.280 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§10.280  Subscribers' right to opt out of WEA notifications.
(a) CMS providers may provide their subscribers with the option to opt out of the “Child 
Abduction Emergency/AMBER Alert,” “Imminent Threat Alert” and/or “Emergency 
Government Information” classes of Alert Messages.
* * * 
2. Add new paragraph (g) to § 10.320 to read as follows: 
§ 10.320 Provider alert gateway requirements
* * * * *
(g) Alert Logging. The CMS provider gateway must perform the following functions:
(1) Provide a mechanism to log messages with time stamps that verify when messages 
are received, and when the messages are acknowledged or rejected by the Participating CMS 
Provider Alert Gateway, and if an alert is rejected, to provide the specific error code 
generated by the rejection; 
(2) Maintain an online log of active and cancelled alert messages for 90 days, and 
maintain archived logs for at least 36 months that should be accessible by Participating CMS 
Providers for testing and troubleshooting purposes; and 
(3) Generate monthly system and performance statistics reports based on category of 
alert, alert originator, alert area, and other alerting attributes?  
3. Add new paragraph (c) to § 10.350 to read as follows:
§10.350   WEA testing and proficiency training requirements.
This section specifies the testing that is required.
* * *
(c) State/Local WEA Testing.  A Participating CMS Provider must ensure that their systems 
support State/Local WEA Testing and proficiency training.  
(1) A Participating CMS Provider's Gateway shall support the ability to receive a State/Local 
WEA Test message initiated by the Federal Alert Gateway Administrator.
(2) A Participating CMS Provider shall distribute a State/Local WEA Test to the geographic area 
specified by the alert originator pursuant to the geographic targeting standard established by § 
10.450 of this chapter.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
45
(3) A Participating CMS Provider may forego a State/Local WEA Test if the State/Local WEA 
Test is pre-empted by actual alert traffic or if an unforeseen condition in the CMS Provider 
infrastructure precludes distribution of the State/Local WEA Test. A Participating CMS Provider 
Gateway shall indicate such an unforeseen condition by a response code to the Federal Alert 
Gateway.
(4) CMS Providers may provide their subscribers with the option to opt in to receive State/Local 
WEA Tests.
4. Add new paragraph (d) to § 10.400 to read as follows:
§10.400  Classification.
A Participating CMS Provider is required to receive and transmit four classes of Alert Messages: 
Presidential Alert; Imminent Threat Alert; Child Abduction Emergency/AMBER Alert; and Emergency 
Government Information.
* * * 
(d) Emergency Government Information.  An Emergency Government Information message is an 
essential public safety advisory that prescribes one or more actions likely to save lives and/or 
safeguard property during an emergency.
5. Amend § 10.430 to read as follows:
§10.430  Character limit.
A Participating CMS Provider must support WEA Alert Messages containing at least 90 
characters of alphanumeric text.  If, however, it is technically feasible for a Participating CMS 
Provider to support a WEA Alert Message of up to 360 characters of alphanumeric text, a 
Participating CMS Provider must transmit such an Alert Message.
6. Remove § 10.440.
7. Amend § 10.450 to read as follows:
§10.450   Geographic targeting.
This section establishes minimum requirements for the geographic targeting of Alert Messages. A 
Participating CMS Provider will determine which of its network facilities, elements, and locations 
will be used to geographically target Alert Messages. A Participating CMS Provider must 
transmit any alert message that is specified by a geocode, circle, or polygon to a target area not 
larger than the specified geocode, circle, or polygon. If, however, the Participating CMS 
Provider cannot broadcast the alert to an area that accurately matches the target area, a 
Participating CMS Provider may transmit an Alert Message to an area that closely approximates 
the target area, but in any case not exceeding the propagation area of a single transmission site.  
8. Amend § 10.520 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 10.520 Common audio attention signal
* * * * * 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
46
(d) The audio attention signal must be restricted to use for Alert Messages under part 10, except as used 
for federal Public Service Announcements (PSAs) designed to raise public awareness about emergency 
alerting, provided that the federal agency presents the PSA in a non-misleading manner, including by 
explicitly stating that the emergency alerting attention signal is being used in the context of a PSA for the 
purpose of educating the viewing or listening public about emergency alerting.
PART 11 – EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM
1. Amend § 11.45 to read as follows:
§ 11.45 Prohibition of false or deceptive EAS transmissions.
No person may transmit or cause to transmit the EAS codes or Attention Signal, or a recording or 
simulation thereof, in any circumstance other than in an actual National, State or Local Area emergency 
or authorized test of the EAS, or as specified in Section 10.520(d).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
47
APPENDIX B
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
1
the 
Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed 
in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (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 Notice provided in Section IV of the Notice.  The Commission will send a copy of the Notice,
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
2
  In 
addition, the Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
3
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
2. With this Notice, we take another step towards strengthening Wireless Emergency Alerts 
(WEA) by proposing revisions to our rules to empower alert originators to participate more fully in WEA, 
and by enhancing the utility of WEA as an alerting tool.  Our proposals fall into three categories, 
improving WEA messaging, geo-targeting, and testing and proficiency training.  With respect to WEA 
messaging, in this Notice, we propose to expand the maximum character length of WEA messages from 
90 to a maximum of 360 characters; create a new class of WEA alerts for Emergency Government 
Information; and remove our prohibition on embedded references to allow the provision of phone 
numbers and URLs in WEA alerts.  We also seek comment on technically feasible approaches to 
supplement WEA alerts with multimedia, and with the capability to offer alerts in languages other than 
English.  With respect to geo-targeting we propose to require Participating Commercial Mobile Service 
(CMS) Providers to distribute WEA messages to a geographic area that more accurately matches the 
target area provided by the alert originator. With respect to WEA testing, we propose to establish 
requirements and procedures for state and local WEA testing, and on alert logging requirements for 
Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateways, and we seek comment on test reporting requirements based, 
in part, upon the data produced by this logging function.  We seek comment on methods of increasing 
participation in WEA by both consumers and CMS Providers.  We propose to amend our rules to allow 
use of the emergency alerting attention signal for Public Service Announcements (PSAs) designed to raise 
public awareness about Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA).  We seek comment on whether we should 
begin to test the broadcast back up the C-interface.  Finally, we seek comment on whether we should 
amend our WEA prioritization rules such that WEA alerts take priority over all mobile device functions 
except certain voice and data sessions.
3. This Notice represents another step towards achieving one of our highest priorities – “to 
ensure that all Americans have the capability to receive timely and accurate alerts, warnings and critical 
information regarding disasters and other emergencies.”  This Notice also is consistent with our 
obligation under Executive Order 13407 to “adopt rules to ensure that communications systems have the 
capacity to transmit alerts and warnings to the public as part of the public alert and warning system,” and 
our mandate under the Communications Act to promote the safety of life and property through the use of 
wire and radio communication.  We take these steps as part of an overarching strategy to advance the 
nation’s alerting capability, which includes both WEA and the Emergency Alert System (EAS), to keep 
pace with evolving technologies and to empower communities to initiate life-saving alerts.
                                                     
1
See 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
2
See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).
3
Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
48
B. Legal Basis
4. Authority for the actions proposed in the Notice may be found in sections 1, 4(i) and (o), 
201, 303(r), 403, and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i) and 
(o), 201, 303(r), 403, and 606, as well as sections 602(a),(b),(c), (f), 603, 604 and 606 of the WARN Act.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed 
Rules Will Apply
5. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of 
the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.
4
  The RFA generally 
defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small 
organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”
5
  In addition, the term “small business” has the 
same meaning as the term “small-business concern” under the Small Business Act.
6
  A small-business 
concern” is one which:  (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
7
6. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 28.2 million small businesses, according to 
the SBA.
8
  In addition, a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”
9
  Nationwide, as of 2007, there were 
approximately 1,621,315 small organizations.
10
   Finally, the term “small governmental jurisdiction” is 
defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.”
11
  Census Bureau data for 2007 indicate that there 
were 89,476 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States.
12
  We estimate that, of this total, as 
many as 88,761 entities may qualify as “small governmental jurisdictions.”
13
  Thus, we estimate that most 
governmental jurisdictions are small.
                                                     
4
See 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).
5
See 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).
6
See 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business 
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632).  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an 
agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity 
for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the 
agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”
7
See 15 U.S.C. § 632.
8
See SBA, Office of Advocacy, Frequently Asked Questions, 
http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_March_2014_0.pdf (last accessed Jan. 25, 2015).
9
5 U.S.C. § 601(4).
10
Indep. Sector, The New Nonprofit Almanac and Desk Reference (2010).
11
5 U.S.C. § 601(5).
12
U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2012, Section 8, page 267, tbl. 429, 
https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0429.pdf/ (data cited therein are from 2007). 
13
The 2007 U.S. Census data for small governmental organizations are not presented based on the size of the 
population in each such organization. There were 89,476 local governmental organizations in 2007. If we assume 
that county, municipal, township, and school district organizations are more likely than larger governmental 
organizations to have populations of 50,000 or less, the total of these organizations is 52,095.  As a basis of 
estimating how many of these 89,476 local government organizations were small, in 2011, we note that there were a 
total of 715 cities and towns (incorporated places and minor civil divisions) with populations over 50,000.  City and 
Town Totals Vintage: 2011 – U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2011/index.html.  
If we subtract the 715 cities and towns that meet or exceed the 50,000 population threshold, we conclude that 
approximately 88,761 are small.  U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2012, Section 8, 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
49
7. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).  As noted, the SBA has 
developed a small business size standard for small businesses in the category “Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite).”
14
  Under that SBA category, a business is small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees.
15
  Since 2007, the SBA has recognized wireless firms within this new, broad, 
economic census category.
16
  This category is the best fit to describe common-carrier paging providers 
and cellular radiotelephone services subject to our rules.  For the category of Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), census data for 2007 shows that there were 1,383 firms 
that operated for the entire year.   Of this total, 1,368 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees 
and 15 had employment of 1000 employees or more.   Since all firms with fewer than 1,500 employees 
are considered small, given the total employment in the sector, we estimate that the vast majority of 
wireless firms are small. 
8. Broadband Personal Communications Service.  The broadband personal communications 
services (PCS) spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the 
Commission has held auctions for each block.  The Commission initially defined a “small business” for 
C- and F-Block licenses as an entity that has average gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three 
previous calendar years.
17
  For F-Block licenses, an additional small business size standard for “very 
small business” was added and is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross 
revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years.
18
  These small business size 
standards, in the context of broadband PCS auctions, have been approved by the SBA.
19
  No small 
businesses within the SBA-approved small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks 
A and B.  There were 90 winning bidders that claimed small business status in the first two C-Block 
auctions.  A total of 93 bidders that claimed small business status won approximately 40 percent of the 
1,479 licenses in the first auction for the D, E, and F Blocks.
20
  On April 15, 1999, the Commission 
completed the reauction of 347 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 22.
21
  Of the 57 winning 
bidders in that auction, 48 claimed small business status and won 277 licenses.
9. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Block 
Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35.  Of the 35 winning bidders in that auction, 29 claimed small 
business status.
22
  Subsequent events concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
page 267, tbl. 429, https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0429.pdf/ (data cited therein are from 
2007).
14
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 517210.
15
Id.
16
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
17
See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission’s Rules – Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the 
Commercial Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Cap; Amendment of the Commission’s Cellular/PCS Cross-Ownership 
Rule; WT Docket No. 96-59, GN Docket No. 90-314, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 7824, 7850-52, paras. 57-60 
(1996) (PCS Report and Order); see also 47 C.F.R. § 24.720(b).
18
See PCS Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 7852, para. 60.
19
See Alvarez Letter 1998.
20
See Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes, Public Notice, Doc. No. 89838 (rel. Jan. 14, 1997).
21
See C, D, E, and F Block Broadband PCS Auction Closes, Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 6688 (WTB 1999).  Before 
Auction No. 22, the Commission established a very small standard for the C Block to match the standard used for F 
Block.  Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Installment Payment Financing for Personal 
Communications Services (PCS) Licensees, WT Docket No. 97-82, Fourth Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15743, 
15768, para. 46 (1998).
22
See C and F Block Broadband PCS Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 
2339 (2001).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
50
determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for grant.  On February 
15, 2005, the Commission completed an auction of 242 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 
58.  Of the 24 winning bidders in that auction, 16 claimed small business status and won 156 licenses.
23
  
On May 21, 2007, the Commission completed an auction of 33 licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks in 
Auction No. 71.
24
  Of the 12 winning bidders in that auction, five claimed small business status and won 
18 licenses.
25
  On August 20, 2008, the Commission completed the auction of 20 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block 
Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 78.
26
  Of the eight winning bidders for Broadband PCS licenses 
in that auction, six claimed small business status and won 14 licenses.
27
10. Narrowband Personal Communications Service.  To date, two auctions of narrowband 
personal communications services (PCS) licenses have been conducted.  For purposes of the two auctions 
that have already been held, “small businesses” were entities with average gross revenues for the prior 
three calendar years of $40 million or less.  Through these auctions, the Commission has awarded a total 
of 41 licenses, out of which 11 were obtained by small businesses.  To ensure meaningful participation of 
small business entities in future auctions, the Commission has adopted a two-tiered small business size 
standard in the Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order.
28
A “small business” is an entity that, 
together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years 
of not more than $40 million.  A “very small business” is an entity that, together with affiliates and 
controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $15 
million.  The SBA has approved these small business size standards.
29
11. Wireless Communications Services.  This service can be used for fixed, mobile, 
radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses.  The Commission defined “small business” for 
the wireless communications services (WCS) auction as an entity with average gross revenues of $40 
million for each of the three preceding years, and a “very small business” as an entity with average gross 
revenues of $15 million for each of the three preceding years.
30
  The SBA has approved these 
definitions.
31
  
12. 700 MHz Guard Band Licensees.  In 2000, in the 700 MHz Guard Band Order, the 
Commission adopted size standards for “small businesses” and “very small businesses” for purposes of 
                                                     
23
See Broadband PCS Spectrum Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 58, Public Notice, 20 
FCC Rcd 3703 (2005).
24
See Auction of Broadband PCS Spectrum Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 71, 
Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 9247 (2007).
25
Id.
26
See Auction of AWS-1 and Broadband PCS Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 78, Public 
Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 12749 (WTB 2008).
27
Id.
28
Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Establish New Personal Communications Services, Narrowband PCS, 
GEN Docket No. 90-314, ET Docket No. 92-100, PP Docket No. 93-253, Second Report and Order and Second 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 10456 (2000).
29
See Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, FCC, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Dec. 2, 1998).
30
Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Establish Part 27, the Wireless Communications Service (WCS), GN 
Docket No. 96-228, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10785, 10879, para. 194 (1997).
31
See Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis 
Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (filed Dec. 2, 1998)
(Alvarez Letter 1998).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
51
determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments.
32
  A 
small business in this service is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has 
average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years.
33
  Additionally, a very 
small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross 
revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years.
34
  SBA approval of these 
definitions is not required.
35
  An auction of 52 Major Economic Area licenses commenced on September 
6, 2000, and closed on September 21, 2000.
36
  Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were sold to nine 
bidders.  Five of these bidders were small businesses that won a total of 26 licenses.  A second auction of 
700 MHz Guard Band licenses commenced on February 13, 2001, and closed on February 21, 2001.  All 
eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to three bidders.  One of these bidders was a small business that 
won a total of two licenses.
37
13. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses.  The Commission previously adopted criteria for 
defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special 
provisions such as bidding credits.
38
  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.
39
  A “very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with 
its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for 
the preceding three years.
40
  Additionally, the lower 700 MHz Service had a third category of small 
business status for Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA) licenses—“entrepreneur”—which is 
defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues 
that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three years.
41
  The SBA approved these small size 
standards.
42
  An auction of 740 licenses (one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one license in 
each of the six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)) commenced on August 27, 2002, and closed on 
September 18, 2002.  Of the 740 licenses available for auction, 484 licenses were won by 102 winning 
bidders.  Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed small business, very small business or entrepreneur 
status and won a total of 329 licenses.
43
  A second auction commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on June 
13, 2003, and included 256 licenses:  5 EAG licenses and 476 Cellular Market Area licenses.
44
  Seventeen 
                                                     
32
See Service Rules for the 746–764 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules, WT Docket 
No. 99-168, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5299 (2000) (746–764 MHz Band Second Report and Order).
33
See id. at 5343, para. 108.
34
See id.
35
See id. at 5343, para. 108 n.246 (for the 746–764 MHz and 776–794 MHz bands, the Commission is exempt from 
15 U.S.C. § 632, which requires Federal agencies to obtain SBA approval before adopting small business size 
standards).
36
See 700 MHz Guard Bands Auction Closes:  Winning Bidders Announced, Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 18026 
(WTB 2000).
37
See 700 MHz Guard Bands Auction Closes: Winning Bidders Announced, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 4590 (WTB 
2001).
38
See Reallocation and Service Rules for the 698–746 MHz Spectrum Band (Television Channels 52–59), GN 
Docket No. 01-74, Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 1022 (2002) (Channels 52–59 Report and Order).
39
See id. at 1087-88, para. 172.
40
See id.
41
See id., at 1088, para. 173.
42
See Alvarez Letter 1999.
43
See Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes, Public Notice, 17 FCC Rcd 17272 (WTB 2002).
44
See id. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
52
winning bidders claimed small or very small business status and won 60 licenses, and nine winning 
bidders claimed entrepreneur status and won 154 licenses.
45
  On July 26, 2005, the Commission 
completed an auction of 5 licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band (Auction No. 60).  There were three 
winning bidders for five licenses.  All three winning bidders claimed small business status.
14. In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700 MHz band in the 700 
MHz Second Report and Order.
46
  An auction of 700 MHz licenses commenced January 24, 2008 and 
closed on March 18, 2008, which included, 176 Economic Area licenses in the A Block, 734 Cellular 
Market Area licenses in the B Block, and 176 EA licenses in the E Block.
47
  Twenty winning bidders, 
claiming small business status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 
million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years) won 49 licenses.  Thirty three 
winning bidders claiming very small business status (those with attributable average annual gross 
revenues that do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) won 325 licenses.
15. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses.  In the 700 MHz Second Report and Order, the 
Commission revised its rules regarding Upper 700 MHz licenses.
48
  On January 24, 2008, the 
Commission commenced Auction 73 in which several licenses in the Upper 700 MHz band were 
available for licensing:  12 Regional Economic Area Grouping licenses in the C Block, and one 
nationwide license in the D Block.
49
  The auction concluded on March 18, 2008, with 3 winning bidders 
claiming very small business status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do not 
exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) and winning five licenses.
16. Advanced Wireless Services. AWS Services (1710–1755 MHz  and 2110–2155 MHz 
bands (AWS-1); 1915–1920 MHz, 1995–2000 MHz, 2020–2025 MHz and 2175–2180 MHz bands (AWS-
2); 2155–2175 MHz band (AWS-3)).  For the AWS-1 bands,
50
the Commission has defined a “small 
business” as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 
million, and a “very small business” as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding 
three years not exceeding $15 million.  For AWS-2 and AWS-3, although we do not know for certain 
which entities are likely to apply for these frequencies, we note that the AWS-1 bands are comparable to 
those used for cellular service and personal communications service.  The Commission has not yet 
adopted size standards for the AWS-2 or AWS-3 bands but proposes to treat both AWS-2 and AWS-3 
similarly to broadband PCS service and AWS-1 service due to the comparable capital requirements and 
                                                     
45
See id.
46
Service Rules for the 698–746, 747–762 and 777–792 MHz Band; Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure 
Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems; Section 68.4(a) of the Commission’s Rules 
Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones; Biennial Regulatory Review—Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27,
and 90 to Streamline and Harmonize Various Rules Affecting Wireless Radio Services; Former Nextel 
Communications, Inc. Upper 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules; 
Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band; Development 
of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety 
Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010; Declaratory Ruling on Reporting Requirement under 
Commission’s Part 1 Anti-Collusion Rule, WT Docket Nos. 07-166, 06-169, 06-150, 03-264, 96-86, PS Docket No. 
06-229, CC Docket No. 94-102, Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289, 15359 n. 434 (2007) (700 MHz 
Second Report and Order).
47
See Auction of 700 MHz Band Licenses Closes, Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 4572 (WTB 2008).
48
700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289.
49
See Auction of 700 MHz Band Licenses Closes, Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 4572 (WTB 2008).
50
The service is defined in section 90.1301 et seq. of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 90.1301 et seq.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
53
other factors, such as issues involved in relocating incumbents and developing markets, technologies, and 
services.
51
17. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service.  Broadband Radio Service 
systems, previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel Multipoint 
Distribution Service (MMDS) systems, and “wireless cable,” transmit video programming to subscribers 
and provide two-way high speed data operations using the microwave frequencies of the Broadband 
Radio Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) (previously referred to as the 
Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)).
52
  In connection with the 1996 BRS auction, the 
Commission established a small business size standard as an entity that had annual average gross 
revenues of no more than $40 million in the previous three calendar years.
53
  The BRS auctions resulted 
in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs).  Of the 67 
auction winners, 61 met the definition of a small business.  BRS also includes licensees of stations 
authorized prior to the auction.  At this time, we estimate that of the 61 small business BRS auction 
winners, 48 remain small business licensees.  In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA 
authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small entities.
54
  
After adding the number of small business auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees not 
already counted, we find that there are currently approximately 440 BRS licensees that are defined as 
small businesses under either the SBA or the Commission’s rules.
18. In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78 licenses in the BRS 
areas.
55
  The Commission offered three levels of bidding credits: (i) a bidder with attributed average 
annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three 
years (small business) received a 15 percent discount on its winning bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed 
average annual gross revenues that exceed $3 million and do not exceed $15 million for the preceding 
three years (very small business) received a 25 percent discount on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder with 
attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years 
(entrepreneur) received a 35 percent discount on its winning bid.
56
  Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with 
                                                     
51
See Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 02-353, 
Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 25162, Appx. B (2003), modified by Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services 
in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 02-353, Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC Rcd 14058, Appx. 
C (2005); Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1915–1920 MHz, 1995–2000 MHz, 2020–2025 MHz 
and 2175–2180 MHz Bands; Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, WT 
Docket Nos. 04-356, 02-353, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 19263, Appx. B (2005); Service Rules 
for Advanced Wireless Services in the 2155–2175 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 07-195, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 17035, Appx. (2007).
52
Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint 
Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and Implementation of Section 309(j) of the 
Communications Act—Competitive Bidding, MM Docket No. 94-131, PP Docket No. 93-253, Report and Order, 10 
FCC Rcd 9589, 9593, para. 7 (1995).
53
47 C.F.R. § 21.961(b)(1).
54
47 U.S.C. § 309(j).  Hundreds of stations were licensed to incumbent MDS licensees prior to implementation of 
Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 309(j).  For these pre-auction licenses, the 
applicable standard is SBA’s small business size standard of 1500 or fewer employees.
55
Auction of Broadband Radio Service (BRS) Licenses, Scheduled for October 27, 2009, Notice and Filing 
Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments, and Other Procedures for Auction 86, AU Docket No. 
09-56, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 8277 (2009).
56
Id. at 8296 para. 73.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
54
the sale of 61 licenses.
57
  Of the ten winning bidders, two bidders that claimed small business status won 
4 licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business status won three licenses; and two bidders that 
claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses.
19. In addition, the SBA’s Cable Television Distribution Services small business size 
standard is applicable to EBS.  There are presently 2,436 EBS licensees.  All but 100 of these licenses are 
held by educational institutions.  Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small entities.
58
  
Thus, we estimate that at least 2,336 licensees are small businesses.  Since 2007, Cable Television 
Distribution Services have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as follows:  “This industry comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and 
infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using 
wired telecommunications networks.  Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a 
combination of technologies.”
59
  The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, 
which is:  all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees.  To gauge small business prevalence for these 
cable services we must, however, use the most current census data that are based on the previous category 
of Cable and Other Program Distribution and its associated size standard; that size standard was:  all such 
firms having $13.5 million or less in annual receipts.
60
  According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there 
were a total of 996 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.
61
  Of this total, 948 firms had 
annual receipts of under $10 million, and 48 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 
million.
62
  Thus, the majority of these firms can be considered small.  In the Paging Third Report and 
Order, we developed a small business size standard for “small businesses” and “very small businesses” 
for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment 
payments.
63
  A “small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has 
average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.  Additionally, a “very 
small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross 
revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three years.
64
  The SBA has approved these 
small business size standards.
65
  An auction of Metropolitan Economic Area licenses commenced on 
                                                     
57
Auction of Broadband Radio Service Licenses Closes, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 86, Down 
Payments Due November 23, 2009, Final Payments Due December 8, 2009, Ten-Day Petition to Deny Period, 
Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 13572 (2009).
58
The term “small entity” within SBREFA applies to small organizations (nonprofits) and to small governmental 
jurisdictions (cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, and special districts with populations of 
less than 50,000).  5 U.S.C. §§ 601(4)-(6).  We do not collect annual revenue data on EBS licensees.
59
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, “517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” (partial 
definition), http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517110&search=2012. 
60
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
61
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, Receipts by Enterprise Employment 
Size for the United States:  2007, NAICS code 517510 (rel. Nov. 19, 2010).
62
Id.  
63
Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Provide for the Use of the 220-222 MHz Band by the Private 
Land Mobile Radio Service, PR Docket No. 89-552, Third Report and Order and Fifth Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 10943, 11068-70, paras. 291-295, 62 FR 16004 (Apr. 3, 1997).
64
See Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, FCC, from A. Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Dec. 2, 1998).
65
Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration and Third Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 10030, paras. 98-
107 (1999).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
55
February 24, 2000, and closed on March 2, 2000.
66
  Of the 985 licenses auctioned, 440 were sold.  Fifty-
seven companies claiming small business status won.  Also, according to Commission data, 365 carriers 
reported that they were engaged in the provision of paging and messaging services.
67
  Of those, we 
estimate that 360 are small, under the SBA-approved small business size standard.
68
20. Wireless Communications Service.  This service can be used for fixed, mobile, 
radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses.  The Commission established small business 
size standards for the wireless communications services (WCS) auction.
69
  A “small business” is an entity 
with average gross revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a “very small 
business” is an entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the three preceding years.  
The SBA has approved these small business size standards.
70
  The Commission auctioned geographic area 
licenses in the WCS service.  In the auction, there were seven winning bidders that qualified as “very 
small business” entities, and one that qualified as a “small business” entity.
21. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment 
Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows:  “This industry comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless 
communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: transmitting and 
receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile 
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment.”
71
  The SBA has 
developed a small business size standard for firms in this category, which is:  all such firms having 750 or 
fewer employees.
72
  According to Census Bureau data for 2010, there were a total of 810 establishments 
in this category that operated for the entire year.
73
  Of this total, 787 had employment of fewer than 500, 
and an additional 23 had employment of 500 to 999.
74
  Thus, under this size standard, the majority of 
firms can be considered small. 
22. Software Publishers.  Since 2007 these services have been defined within the broad 
economic census category of Custom Computer Programming Services; that category is defined as 
establishments primarily engaged in writing, modifying, testing, and supporting software to meet the 
                                                     
66
Id. at 10085, para. 98.
67
FCC Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology Division, “Trends in Telephone Service” 
at Table 5.3., page 5-5 (Feb. 2007).  This source uses data that are current as of October 20, 2005.
68
Id.
69
Public Notice, “Auction of Wireless Communications Services, Auction Notes and Filing Requirements for 128 
WCS Licenses Scheduled for April 15, 1997,” DA 97-386, Feb. 21, 1997.
70
SBA Dec. 2, 1998 Letter.
71
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 
Communications Equipment Manufacturing”; http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND334220.HTM#N334220.
72
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334220.
73
U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, 2010 Economic Census, Industry Series, Industry Statistics by 
Employment Size, NAICS code 334220 (released June 26, 2012); http://factfinder.census.gov.  The number of 
“establishments” is a less helpful indicator of small business prevalence in this context than would be the number of 
“firms” or “companies,” because the latter take into account the concept of common ownership or control.  Any 
single physical location for an entity is an establishment, even though that location may be owned by a different 
establishment.  Thus, the numbers given may reflect inflated numbers of businesses in this category, including the 
numbers of small businesses.  
74
Id.  Eighteen establishments had employment of 1,000 or more.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
56
needs of a particular customer.
75
  The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, 
which is annual gross receipts of $25 million or less.
76
  According to data from the 2007 U.S. Census, 
there were 41,571 establishments engaged in this business in 2007.  Of these, 40,149 had annual gross 
receipts of less than $10,000,000.  Another 1,422 establishments had gross receipts of $10,000,000 or 
more.
77
  Based on this data, the Commission concludes that the majority of the businesses engaged in this 
industry are small.
23. NCE and Public Broadcast Stations.  The Census Bureau defines this category as follows:  
“This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound. 
These establishments operate television broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and 
transmission of programs to the public.”
78
  The SBA has created a small business size standard for 
Television Broadcasting entities, which is:  such firms having $13 million or less in annual receipts.
79
  
According to Commission staff review of the BIA Publications, Inc., Master Access Television Analyzer 
Database as of May 16, 2003, about 814 of the 1,220 commercial television stations in the United States 
had revenues of $12 (twelve) million or less.  We note, however, that in assessing whether a business 
concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations
80
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.
24. In addition, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be 
dominant in its field of operation.  We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would 
establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its field of operation.  Accordingly, the 
estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply do not exclude any television station from the 
definition of a small business on this basis and are therefore over-inclusive to that extent.  Also as noted, 
an additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned 
and operated.  We note that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities 
and our estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.  There are 
also 2,117 low power television stations (LPTV).
81
  Given the nature of this service, we will presume that 
all LPTV licensees qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standard.
25. The Commission has, under SBA regulations, estimated the number of licensed NCE 
television stations to be 380.
82
  We note, however, that, in assessing whether a business concern qualifies 
as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations
83
must be included.  Our estimate, 
                                                     
75
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch 
76
13 C.F.R. Section 121.201
77
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_54SSSZ1&prod
Type=table 
78
U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, “515120 Television Broadcasting” (partial definition);
http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF515.HTM.
79
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 515120.
80
“Concerns are affiliates of each other when one concern controls or has the power to control the other or a third 
party or parties controls or has to power to control both.”  13 C.F.R. § 21.103(a)(1).
81
FCC News Release, “Broadcast Station Totals as of September 30, 2005.”
82
See Broadcast Station Totals, supra IRFA note 11.
83
“[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one concern controls or has the power to control the other 
or a third party or parties controls or has to power to control both.”  13 C.F.R. § 121.103(a)(1).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
57
therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the 
revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.  
The Commission does not compile and otherwise does not have access to information on the revenue of 
NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many such stations would qualify as small entities.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements
26. This Notice proposes new or modified reporting or recordkeeping requirements.  Any 
changes to the Part 10 WEA technical rules, including message and geo-targeting requirements, may 
result in modified reporting and recordkeeping requirements necessary to satisfy the statutory 
requirements of the WARN Act (1) that Commission receive notice of election by all CMS providers 
concerning whether they will participate in the WEA; (2) CMS providers electing not to transmit, in part 
or in whole, in the WEA must provide clear and conspicuous notice, which takes into account the needs 
of persons with disabilities, to new subscribers of its non-election or partial election at the point of sale; 
and (3) CMS providers electing not to transmit WEA Alert messages, in part or in whole, must also 
provide clear and conspicuous notice, which takes into account the needs of persons with disabilities, to 
existing subscribers of its non-election or partial election by means of an announcement amending the 
existing subscriber’s service agreement.  Although the Notice does not propose revising the existing 
election procedures, we note that the CSRIC IV recommends that the Commission modify the current 
election procedures and provide Participating CMS Providers an opportunity to revise previous WEA 
election to comply only with the WEA rules that existed at the time of their initial election, and not those 
adopted subsequently.  Moreover, amending the Commission’s rules to require Participating CMS 
Providers to log the receipt of alerts and report the results of State/Local WEA Tests to the Commission 
may result in increasing the reporting and recordkeeping costs and burdens approved under OMB Control 
No. 3060-1113, ICR Reference No. 201404-3060-021.  Test reporting and alert logging requirements may 
require small businesses to contract with engineers in order to make modifications to Participating CMS 
Provider Alert Gateways and mobile devices.
27. Additionally, any changes to the existing WEA testing regime to require Participating 
CMS Providers to support State and Local testing will entail some form of recordkeeping that will be 
used by the Commission to satisfy the statutory requirement of the WARN Act that the Commission 
“shall require by regulation technical testing for commercial mobile service providers that elect to 
transmit emergency alerts and for the devices and equipment used by such providers for transmitting such 
alerts.”  Specifically, amending the Commission’s rules to require Participating CMS Providers to 
participate in State/Local WEA testing as well as maintaining a log of RMT results and generating reports 
will require a modification to the cost and hours burdens approved by OMB under OMB Control Number 
3060-1126, ICR Reference No. 201502-3060-020.  The proposals set forth in the Notice are intended to 
advance our public safety mission and establish an effective WEA in a manner that imposes minimal 
regulatory burdens on affected entities.  
E. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 
Significant Alternatives Considered
28. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered 
in developing its approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others):  “(1) the 
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the
resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance 
and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than 
design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities.”
84
                                                     
84
5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1) – (c)(4).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
58
29. As noted in paragraph 1 above, this Notice initiates a rulemaking to update the rules 
governing the WEA system by which Participating CMS providers may elect to transmit emergency alerts 
to the public, a goal mandated by the WARN Act and consistent with the Commission’s obligation to 
protect the lives and property of the public.  Primarily, this Notice seeks comment on three general 
categories of proposed rule changes: messaging, geo-targeting and testing.    
30. With regard to WEA messaging and geo-targeting, this Notice seeks comment on a 
number of options to minimize the economic impact on small entities.  First, the Notice proposes to 
expand the maximum character length of WEA messages from 90 to 360 characters and also seeks 
comment on alternatives such as rendering 140 character WEA alerts.  The Notice also seeks comment on 
the extent Participating CMS Providers can leverage existing technology and best practices to minimize 
costs. Additionally, the Notice seeks comment on whether existing software is capable of rendering 360-
character WEA alerts.  Further, the Notice seeks comment on developing an appropriate timeframe for 
Participating CMS Providers to begin rendering longer WEA alerts in order to mitigate costs.     
31. Second, the Notice proposes to create a new class of WEA alerts for Emergency 
Government Information.  In that connection, the Notice seeks comment on measures to mitigate costs, 
including the utility of providing alert originators training and guidelines to minimize burdens.   Further, 
the Notice seeks comment on developing an appropriate timeframe for Participating CMS Providers to 
begin rendering Emergency Government Information alerts in order to mitigate costs. 
32. Third, the Notice proposes to allow the provision of phone numbers and URLs in WEA 
alerts.  The Notice seeks comment, in the alternative, on whether embedded references should be allowed 
only in AMBER Alerts.  The Notice seeks comment on developing an appropriate timeframe for 
Participating CMS Providers to begin rendering embedded phone numbers and URLs in WEA alerts in 
order to mitigate costs.  Additionally, the Notice seeks comment on leveraging existing technology to 
supplement WEA alerts with multimedia.  
33. Fourth, the Notice proposes to require Participating CMS Providers to geo-target WEA 
messages more precisely.  The Notice seeks comment on leveraging existing technology and best 
practices, including network-side enhancement already voluntarily undertaken by Participating CMS 
Providers, to more precisely geo-target WEA alerts.  The Notice also seeks comment on alternatives such 
as allowing Participating CMS Providers to render geo-targeted WEA alerts to the area that approximates 
the alert target area. The Notice also seeks comment on the extent “device-assisted” geo-targeting 
solutions already exist and can be implemented to “filter” WEA alerts based on coordinates as well as the 
extent that third party developers might create applications to improve geo-targeting.  Further, the Notice 
seeks comment on developing an appropriate timeframe for Participating CMS Providers to begin geo-
targeting WEA alerts in order to mitigate costs.
34. With respect to WEA testing and proficiency training, this Notice proposes to establish 
requirements and procedures governing Participating CMS Provider support for state and local WEA 
testing, and seeks comment on alert logging requirements for Participating CMS Provider Alert Gateways 
and test reporting requirements based, in part, upon the data produced by this logging function.  First, in 
order to minimize the costs associated with supporting state and local testing, the Notice seeks comment 
on (1) leveraging the existing RMT testing protocol and (2) the use of best practices and standards 
developed through a public/private partnership including geo-targeting tests to localized areas and 
providing an opportunity for volunteers to participate in WEA tests.  Second, the Notice seeks comment 
on how to minimize the costs associated with testing reporting requirements for state and local tests, 
including leveraging existing logging functionality and best practices, as well as relying on an informal 
approach to reporting test results and the extent that third-party developers may automate the proposed 
test filing procedures.  The Notice seeks comment on the appropriate timeframe within which 
Participating CMS Providers should comply with the proposed testing requirements.   
35. In commenting on these questions, commenters are invited to propose steps that the 
Commission may take to minimize any significant economic impact on small entities.  For example, the 
Notice seeks comment on whether the benefits of extending liability protection to these proposals 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
59
sufficiently outweigh the costs to Participating CMS Providers for participating in WEA.  The Notice also 
seeks comment on the feasibility of its messaging, geo-targeting and testing proposals as well as an 
appropriate transition period from the current technical and testing requirements to the proposed rule 
changes contained in the Notice.  When considering proposals made by other parties, commenters are 
invited to propose significant alternatives that serve the goals of these proposals.
F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules
36. None.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
60
STATEMENT OF 
CHAIRMAN TOM WHEELER
Re:  Improving Wireless Emergency Alerts and Community Initiated Alerting (PS Docket No. 15-91)
We often talk about how the Commission’s policies have the power to improve people’s lives.  
Wireless Emergency Alerts go beyond improving lives; these alerts save lives. 
Consider the events of July 1, 2013 in East Windsor, Connecticut.  A tornado swept through 
town, tearing apart an inflatable indoor soccer dome and blowing parts onto the nearby highway.  
Literally two minutes before the tornado hit, the soccer dome was filled with 29 children and five camp 
counselors.  With moments to spare, they were evacuated to an adjoining building where they sought 
shelter.  The reason they knew to seek cover was that the manager of the soccer camp received a Wireless 
Emergency Alert from the National Weather Service on her phone saying a tornado was headed her way, 
and she responded immediately. 
Available since 2012, Wireless Emergency Alerts provide advance warning directly to 
your mobile phone in threatening situations where a few moments can make all the difference.  Typical 
messages include severe weather information and Amber Alerts, but we have also seen local law 
enforcement use this tool to clear an area when an active gunman opened fire on random people at a Los 
Angeles apartment complex.  
Wireless Emergency Alerts mark an important step forward in our use of technology to enhance 
public safety.  Now that stakeholders have a few years’ experience with the service, we can make it even 
better.  
    Today’s proposal would make Wireless Emergency Alerts an even more effective tool for 
communicating important information to the public.  For example, it proposes increasing the amount and 
type of information that can be included in alerts so that users can be better informed about the type of 
emergency and the best actions to take in response.  We also seek to improve alert quality and 
accessibility by those with disabilities through a number of proposals including enabling embedded phone 
numbers or URLs and multimedia messaging.
The proposal would also make it easier for state and local authorities to send alerts, test the 
service, train personnel, and provide alerts on additional types of emergencies.  In addition, we are 
seeking comment a variety of other potential enhancements, including how best to implement 
multilingual alerting.  
To ensure that people do not receive unwarranted alarms in situations where they face no 
danger, we also propose to require participating wireless providers to deliver the alerts to more targeted 
geographic areas.
Wireless Emergency Alerts have already saved lives.  It only makes sense to expand its use and 
increase its effectiveness. 
Thank you to the Public Safety Bureau for their work on this item.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
61
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN
Re: Improving Wireless Emergency Alerts and Community-Initiated Alerting, PS Docket No. 15-91
Last Friday evening, our hearts collectively skipped a beat as we saw and listened in disbelief the 
images and commentary of the horrific, violent attacks on one of our country’s oldest allies.  Reports of 
how Parisians used their mobile phones to call for help, access services on social media networks, receive 
updates on the dangers in specific geographic areas, and to tell family and friends where they can find 
safe havens are tragically powerful reminders that, when faced with a dire emergency, people increasingly 
turn first to advanced mobile technologies.
The one ray of positive news we are able to share in this dreadful aftermath, is that this 
Commission is showing great leadership in ensuring the wireless industry and public safety communities 
keep pace with growing consumer expectations through the adoption of rules which promote text-to-911 
and improve wireless location accuracy.  I wish to also commend Chairman Wheeler for identifying steps 
Congress can take to help states facilitate the deployment of Next Generation 911 services.  
With today’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we are taking strides to improve the usefulness of 
yet another important public safety tool – the Wireless Emergency Alert System or WEA for short.  Our 
federal government has been working to deploy this public-private partnership for several years.  Back in 
2005, the Department of Homeland Security established the National Consortium for the Study of 
Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, or START, and one of START’s top priorities is a research and 
development program that would drive wider use of wireless alerts.  Last fall, our advisory committee, 
CSRIC, worked with START to develop recommendations for the Commission to consider.  This item 
turns those recommendations into rule proposals that fall into three key areas.  
The first, is to enhance the content of WEA messages, by allowing them to be longer than 90 
characters and more accessible to all communities.  We ask whether we should allow these messages to 
contain phone numbers, URLs, multimedia, and multilingual content.  The item also properly 
acknowledges MMTC’s advocacy in highlighting the importance of providing emergency alerts in 
languages other than English.
Second is the improvement of the geo-targeting of Wireless Emergency Alerts.  Right now, our 
rules prevent providers from transmitting WEA messages to areas larger than county level.  We want 
WEA alerts to be much more localized so messages only reach the actual people who are at risk.  
Otherwise, those who repeatedly get alerts that may not be relevant for them may one day actually ignore 
alerts that directly impact their health and safety.  So we ask whether we should limit WEA alerts, to finer 
geospatial areas such as geocodes, circles, or polygons.   
Third is the facilitation of local WEA system testing.  Proficiency building exercises are key to 
successful emergency management programs.  We seek comment on whether any new or revised 
technical standards or processes, would be necessary to facilitate state and local testing.
In sum, this Notice puts our country on a path to improve the effectiveness of the WEA system 
for public safety officials and the citizens they serve.  I thank Admiral Simpson, and the dedicated staff of 
the Public Safety Homeland Security Bureau, for their good work on this Notice, and for the presentation 
this morning.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
62
STATEMENT OF
COMMISIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL
Re: Improving Wireless Emergency Alerts and Community-Initiated Alerting, PS Docket No. 15-91. 
Just last week we had a cruel reminder that when the unthinkable occurs our security so often 
depends on connectivity.  While the threats we face are new, there is nothing novel about how we rely on 
communications to help keep us safe.
For decades in this country the iconic beeps of the Emergency Broadcast System kept us 
informed and aware of local hazards and emergencies.  Over time, this morphed into the Emergency Alert 
System, which can be used to address national, regional, and community crises.  Nearly a decade ago, in 
the Warning Alert and Response Network Act, Congress extended these efforts beyond the television 
screen to the screens on our mobile devices—and set the stage for a new class of emergency notification: 
Wireless Emergency Alerts.  
This made good sense when this law was passed—but it makes even better sense today.  After all, 
we now have more mobile phones in this country than people.  They are in our pockets and purses; they 
are by our bedsides at night; they are where we download and deposit every detail of our digital lives.  
We use these devices to help keep us informed, aware, and safe.     
So the policies we have in place to support Wireless Emergency Alerts deserve an update.  They 
need to be refreshed to reflect our reliance on mobile devices and their unique ability to keep us informed 
when disaster strikes.  This rulemaking does just that.  It proposes more information in Wireless 
Emergency Alert messages and more targeted geographical delivery of those messages.  In addition, it
recommends expanded testing opportunities for state and local public safety authorities.  
This rulemaking is real progress.  But I also hope progress continues on other fronts.  Because we 
can strengthen our security even further by having active FM chips in our smartphones.  There are market 
developments right now that are making these chips more available—and we should encourage these 
industry discussions to continue.  
While technology changes, the power of communications to support our security is enduring.  
What is also unbroken is our resolve in the face of new threats—and our need to always update our 
communications policies to help keep us safe. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
63
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI
Re: Improving Wireless Emergency Alerts and Community-Initiated Alerting, PS Docket No. 15-91.
The first AMBER alert went out over the Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) system on the 
afternoon of February 20, 2013, in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  An eight-month old boy, Carlos Orozco, had 
been abducted.  People across the Twin Cities responded immediately.  One person was at home playing a 
video game when his phone suddenly vibrated and played the WEA attention tone for the first time.  It 
certainly made him take notice.  He said the sudden noise “scared the [expletive] out of me.  But it 
worked.  I got up and looked outside.”  Others responded too, and one teenager who received the alert 
spotted the suspect.  As a result, police caught the kidnapper, rescued the boy, and returned him safely to 
his family.
Whether it’s a missing child, severe weather, or terrorist attack, Americans need immediate 
access to emergency information.  The WEA system is one tool that lets consumers do just that.  So I am 
pleased to support today’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which seeks public input on how we can 
make the system even more effective for those who choose to use it.  
I find three aspects of the Notice particularly deserving of praise.  First, we’re examining ways for 
alert originators to target their information to narrower and more accurate geographic locations.  Second, 
we’re looking into ideas that could help consumers further customize the types of alerts they receive.  
Third, we’re considering expanding the content that can be included in a WEA message, such as phone 
numbers and links to websites—in short, information that can be a lifeline in a moment of need.  Indeed, 
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children reports that it can be very difficult to fit critical 
details into a WEA message given some of the constraints in our current rules, so I agree that we need to 
take a look at updating them.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 15-154
64
STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY
Re: Improving Wireless Emergency Alerts and Community-Initiated Alerting, PS Docket No. 15-91
Generally, I don’t have too many immediate issues with this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
which is designed to improve the current Wireless Emergency Alerts.  In certain circumstances, these 
simple, timely notifications can be critical or even lifesaving to those who receive them.  On the other 
hand, too many notifications or ill-timed ones can promote consumer distrust and make the overall system 
less viable.  
Appropriately, the item initiates debate and asks questions on a couple of possible changes to the 
current mechanisms.  In doing so, we need to keep in mind that there is a delicate balance between the 
obligations asked of participating wireless providers and their willingness to remain part of the voluntary 
system.  It would be extremely counterproductive if any proposed changes led to a decrease in the number 
of participating wireless providers.  Our first priority should be to do no harm to a system that seems to be 
working reasonably well as is.  Could it work better?  Maybe.  Could the Commission screw it up through 
inappropriate tweaks or wholesale changes?  Definitely.          
I appreciate the Chairman and the staff for accommodating a number of my concerns with the text 
originally circulated.  There remains a couple of areas that are potentially troubling, such as the new 
testing regime and reporting requirements, mandatory opt-out options, and congestion-causing URLs and 
multimedia alerts.  I am hopeful that the comment process will sufficiently alleviate my concerns about
these ideas.  If not, we will have to dispense with them before I could support any final order in this 
matter.