Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88 
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Wireless Emergency Alerts
Amendments to Part 11 of the Commission’s Rules 
Regarding the Emergency Alert System)
)
)
)
)
)PS Docket No. 15-91
PS Docket No. 15-94
THIRD REPORT AND ORDER 
Adopted:  October 19, 2023 Released:  October 20, 2023
By the Commission: Chairwoman Rosenworcel, Commissioners Starks, and Gomez issuing separate 
statements.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Para.
I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................1
II. BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................................4
III. DISCUSSION........................................................................................................................................14
A. Making WEA Available to Millions of People Who Primarily Speak a Language Other 
Than English or Spanish and Accessible to People with Disabilities.............................................14
B. Integrating Location-Aware Maps into Alert Messages.................................................................30
C. WEA Performance and Public Awareness Testing.........................................................................35
D. Establishing a WEA Database for Availability Reporting..............................................................41
E. Legal Authority...............................................................................................................................53
F. Assessing the Benefits and Costs....................................................................................................58
1. Benefits.....................................................................................................................................59
2. Costs .........................................................................................................................................64
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS.................................................................................................................68
V. ORDERING CLAUSES........................................................................................................................73
APPENDIX A – Final Rules 
APPENDIX B – Final Regulatory Flexibility Anaylsis
APPENDIX C – List of Commenters  
I. INTRODUCTION
1.Since its launch in 2012,1 Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) have become an integral 
part of the nation’s emergency preparedness and response infrastructure.  WEA has been used to issue 
1 Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Announces Timetable for Commercial Mobile Service Providers 
Electing Not to Transmit Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS) Alerts to Notify Existing and Potential 
Customers, PS Docket No. 07-287, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 2622 (Mar. 16, 2012); see also Communications 
Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council VIII, Report on WEA Application Programming Interface, at 3 
(2023) (CSRIC VIII API Report) (“The Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) system serves a critical function, 
disseminating important and often life-saving information”).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
2over 84,000 emergency alerts, including severe weather warnings, evacuate and shelter-in place alerts, 
and America’s Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response (AMBER) Alerts.2  The Commission has 
steadily improved WEA over the years by increasing the maximum length of WEA messages from 90 to 
360 characters, by continually refining the accuracy of WEA’s geographic targeting, by enabling WEA 
messages to include tappable links, and by supporting Spanish-language versions of WEA messages.3  
Today, we take significant steps to make WEA even more effective by adopting requirements to make 
WEA messages available in the 13 most commonly spoken languages in the United States, in addition to 
English and American Sign Language (ASL).  We also help alert recipients better understand and 
contextualize the information they receive by requiring that WEA-capable mobile devices support alerts 
that leverage the device’s native mapping application to show where the recipients are located relative to 
the emergency.  We enable alerting authorities to more easily and effectively conduct public-facing WEA 
performance and public awareness tests.  Finally, we adopt requirements to provide alerting stakeholders 
– including alert originators and members of the public – with access to critical information about where 
and how WEA is available within their communities.
2. WEA has helped keep many people safe during disasters and crises, but more can be 
done to communicate with those who are the most vulnerable.4  The approximately 26 million people 
living in the United States who do not primarily speak English or Spanish and the estimated one-in-four 
adults in the United States that have some form of disability remain at risk for not being able to receive 
and understand the potentially life-saving information conveyed by WEA messages in an accessible 
language and format.5  Under our current rules, WEAs are only available in English or Spanish, and many 
2 Email from Mark Lucero, Chief Engineers, IPAWS, FEMA, to Keith St. Claire, FEMA (rec. Sep. 5, 2023) (on file 
with author); see also Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) (Apr. 20, 2023), 
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/wireless-emergency-alerts-wea. 
3 See generally Amendments to Part 11 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System, Second 
Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, 33 FCC Rcd 1320 
(2018); Wireless Emergency Alerts Amendments to Part 11 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the Emergency 
Alert System, PS Docket Nos. 15-91, 15-94, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC 
Rcd 11112 (2016) (2016 WEA R&O and FNPRM).
4 See Alley L. Biniarz, How Natural Disasters Disproportionately Affect Vulnerable Communities (Mar. 31, 2021),  
https://www.environment911.org/How-Natural-Disasters-Disproportionately-Affect-Vulnerable-Communities 
(showing that those with lower incomes often live in higher risk areas and that those with disabilities do not always 
receive warnings in a way they can act on); Reaching At-Risk populations in an Emergency (Apr. 4, 2018) 
(providing resources for emergency managers to help them identify and plan to reach at-risk groups in their 
communities), https://emergency.cdc.gov/workbook/index.asp; see also Sharona Hoffman, Preparing for Disaster: 
Protecting the Most Vulnerable in Emergencies, 1494 (2009) (noting that, of the 1,800 individuals who died during 
Hurricane Katrina, members of vulnerable populations were the most likely to die), 
https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/42/5/articles/42-5_Hoffman.pdf.  We note that this Report & Order 
addresses a subset of the issues raised in the Further Notice.  We defer consideration of any remaining issues.
5 U.S. Census Bureau, DP02 | Selected Social Characteristics in the United States (2021), 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=DP02#.  Sandy Dietrich and Erik Hernandez, Language Use in the United 
States: 2019,  pages 8, 14-15 (2022), 
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2022/acs/acs-50.pdf; see also US Census Bureau, 
The 2020 Census Speaks More Languages (Mar. 9, 2020), https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-
releases/2020/languages.html; Press Release, Attorney General James Urges FCC and the U.S. Wireless Industry to 
Expand Language Accessibility for Severe Weather Warnings (Oct. 27, 2022), https://ag.ny.gov/press-
release/2022/attorney-general-james-urges-fcc-and-us-wireless-industry-expand-language; Ashley Wong, Push for 
Language Access After Ida Highlights a Greater Need in N.Y., (Mar. 3, 2022), 
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/03/nyregion/severe-weather-alerts-languages-ida.html; How the 2017 fires 
helped reveal Sonoma County’s problems with equity, https://socoemergency.org/recover/2017-tubbs-nuns-
fire/looking-back-at-2017-wildfires/how-the-2017-fires-helped-reveal-sonoma-countys-problems-with-equity/ (last 
visited on Feb. 21, 2023); Kate Yoder, During wildfires and hurricanes, a language gap can be deadly, (Jun. 15, 
2021), https://grist.org/language/wildfires-hurricanes-translation-language-gap/; Centers for Disease Control and 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
3devices on which people with disabilities rely do not support WEA.6  Further, our nation’s alerting 
authorities do not have effective access to information about where WEA is and is not available within 
their communities and how WEA performs within their jurisdictions.  This knowledge gap can leave 
alerting authorities ill equipped to plan for reliable communications during disasters.   
3. It is essential that the public be able to receive in accessible language and format WEA 
Messages that are intended for them. It is also important that those who initiate these messages and those 
who rely upon them can access information about WEA’s availability and performance.  Through the 
requirements we adopt today, we intend to help the millions of people with access and functional needs, 
including people who primarily speak a language other than English or Spanish and those with 
disabilities, better understand and take protective actions in response to WEA messages; improve people’s 
ability to understand and quickly take protective actions in response to WEAs that they receive; and 
provide the nation’s alerting authorities with the information they need to plan for resilient 
communications during disasters and use WEA with confidence and foreknowledge.  These requirements 
will meaningfully improve WEA.  We also recognize that even more can be done.  Accordingly, we 
identify next steps to further improve WEA’s accessibility and availability.7
II. BACKGROUND
4. The WEA system is a tool for authorized federal, state, local, and Tribal government 
entities to geographically target alerts and warnings to the WEA-capable mobile devices of participating 
commercial mobile service providers’ subscribers.  The Warning Alert and Response Network (WARN) 
Act8 establishes WEA as a voluntary system in which CMS Providers may elect to participate and gives 
the Commission authority to adopt “relevant technical standards, protocols, procedures and other 
technical requirements . . . necessary to enable commercial mobile service alerting capability for 
commercial mobile service providers that voluntarily elect to transmit emergency alerts.”9  Pursuant to 
this authority, the Commission has adopted requirements to prescribe WEA capabilities, WEA testing, 
and WEA election procedures.  While participation by wireless providers is voluntary, those commercial 
mobile service providers that choose to offer the service (Participating CMS Providers) must adhere to the 
technical and operational requirements established by the Commission.  
Prevention, Press Release, CDC: 1 in 4 adults live with a disability (Aug, 16, 2018), 
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2018/p0816-disability.html. 
6 47 CFR § 10.10(j); 47 CFR § 10.480.  See American Foundation for the Blind, American Council of the Blind, 
National Disability Rights Network Comments, PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, at 5 (Jul. 21, 2023) (Advocacy 
Groups for the Blind Comments); see also Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc., 
Communication Service for the Deaf, Hearing Loss Association of America, National Association of the Deaf, 
Coalition on Inclusive Emergency Planning, Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Technology for the 
Deaf and Hard of Hearing, and Gallaudet University Comments, PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, at 9 (Jul. 21, 
2023) (Advocacy Groups for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Comments); see also Richard Ray, Reply, PS Docket 
Nos. 15-91 and 15-94 at 3 (rec. Sept. 15, 2023) (“Emergency alerting systems must be accessible to individuals with 
disabilities”).
7 Improving the accessibility and effectiveness of the nation's alerting systems is a priority for the Commission.  In 
this regard, we will consider improvements for the Emergency Alert System (EAS) – to include support for 
multilingual EAS – in a forthcoming item.  
8 Warning, Alert and Response Network (WARN) Act, Title VI of the Security and Accountability for Every Port 
Act of 2006, 120 Stat. 1884, 1936 (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq.) 
9 47 U.S.C. § 1201(a); 47 CFR § 10.10(d) (defining as CMS Provider as an “FCC licensee providing commercial 
mobile service as defined in section 332(d)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934.”).  Section 332(d)(1) defines the 
term commercial mobile service as any mobile service (as defined in 47 U.S.C. 153) that is provided for profit and 
makes interconnected service available to the public or to such classes of eligible users as to be effectively available 
to a substantial portion of the public, as specified by regulation by the Commission.  See 47 U.S.C. § 332(d)(1).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
45. WEA works as follows: an alerting authority sends a WEA message10 using Federal 
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-approved alert origination software in the Common Alerting 
Protocol (CAP) to the FEMA-operated alert aggregator, the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System 
(IPAWS).11  There, it is authenticated, validated and delivered to FEMA’s Alert Gateway for 
dissemination to Participating CMS Providers’ Alert Gateways.12  While the Commission’s WEA rules 
are technologically neutral, most Participating CMS Providers use cell broadcast technology to transmit 
WEA messages to their subscribers.13  When the Alert Message is received by a WEA-capable mobile 
device,14 it is prominently presented to the subscriber as long as the subscriber has not opted out of 
receiving Alert Messages of that type.15
6. Under the WARN Act, CMS Providers can participate in WEA in-whole or in-part.16  In-
whole participation means the CMS Provider has agreed to transmit WEAs in a manner consistent with 
the technical standards, protocols, procedures, and other technical requirements adopted by the 
Commission in the entirety of their geographic service area and on all devices offered at the point of sale. 
In-part participation means that the CMS Provider will comply with our requirements, but either not in 
the entirety of their geographic service area, not on all devices they offer for sale, or both.17  The 
Commission requires CMS Providers to file their WEA election letters in a docket.18  Twenty one of the 
76 wireless providers that elect to transmit alert messages,19 including the three nationwide service 
providers (AT&T, Verizon Wireless, and T-Mobile) elect to transmit Alert Messages “in part.”20  A CMS 
10 See 47 CFR § 10.10(a) (defining an “Alert Message” as “a message that is intended to provide the recipient 
information regarding an emergency, and that meets the requirements for transmission by a Participating 
Commercial Mobile Service Provider under this part”).  
11 CAP is an open, interoperable, XML-based standard that can include multimedia such as streaming audio or 
video.  See OASIS CAP v1.2 (IPAWS Profile for the OASIS Common Alerting Protocol IPAWS USA), 
http://docs.oasis-open.org/emergency/cap/v1.2/CAP-v1.2-os.html.  CAP messages contain standardized fields that 
facilitate interoperability between and among devices.  See id.
12 From a technical standpoint, the WEA system currently deployed by FEMA and Participating CMS Providers is 
based on standards created by the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS), the 
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) (jointly, ATIS/TIA), and the 3rd Generation Partnership Project 
(3GPP).  See CSRIC IV WEA Messaging Report at 7.  We note that nothing in the WARN Act or the Commission’s 
rules requires WEA to be a cell broadcast-based service.
13 See CSRIC V, Working Group Two, Wireless Emergency Alerts – Recommendations to Improve Geo-targeting 
and Offer Many-to-One Capabilities, Final Report and Recommendations 8 (2016) (CSRIC V WEA Geo-targeting 
Report); but see Letter from Rebecca Murphy Thompson, EVP and General Counsel, Competitive Carriers 
Association, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 2 (filed Oct. 10, 2017) (stating that some 
carriers offer WEA using a software application, rather than cell broadcast).
14 The WEA rules do not currently define a “WEA-capable mobile device.”
15 See Joint ATIS/TIA CMAS Mobile Device Behavior Specification (ATIS-TIA-J-STD-100).  Subscribers’ right to 
opt out of WEA message receipt extends to all but the Presidential Alert.  See 47 CFR § 10.280.
16 47 U.S.C. § 1201(b)(1)(B).
17 47 CFR §§ 10.10 (k)(l).
18Third WEA R&O at para. 32; 47 CFR § 10.210(c); see also PS Docket No. 08-146.
19 As noted in the 2023 WEA FNPRM, “[a]s a result of the deficiencies in the current WEA data collection 
mechanisms, many of which are identified in [the] FNPRM, the number of CMS Providers who have elected to 
participate ‘in whole or in part’ may not be up to date.  For example, the WEA registry lists Sprint Nextel and T-
Mobile as having separate WEA elections.”  2023 WEA FNPRM at note 14.
20 See Letter from Joseph P. Marx, Assistant Vice President, AT&T Services Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 
FCC (rec. Feb. 14, 2013); see Letter from Steve Sharkey, Vice President, Government Affairs, Technology and 
Engineering Policy, T-Mobile, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (rec. Jun. 4, 2018); see Letter from Andre J. 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
5Provider that elects, in whole or in part, not to transmit emergency alerts is also required to make that 
election in writing to the Commission, provide conspicuous notice at the point of sale of any devices that 
will not transmit emergency alerts, and notify its existing subscribers of this election.21  While 
Participating CMS Providers, including the three nationwide providers, serve the majority of wireless 
consumers, hundreds of wireless providers (over 450 of them) have elected not to transmit WEA 
Messages.22  CMS Providers WEA election letters do not state the extent to which they offer WEA in the 
entirety of their geographic service area or to all mobile devices that they offer at the point of sale.  
Rather, this information is available in disparate sources.  Our rules authorize Participating CMS 
Providers to enable alerting authorities to test how WEA works in their communities by transmitting 
State/Local WEA Tests, which consumers must affirmatively opt in to receive.23  
7. Over the years the Commission has received numerous requests for waiver of its rules to 
enable alerting authorities to test WEA using alerts that the public receives by default, to enable alerting 
authorities to use WEA tests to understand how WEA will work in an actual emergency and to raise 
public awareness about risks to health and safety.24  In assessing these waivers, the Commission has 
balanced raising awareness about emergencies with protecting against alert fatigue.25  By contrast, the 
Commission’s rules allow EAS Participants to participate in two tests that the public receives by default 
per calendar year, provided that the entity conducting the test takes specified actions to make clear that 
the alert being sent is only a test.26  
8. The accessibility of WEAs for people with disabilities and the availability of WEAs for 
people who primarily speak a language other than English or Spanish has been an important focus since 
the Commercial Mobile Service Alerting Advisory Committee (CMSAAC) developed recommendations 
Lachance, Assistant General Counsel, Verizon, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (rec. Sep. 8, 2008); see also 
Wireless Emergency Alerts (Aug. 4, 2023) (WEA Master Registry under “Resources”), https://www.fcc.gov/public-
safety-and-homeland-security/policy-and-licensing-division/alerting/general/wireless.
21 47 CFR §§ 10.210; 10.240.
22 Of the over 400 entities that have filed an election regarding their WEA participation status, however, many 
appear to be paging operators, specialized mobile radio operators, mobile virtual network operators, and other 
wireline companies that may or may not be in operation as a CMS Provider.  See Master WEA Registry, 
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/wea_masterregistry112019.xls (last visited Sep. 5, 2023). 
23 47 CFR § 10.350.  Specifically, the Commission’s rules require Participating CMS Providers to participate in 
monthly tests initiated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and in periodic tests of WEA’s C-Interface.  
Id.  On November 1, 2016, the Commission adopted a Report and Order that amended the WEA testing rules to 
permit emergency managers to conduct end-to-end WEA tests with the public to assess how WEA is working within 
their jurisdictions.  See WEA R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 11154-55, at paras. 65-68; (requiring Participating CMS 
Providers to provide their subscribers with the option to receive State/Local WEA Tests, whereby subscribers must 
affirmatively select the option to receive State/Local WEA Test messages).
24 See, e.g., Wireless Emergency Alert Performance Testing Wireless Emergency Alerts Amendments to Part 11 of 
the Commission’s Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System, PS Docket Nos. 22-160, 15-91, and 15-94, Order 
(2022); Wireless Emergency Alerts Amendments to Part 11 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the Emergency 
Alert System, PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, Order (2022); Improving Wireless Emergency Alerts and 
Community-Initiated Alerting Amendments to Part 11 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert 
System, PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, 36 FCC Rcd 12734 (2021).
25 See Improving Wireless Emergency Alerts and Community-Initiated Alerting Amendments to Part 11 of the 
Commission’s Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System, PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, 35 FCC Rcd 1527, 
para. 6 (2020) (stating that the State/Local WEA test category was adopted to prevent consumers from experiencing 
“alert fatigue”).
26 47 CFR § 11.61(a)(5) (requiring entities conducting “Live Code Tests” to notify the public before the test in 
widely-accessible formats that live event codes will be used, but that no emergency is, in fact occurring; state in the 
test message that the event is only a test; and coordinate the test among EAS Participants, state and local emergency 
authorities, the relevant state emergency communications committees (SECC), and first responder organizations).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
6that were to become the basis of the Commission’s WEA rules in 2007.27  The Commission’s WEA rules 
currently support the accessibility of WEA messages by requiring that Participating CMS Providers 
support an audible WEA attention signal and vibration cadence, support the inclusion of URLs in Alert 
Messages, and support the transmission of WEA messages originated by alerting authorities in Spanish.28  
The CMSAAC Report contemplates both multilingual alerting and the inclusion of maps in WEA, but 
WEA does not yet support those features.29  
9. The Commission has been seeking comment on whether WEA should support languages 
in addition to English and Spanish and location-aware maps since 2016.30  Alerting authorities 
commenting on our 2016 FNPRM favored the expansion of WEA’s language capabilities because it 
would allow WEAs to reach a wider audience,31 but industry commenters were generally opposed due to 
concerns about bandwidth limitations of cellular networks, delay of WEA receipt, and costs.32  Alerting 
authorities were in favor of including location-aware maps because it would personalize alerts and bolster 
27 CMSAAC Report, § 5.5 (“The WARN Act requirements for the establishment of the Commercial Mobile Service 
Alert Advisory Committee membership specifically call for representation from ‘national organizations representing 
individuals with special needs, including individuals with disabilities and the elderly.’  During its work, the 
CMSAAC reviewed input from members on accessibility considerations.  Most of the following requirements 
benefit all subscribers in an emergency”).
28 See The Commercial Mobile Alert System, PS Docket No. 07-287, First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 6144 
(2008) (First WEA R&O); see 2016 WEA R&O and FNPRM (requiring Participating CMS Providers to support 
WEA alerts initiated in Spanish); 47 CFR § 10.480.  According to the FEMA IPAWS Program Management Office, 
since the requirement to support WEA messages in Spanish became effective, as of Mar. 8, 2023. alerting authorities 
have issued 21,781 WEA messages, 14,240 of which have been translated into Spanish.  See Multilingual Alerting 
for the Emergency Alert System and Wireless Emergency Alerts (Sep. 28, 2022), 
https://www.fcc.gov/MultilingualAlerting_EAS-WEA.
29 CMSAAC Report, at §§ 5.5.2.2, 5.7.
30 2016 WEA R&O and FNPRM at 11195, para. 108.
31 Sarah Poss, California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, Comments, PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, at 
3-4 (Rec. Dec. 15, 2016) (CalOES 2016 Comments); Bob Iberger, Islip Office of Emergency Management, 
Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (Rec. Dec. 5, 2016); Letter from Preston Findlay, Counsel, NCMEC, to 
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 15-91 et al., at 2 (filed July 6, 2017) (NCMEC 2017 ex parte); 
Nassau County OEM 2016 Comments at 1; NYCEM 2016 Comments at 10; City and County of San Francisco 
Department of Emergency Management, Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 2 (Rec. Dec. 8, 2016).
32 Apple, Reply, PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, at 6 (Rec. Jan. 9, 2017) (Apple 2016 Reply); The Alliance for 
Telecommunications Industry Solutions, Comments, PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, at 7-8 (Rec. Dec. 8, 2016) 
(ATIS 2016 Comments) (“[S]upport for [ideographic] languages would require service providers to switch from 
GSM 7-bit encoding to basic Unicode (UCS-2) character set . . . ATIS notes that requiring the use of the UCS-2 
character set would decrease the number of display characters to less than half of the 360 character maximum”); 
AT&T, Reply, PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, at 3 (Rec. Jan. 9, 2017) (AT&T 2016 Reply); CTIA, Comments, 
PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, at 9 (Rec. Dec. 8, 2016) (CTIA 2016 Comments); Microsoft, Comments, PS 
Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, at 9 (Rec. Dec. 8, 2016) (Microsoft 2016 Comments); T-Mobile, Comments, PS 
Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, at 3-4, 9-10 (Rec. Dec. 8, 2016) (T-Mobile 2016 Comments).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
7awareness,33 whereas industry commenters were generally opposed due to the same concerns raised in the 
multilingual alerting context.34  
10. Some alerting authorities have hesitated to use WEA because they did not understand or 
have confidence in how WEA works in practice.   In 2017, officials in Sonoma County, California 
declined to use WEA to warn the public about wildfires, expressing concern that the alerts would be 
delivered outside of their targeted area.35  In a letter to the FCC Chairwoman in 2022, Senators Bennett 
and Hickenlooper of Colorado highlight the fact that “the WEA system was not used during the Marshall 
Fire due to existing concerns about its reliability and delivery.”36  They observe that “[w]hile over 1,600 
entities nationwide are authorized to send WEAs, less than half have ever done so.”37  The Senators cite to 
a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report that states an effective alert and 
warning system will, among other things, communicate in a way that people can understand, be one that 
alerting authorities can trust to deliver an alert in a timely manner to all intended recipients, and be 
suitable for reaching all at-risk populations.38  
11. Over the years, the Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council 
(CSRIC) – a federal advisory committee to the Commission – has studied and reported on various 
potential improvements to the WEA system.  Nearly ten years ago, CSRIC IV first discussed the 
possibility of including maps and other graphic information in WEAs, concluding at the time that more 
study was necessary.39  This year, CSRIC VIII recommends that WEAs include a link to access location-
33 APCO International, Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 3 (Dec. 8, 2016) (APCO 2016 Comments); CalOES 
2016 Comments at 3; Nassau County OEM 2016 Comments at 1; Letter from Michael E. Gerber, Physical Scientist, 
Office of Dissemination, NWS, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 4 (filed July 18, 
2017) (NWS 2017 Ex Parte) (“The NWS wishes to reiterate the need for WEA to display a map of the recipient’s 
location relative to the threat area. This is necessary in order to better personalize the threat and increase the 
likelihood that people in the path of the threat take decisive life-saving action.”).; NYCEM 2016 Comments at 8.
34 ATIS 2016 Comments at 7-8; AT&T 2016 Reply at 4; CTIA 2016 Comments at 9; Microsoft 2016 Comments at 
6-7; T-Mobile 2016 Comments at 2-4, 8-9; Verizon, Comments, PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, at 4 (Rec. Dec. 8, 
2016).
35 Dakin Andone, CNN, Californians say they didn’t receive emergency wildfire alerts (Oct. 15, 2017), 
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/13/us/california-fires-emergency-alerts/index.html (quoting a Sonoma County 
spokeswoman who said that “officials chose not to send out a WEA because it would target too large a geographic 
area, evacuating residents who weren’t in danger and causing gridlock on the roads”); Napa County Grand Jury 
2017-2018, Final Report:  Napa County Emergency Alerts Lacking During Fires at 5 (June 13, 2018), 
https://www.napa.courts.ca.gov/system/files/gj-17-18-emergency-alerts-lacking-during-fires-e.pdf ("Even though 
Sonoma County has the WEA system, the probability for "overshooting" was the reason they did not choose to send 
out alerts as the fire raged. County officials feared such alerts might have caused panic and traffic jams that may 
have hindered fire and law enforcement evacuation efforts.”).
36 Letter from Sens. Bennett and Hickenlooper to FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel at 1 (Apr. 20, 2022), 
https://www.bennet.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/6/4/6479f090-12fc-489f-a4ea-
60af7ec75515/6EB55A10D990A97F2D897653153BB3D0.wea-letter-to-fcc-final-4.20.22.pdf. 
37 Id. 
38 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Emergency Alert and Warning Systems: Current 
Knowledge and Future Research Directions at 50 (2018), https://nap.nationalacademies.org/download/24935. 
39 See Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council III, Next Generation Alerting Final Report 
(2013), https://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/pshs/advisory/csric3/CSRIC_III_WG2_Report_March_%202013.pdf; see 
Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council IV, Geographic Targeting, Message Content and 
Character Limitation Subgroup Report at 50 (2014), 
https://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/advisory/csric4/CSRIC_CMAS_Geo-Target_Msg_Content_Msg_Len_Rpt_Final.pdf; 
see Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council V, Emergency Alerting Platforms WEA 
Security Sub-Working Group (2016), https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/advisory-committees/communications-
security-reliability-and-interoperability; see Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council VI, 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
8aware maps that depict the alert’s target geographic area and the alert recipient’s position in relation to the 
target area leveraging current technology.40  CSRIC VIII observes that “maps are commonly used to 
depict alert location across a variety of alert dissemination methods (e.g., TV, social media)” and states 
that presenting WEA messages via mapping applications on the device “could help the recipient better 
understand the boundaries of the Alert Area and the device’s location relative to the Alert Area.”41  
CSRIC VIII also recommends further study of WEA support for languages other than English and 
Spanish.42
12. Building upon CSRIC VIII’s recommendation, this past February, Chairwoman 
Rosenworcel sent letters to the nine largest Participating CMS Providers seeking their input on the 
feasibility of implementing multilingual alerting through pre-installed templates and through machine 
translation technologies.43  Responses state that both may be feasible solutions.44  In addition, this past 
February, the Commission received a letter from a bipartisan group of 45 lawmakers representing both 
chambers of Congress emphasizing the importance of alerting individuals in a language they understand 
and urging the Commission to upgrade WEA to support multilingual capabilities.45  
Comprehensive Re-imagining of Emergency Alerting – AMENDED (2018), https://www.fcc.gov/about-
fcc/advisory-committees/communications-security-reliability-and-interoperability-council; see Communications 
Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council VII, Report on Standard Operating Procedures for Emergency 
Alerting Communications (2020), https://www.fcc.gov/media/41738; see Communications Security, Reliability, and 
Interoperability Council VIII, Report on WEA Performance Reporting, https://www.fcc.gov/file/24518/download  
(Dec. 2022). 
40 Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council VIII, Report on WEA Application 
Programming Interface at 26, https://www.fcc.gov/file/25058/download (Mar. 2023) (CSRIV VIII API Report).  
41 Id. at 11-15, 26 (CSRIC suggests this could be implemented in a manner where “text is immediately displayed and 
an additional option to display a WEA map is provided”).
42 Id. at 27; see also Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council V, Final Report – 
Multilingual Alerting Recommendations at 12 (Sep. 2016), https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/advisory-
committees/communications-security-reliability-and-interoperability (recommending CAP be leveraged to provide 
multilingual EAS, but that no action should be taken at the time of writing).
43 Chairwoman Seeks Information on Multilingual Wireless Emergency Alerts (Feb. 13, 2023), 
https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairwoman-seeks-information-multilingual-wireless-emergency-alerts. 
44 See, e.g., Letter from Rhonda J. Johnson, Executive Vice President, Federal Regulatory Affairs, AT&T, to Jessica 
Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, FCC, at 4-5 (Rec. Feb. 27, 2023) (AT&T Letter on Multilingual WEA) (stating “[w]e 
believe that software translation technologies are sufficiently mature to effectively support the translation of WEA 
alerts into the most commonly spoken languages” and “[i]n the future . . . [an] alert could be broadcast in English 
and automatically translated into the default language for the user’s device by a WEA application”); Letter from 
Chemu Langat, Chief Operating Officer and Vice President, Quality and Regulatory, Best Buy Health, Inc., to 
Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, FCC, at 2 (Rec. Feb. 27, 2023), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-
filings/filing/1022730060888 (Best Buy Health Letter on Multilingual WEA) (“we believe it would be possible to 
build pre-scripted WEA messages that are displayed based on the language setting the device user has selected.   We 
estimate that the development work necessary to build such pre-scripted messages would be significant, and we note 
that collaboration with parties responsible for mobile device operating systems would be key to enabling WEAs in a 
multitude of languages”).
45 Letter from Kirsten Gillibrand, Senator, Grace Meng, Congressmember, Dianne Feinstein, Senator, Raúl M. 
Grijalva, Congressmember, Robert P. Casey Jr., Senator, Salud Carbajal, Congressmember, Mazie K. Hirono, 
Senator, Gregory W. Meeks, Congressmember, Ben Ray Lujan, Senator, Jasmine Crockett, Congressmember, 
Tammy Duckworth, Senator, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Congressmember, Alex Padilla, Senator, Yvette D. Clarke, 
Congressmember, Robert Menendez, Senator, Nydia M. Velázquez, Congressmember, Jon Ossoff, Senator, Jerrold 
Nadler, Congressmember, Katie Porter, Congressmember, Suzanne Bonamici, Congressmember, Adriano Espaillat, 
Congressmember, Pramila Jayapal, Congressmember, Josh Harder, Congressmember, Juan Vargas, 
Congressmember, Doris Matsui, Congressmember, Ed Case, Congressmember, Jamaal Bowman, Congressmember, 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
913. In the 2023 WEA FNPRM, the Commission proposed to require Participating CMS 
Providers to increase WEA’s language support, support the inclusion of location-aware maps in WEA, 
authorize public-facing tests, and report a variety of availability information into a Commission-hosted 
WEA Database.46  The Commission received 28 comments and 11 replies.47
III. DISCUSSION
A. Making WEA Available to Millions of People Who Primarily Speak a Language 
Other Than English or Spanish and Accessible to People with Disabilities
14. To expand WEA’s reach to millions of people who primarily speak a language other than 
English or Spanish who may not be able to understand the potentially life-saving alerts they receive, we 
require Participating CMS Providers to support multilingual WEA through the use of Alert Messages 
translated into the most common languages (referred to in this item as “templates”).  These templates 
would be pre-installed and stored on the mobile device itself.  As described below, where an alerting 
authority chooses to send a multilingual Alert Message, the WEA-capable mobile device must be able to 
extract and display the relevant template in the subscriber’s default language, if available.48  If the default 
language for a WEA-capable mobile device is set to a language that is not among those supported by 
templates, the WEA-capable device must present the English-language version of the Alert Message.49
15. The weight of the record supports expanding WEA’s language capabilities through the 
use of templates.50  We agree with NYCEM that “[p]re-loading commonly issued WEAs to supported 
Nanette Diaz Barragán, Congressmember, Marilyn Strickland, Congressmember, Jill Tokuda, Congressmember, 
Suzan K. DelBene, Congressmember, Dan Goldman, Congressmember, Sara Jacobs, Congressmember, Jim Costa, 
Congressmember, Jan Schakowsky, Congressmember, Marc A. Veasey, Congressmember, Mark Takano, 
Congressmember, Kevin Mullin, Congressmember, Grace F. Napolitano, Congressmember, Jesús G. "Chuy" García, 
Congressmember, Jimmy Gomez, Congressmember, Susie Lee, Congressmember, Andy Kim, Congressmember, 
Judy Chu, Congressmember, Lizzie Fletcher, Congressmember, Gerald E. Connolly, Congressmember, and Mary 
Gay Scanlon, Congressmember, to Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, FCC (Feb. 3, 2023) (Congressional Letter to 
Chairwoman Rosenworcel).
46 See generally Wireless Emergency Alerts, Amendments to Part 11 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the 
Emergency Alert System, PS Docket No. 15-91, 15-94, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 23-30 (Apr. 
21, 2023) (2023 WEA FNPRM).
47 See PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94; see also infra Appendix D (List of Commenters).
48 47 CFR § 10.500(e).  
49 See ATIS, Wireless Emergency Alert (WEA) 3.0 Mobile Device Behavior (MDB) Specification at 5 (2019) (stating 
that presentation of an English-language Alert Message is mandatory).
50 Advocacy Groups for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Comments at 4-5 (“Although certain emergency situations 
may require unique or specific information delivered through an WEA, the use of template-based alerts that are 
translated into ASL may provide a next best option to ensuring that the WEAs are accessible to persons for whom 
ASL is their primary language”); Letitia James, New York State Attorney General, Philip J. Weiser, Colorado 
Attorney General, William Tong, Connecticut Attorney General, Brian L. Schwalb, District of Columbia Attorney 
General, Kwame Raoul, Illinois Attorney General, Anthony G. Brown, Maryland Attorney General, Andrea Joy 
Campbell, Massachusetts Attorney General, Keith Ellison, Minnesota Attorney General, Aaron D. Ford, Nevada 
Attorney General, Matthew J. Platkin, New Jersey Attorney General, Raúl Torrez, New Mexico Attorney General, 
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Oregon Attorney General, Peter Neronha, Rhode Island Attorney General, Charity R. Clark, 
Vermont Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, Washington Attorney General, Joshua L. Kaul, Wisconsin Attorney 
General, Hon. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, New York City Corporation Counsel, Comments, PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 
15-94, at 2-3 (rec. Jul. 21, 2023) (Attorneys General Comments) (“The States and New York City urge the 
Commission to require pre-installed templates); LAAWW Comments at 3 (“If translation capabilities on the device 
end is not a possibility, we would like to see expanded functionality in IPAWS software to permit pre￿loaded 
scripts . . . to display alert information assigned to each IPAWS alert code, when possible, to inform end users); New 
York Public Service Commission, Reply, PS Docket Nos 15-91 and 15-94 (NYPSC Reply); NOAA/NWS 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
10devices and displaying the alert in the device’s preferred language would certainly be a major 
improvement to alerting capabilities.”51  FEMA comments that “pre-installed template messages would 
work very well for specific scenarios or for specific [Alert Originators] (e.g., NWS and USGS alerts 
which are uniform and standardized.”52  Some alerting authorities are already using templates to deliver 
alerts in multiple languages.53  The approach we adopt today improves upon other available methods of 
multilingual WEA messages (e.g., through the use of an embedded reference that takes the recipient to a 
website with content in multiple languages), because the multilingual Alert Message will be displayed to 
the user by default.  
16. The implementation of multilingual WEA through the use of templates, as described in 
this item, integrates two features that are available today.  First, it requires the establishment of templates.  
Letters from some of the largest Participating CMS Providers indicate that implementing template-based 
WEAs in multiple languages is feasible.54  Second, it requires templates to be stored in the device and 
triggered upon receipt of a WEA.  As the Commission noted in the 2023 WEA FNPRM, through a 
partnership between ShakeAlert and Google, Android mobile devices are already able to display alert 
content pre-installed on mobile devices upon receipt of a signal from a network of seismic sensors.55  This 
application demonstrates how a template can be “activated” by a data element included in Alert Message 
metadata, which would prompt the mobile device to display the relevant template alert message in the 
mobile device’s default language chosen by the consumer.  
17. Promoting multilingual WEA through templates will enhance the flexibility that alerting 
authorities have in communicating with their communities.  We agree with USGS that there may be times 
where the benefit of delivering an Alert Message to the public as soon as possible outweighs the need for 
Comments at 1 (suggesting these templates could be built into devices); NYCEM Comments at 3 (“Pre-loading 
commonly issued WEAs to supported devices and displaying the alert in the device’s preferred language would 
certainly be a major improvement to alerting capabilities”); U.S. Geological Survey Comments, PS Docket Nos. 15-
91 and 15-94, at 3 (Jul. 27, 2023) (USGS Comments) (“The USGS strongly supports an option for pre-scripted alert 
messages in the target languages”).
51 NYCEM Comments at 3.
52 See FEMA Comments at 3.
53 See NOAA/NWS Comments at 1 (NWS already uses templates for the English and Spanish WEA messages it 
sends: https://www.weather.gov/wrn/wea360); see also Notify NYC (last visited on Sep. 7, 2023) https://a858-
nycnotify.nyc.gov/ (using templates to alert in 13 different languages). 
54 Letter from William H. Johnson, Senior Vice President, Verizon, to Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, FCC, at 
2-3 (Rec. Feb. 27, 2023); https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/10227186202891 (stating that pre-
installed, pre-scripted WEA alerts in the default language selected by the user “holds promise” and noting that, with 
updated standards and handset/OS vendor support, “nothing in wireless networks would preclude devices from 
performing those functions.”); see also id. (“Changes to the relevant technical standard would need to address, at 
minimum . . . the Commercial Mobile Alert C-Interface in IPAWS would need to support additional values beyond 
the two it supports today . . . In service provider networks, additional standardized “Message Identifiers” would be 
needed to ensure networks securely transmit the alerts and that the device can adhere to the user’s WEA language 
preference setting. Relatedly, a different standardized data encoding scheme would be necessary, not only to account 
for different language characters but to ensure that the device presents the correct pre-scripted message once the 
device receives it.  And device-level enhancements, at a minimum at the OS level, are necessary to timely and 
reliably process the message identifier and data encoding information described above”); see also Best Buy Health 
Letter on Multilingual WEA at 2 (noting that “collaboration with parties responsible for mobile device operating 
systems would be key to enabling WEAs in a multitude of languages”).
55 Google, How Android Earthquake Alerts System Works, https://crisisresponse.google/android-alerts/ (last visited 
Sept. 7, 2023); see also USGS Comments at 3 (“All USGS EEW alerts are generated automatically, and our alert 
primary alert text is always the same, ‘Earthquake! Expect shaking. Drop, Cover, Hold On. Protect yourself now. -
USGS ShakeAlert’.  ShakeAlert also has a set of standardized follow-up messages. All these can be pre-translated 
into the target languages as we have already done for Spanish”).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
11additional context that freeform text could provide.56  We also acknowledge the Colorado Alerting 
Authorities’ comment that templates be “encourage[d] and recommend[ed] . . . as a best practice,” but 
that “[t]emplates should not be mandated at the federal level.”57  We do not require alerting authorities to 
use templates, but require CMS Providers to support them should alerting authorities wish to use them at 
their discretion.  We defer to alerting authorities on how best to utilize these new WEA functions for their 
communities.
18. We decline to require Participating CMS Providers to implement multilingual WEA 
using machine translation at this time.  While some commenters support machine translation, many 
suggest that it is not yet ready for utilization in WEA.58  The Attorneys General urge the Commission to 
support multilingual WEA through the use of pre-installed templates, rather than machine translation, 
because “relying on software to translate WEAs without review by a human translator may cause material 
inaccuracies in critically important alerts.”59  Similarly, the New York Public Service Commission states 
that “until machine-translated WEAs can be nearly 100% accurate, the FCC should utilize pre-scripted 
WEA templates that are translated to each required language by humans.”60  We also acknowledge, 
however, that machine translation holds promise to support more situation-specific emergency alerts in a 
far larger set of languages.61  Accordingly, we will continue to examine the feasibility of machine 
translation technologies and its application in connection with multilingual alerting.  
19. As a baseline, we require Participating CMS Providers’ WEA-capable mobile devices 
support templates in the 13 most commonly spoken languages in the United States, based on U.S. Census 
56 See USGS Comments at 2-3 (“The USGS strongly supports an option for pre-scripted alert messages in the target 
languages.  This would mitigate concerns about poor translations and would also alleviate latency concerns if they 
are conveyed by a short data element that does not stress the capacity of the messaging protocol”). 
57 Colorado Alerting Authorities Comments at 8 (emphasis theirs). 
58 Apple Inc., Reply, PS Docket Nos 15-91 and 15-94, at 2, 14 (rec. Aug. 21, 2023) (Apple Reply) (“machine 
translation approaches should continue to be studied as they develop, and their usage not prematurely mandated”); 
Attorneys General Comments at 5 (“Recent evidence shows that machine translation produces materially less 
accurate results when used to translate from English into several other languages”); Competitive Carriers 
Association, Comments, PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, at 3 (rec. Jul. 21, 2023) (CCA Comments) (“CCA 
members are not aware of existing machine translation technologies that are sufficiently reliable for use in 
emergency situations”); FEMA Comments at 2 (“FEMA IPAWS has not conducted research to determine the 
efficacy of machine translation, but anecdotally some AOs have indicated that it has not advanced to the point of 
replacing their qualified translators”); NOAA/NWS Comments at 1 (“NWS is concerned about the quality of device 
translation because wording is critical in conveying the message for certain alerts. The NWS has found examples 
where calls-to-action could be misinterpreted based on a poor, incomplete, or inconsistent translation of an NWS 
alert”); NYCEM Comments at 2-3 (“NYCEM has concerns about the accuracy of translations, specifically regarding 
critical life-saving calls-to-action”); County of Sonoma, California Department of Emergency Management and the 
City of Santa Rosa, California Fire Department Comments, PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, at 1 (Jul. 29, 2023) 
(Sonoma County Comments) (“we are concerned that automatic translation can lead to unintended and deleterious 
consequences”); T-Mobile Comments at 4 (stating that “the truth is that things can go awfully wrong” with machine 
translation); USGS Comments at 3 (“the Commission is right to be concerned about the accuracy of on-the-fly 
translation which may garble or change the meaning of the intended message. This may be especially problematic 
for place names that may become incomprehensible if improperly translated (e.g., Shoemaker Road might be 
translated as the nonexistent Camino del Zapatero.”).
59 Attorneys General Comments at 5.
60 NYPSC Reply at 2.
61 AT&T Comments at 10-11 (“AT&T is encouraged that native software-based machine language translation 
solutions on certain WEA-capable devices are becoming sufficiently mature to enable WEA messages to be 
displayed in multiple languages”); OR-Alert Governance Committee Comments at 1 (“The OR-Alert Governance 
believes the state of the technology of machine translation technology has matured sufficiently to be able to support 
device based translation capabilities for WEAs”). Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
12data, in addition to English templates.62  These languages include: Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, 
Vietnamese, Arabic, French, Korean, Russian, Haitian Creole, German, Hindi, Portuguese, and Italian.63  
This action is consistent with the request of numerous members of Congress who wrote a letter urging the 
Commission to make WEA capable of multilingual alerting.64  We agree with the County of San Diego, 
the Language and Accessibility in Alert and Warning Workgroup (LAAWW), and Michigan State Police 
Emergency Management and Homeland Security Division’s Operations Management Section (Michigan 
State Police OMS) that the 13 languages for which we require support today would help make WEA 
content available to people who primarily speak a language other than English or Spanish for the first 
time.65  We also agree with the Attorneys General that this change will most directly benefit those who 
have historically been underserved by WEA.66  We believe that this action will mitigate a risk observed 
by researchers that individuals who primarily speak a language other than English or Spanish may not 
understand evacuation notices or instructions, raising the risk of harm. 
20. In addition, we require Participating CMS Providers’ WEA-capable mobile devices to 
support templates in ASL.  The Commission received a robust record demonstrating that ASL templates 
would increase the effectiveness and accessibility of WEAs for people who are deaf and hard of hearing 
who use ASL.67  CTIA and ATIS state that the deaf population may be sufficiently supported by text-only 
62 2023 WEA FNPRM at para. 13.
63 Id.; see also U.S. Census Bureau, DP02 | Selected Social Characteristics in the United States (2021) (breaking 
down language speakers in the United States), https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=DP02#; Sandy Dietrich and 
Erik Hernandez, Language Use in the United States: 2019, pages 8, 14-15 (2022), 
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2022/acs/acs-50.pdf; see also US Census Bureau, 
The 2020 Census Speaks More Languages (Mar. 9, 2020), 
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/2020/languages.html.  Roughly 78% of the U.S. population 
primarily speaks English, 13.5% primarily speak Spanish, and 5% primarily speak one of the other twelve languages 
listed here.  See Sandy Dietrich and Erik Hernandez, Language Use in the United States:  2019, pages 8, 14-15 
(2022), https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2022/acs/acs-50.pdf.
64 See Congressional Letter to Chairwoman Rosenworcel at 1 (noting that, without sending WEAs in languages 
beyond English and Spanish, “[l]ives are put at stake without this crucial information about impending inclement 
weather events, stay-at-home orders, AMBER alerts, and other emergencies”).
65 County of San Diego Comments at 2; LAAWW Comments at 3; Michigan State Police OMS Comments at 2.  
Additionally, we note that our rules allow for WEAs to be sent in Spanish, but this can only be done when the 
alerting authority has the in-house capacity to translate WEAs into Spanish, so it is not always used.
66 Attorneys General Comments at 2-3.
67 Advocacy Groups for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Comments at i, 3-5 (“the Commission should require WEAs 
to be delivered in American Sign Language—the primary language of the deaf population . . . Although certain 
emergency situations may require unique or specific information delivered through an WEA, the use of template-
based alerts that are translated into ASL may provide a next best option to ensuring that the WEAs are accessible to 
persons for whom ASL is their primary language”); see also Advocacy Groups for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing 
Reply at 3; APCO Comments at 3; Disability and Communications Access Board, Comments, PS. Docket Nos. 15-
91 and 15-94 (rec. Jul. 06, 2023 (DCAB Comments) (“Transmitting American Sign Language (ASL) videos . . 
.would increase the accessibility and effectiveness of emergency alerts”); County of San Diego Comments at 2 (“An 
embedded link to a human-translated [ASL] video should accompany each WEA”); LAAWW Comments at 4 (“For 
American Sign Language (ASL), LAAWW supports pre￿recording scripted messages and/or artificial intelligence 
for developing ASL alerts to assure accurate messaging, visual modality, and delivery”); Michigan State Police 
OMS Comments at 3 (“For American Sign Language (ASL), the OMS supports pre-recording scripted messages 
and/or artificial intelligence for developing ASL alerts to assure accurate messaging, visual modality, and 
delivery”); The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s  National Weather Service Comments, PS 
Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, at 3 (Jul. 21, 2023) (NOAA/NWS Comments) (“The NWS strongly supports the 
pursuit of American Sign Language (ASL) solutions and capabilities within WEA”); NYCEM Comments at 3-4 
(“The same method could be valid for ASL videos to that of pre-loading templatized WEAs on to supported devices 
. . . Even for individuals who primarily use ASL, but may be proficient in another language, it is just as important as 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
13WEAs.68  We agree with Advocacy Groups for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing that, “[a]lthough certain 
emergency situations may require unique or specific information delivered through an WEA, the use of 
template-based alerts that are available in ASL may provide a next best option to ensuring that the WEAs 
are accessible to persons for whom ASL is their primary language.”69  We also agree “[t]here is no 
adequate substitute for ASL for many individuals in the deaf and hard of hearing community.”70  Unlike 
the other languages for which we require support, however, ASL is not a language to which a mobile 
device can be set.  Because of this, we require Participating CMS Providers’ WEA-capable mobile 
devices to provide subscribers with the ability to opt-in to receive ASL alerts.71  A consumer’s choice to 
receive Alert Message templates in ASL should override the preferred language setting and the Alert 
Message should be extracted in ASL.  This approach is necessary to give meaning to the consumer’s 
choice.  Template-based ASL Alert Messages would function like other template-based Alert Messages in 
other respects.
21. We direct the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) to develop the 
specific implementation parameters for template-based multilingual alerting.  In this regard, we direct the 
Bureau to propose and seek comment on a set of emergency alert messages for support via template as 
they would be written in English, the 13 most commonly spoken languages in the U.S. (Spanish, Chinese, 
Tagalog, Vietnamese, Arabic, French, Korean, Russian, Haitian Creole, German, Hindi, Portuguese, and 
Italian), and ASL.  In identifying this set of emergency alert messages for support via templates, the 
Bureau should seek comment on which messages are most commonly used by alerting authorities, as the 
2023 WEA FNPRM contemplated, as well as those which may be most time-sensitive and thus critical for 
immediate comprehension.72  We also direct the Bureau to seek comment on whether this functionality 
can be made available on all devices.
any other language that the emergency information be distributed to as many people as possible in their primary 
language to promote equity and inclusion and ensure equal access to emergency information and an opportunity to 
take any needed steps to mitigate the emergency”); Portland Regional Disaster Preparedness Organization 
Comments, PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, at 2 (Jul. 20, 2023) (PRDPO Comments) (directing the Commission to 
“[p]re-record American Sign Language (ASL) scripted messages and use artificial intelligence tools for developing 
ASL alerts”).
68 Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions Comments, PS Dockets Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, at 9-10 (Jul. 
21, 2023) (ATIS Comments) (noting that “that the existing text-based WEA presentation on the mobile device 
already supports the needs of the deaf and hard-of-hearing community”); CTIA – The Wireless Association 
Comments, PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, at 18 (Jul. 28, 2023) (CTIA Comments) (“WEA messages presented 
in American Sign Language (‘ASL’) format also may be less preferable to readable text-based messages”); see also 
AT&T Comments, PS Docket Nos, 15-91 and 15-94, at 12-13 (Jul. 21, 2023) (AT&T Comments) (stating that alert 
originators should support users with access to videos presenting information in American Sign Language via 
embedded links). 
69 See Advocacy Groups for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Comments at 4. 
70 See id. (“Contrary to common misconceptions, ASL is not derived from any spoken language, including English. 
Rather, ASL is an independent linguistic system with morphological and grammatical complexity comparable to or 
exceeding that of spoken languages.”).
71 We recognize that, unlike textual translations, English language Alert Messages would be translated into ASL by 
video.  To avoid the risk that ASL templates could unnecessarily consume mobile device resources for individuals 
that do not need them, we allow the user’s voluntary selection of the option to receive WEAs in ASL to trigger the 
mobile device to download ASL templates to the device.  WEA-capable mobile devices need not be sold with ASL 
templates pre-installed on them, so long as the templates are available to download in the manner described here. 
72 See USGS Comments at 3 (noting that delays of even just one second can degrade the effectiveness of earthquake 
alerting); see also Improving Wireless Emergency Alerts and Community-initiated Alerting, PS Docket Nos 15-91, 
15-94, Public Notice, DA 19-940 (2019) (granting USGS’s request for a waiver of the Commission’s enhanced 
WEA geo-targeting rule in recognition of the unique time-sensitivity of earthquake alerts). Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
1422. We further direct the Bureau to seek comment on whether the English version of the alert 
should be displayed in addition to the multilingual version of the alert, and whether templates can be 
customizable to incorporate event-specific information.  We recognize commenters in the record who 
suggest that the multilingual template-based alert be displayed together with the English-language alert 
that includes additional details, to promote a fuller understanding of the nature of the emergency.73   
Through the incorporation of event-specific information into templates, we also seek to address concerns 
that static template-based alerts may not be flexible enough to be useful, and would reduce an alerting 
authority’s ability to create regionally and culturally relevant messages.74  We direct the Bureau to assess 
and determine the parameters for what is feasible and would best serve the public interest in this regard.   
23. We direct the Bureau to seek comment on the costs of supporting additional languages 
after the 13 we identify today, as well as English and ASL.  We believe that, after the relevant 
stakeholders standardize and develop the technology necessary to support template-based multilingual 
WEA messages, the costs for adding additional language support via this process would be negligible, 
while the countervailing public interest benefits would be significant.  The Attorneys General state that 
many large immigrant communities nationwide, including “immigrant communities with high rates of . . . 
[limited English proficiency (LEP)]” are not included in these 13 languages.75  While commenters 
generally agree that additional languages should be supported, they present different approaches for 
identifying those additional languages and did not coalesce around any particular languages or methods.76  
For example, the Attorneys General propose identifying additional languages for WEA support by using 
rates of “limited English proficiency.”77  The Attorneys General suggest that WEA messages should be 
transmitted in “all languages estimated to be spoken by at least 300,000 people in the U.S. over five years 
old . . . .”78  The Attorneys General also suggest that WEA messages should be translated “in any 
additional languages for which there are at least an estimated 25,000 individuals over the age of five years 
old nationwide (based on the most recent American Community Survey data) who have especially high 
rates of . . . [limited English proficiency], i.e., those who report speaking English either ‘not at all’ or ‘not 
73 ATIS Comments at 4-5; Attorneys General Comments at 7 (stating that presenting a template Alert Message along 
with the English-language version “will provide users with access to relevant event-specific details included in the 
English-language alert to the extent that the template-based alert they view in a different language does not include 
all such details”).
74 AT&T Comments at 19 (“pre-scripted alerts could not include information often provided by local Alert 
Originators, such as street names and landmarks familiar to people in the covered area”); ATIS Comments at 8 
(“Pre-scripted templates appear more limiting than a direct translation by the device based on the user’s preferred 
language settings”); CTIA Comments at 18 (“template-based alerts may be less useful to end users given that they 
would lack the event-specific information that makes the WEA system such a valuable tool during emergency 
situations”); King County Comments at 2 (“We do not support template-based alerts . . . there are too many 
incident-specific variables for this to be a good use of time, effort, and storage space on consumer devices”); 
Michigan State Police OMS Comments at 2 (“pre-loading scripted messages onto phones . . . reduces flexibility in 
crafting regional and culturally relevant messages”); OR-Alert Governance Committee Comments at 1 (“We do not 
believe that device, firmware embedded, template based alerts are sufficient to address the complexity of emergency 
situations”); Portland Regional Disaster Preparedness Organization Comments at 2 (“templates . . . [are] not 
sufficient for addressing more complex emergency situations, and it reduces flexibility for crafting regionally- and 
culturally- relevant messages”).
75 Attorneys General Comments at 7.
76 See, e.g., Attorneys General Comments at 2 (“We are also concerned that the 13 languages identified by the 
Commission do not take into account the limited English proficiency of millions of people.  As a result, we urge the 
Commission to require wireless companies to issue WEAs in more languages”); County of San Diego Comments at 
2; FEMA Comments at 2; King County Comments at 2; LAAWW Comments at 3-4; Michigan State Police OMS 
Comments at 2; NYCEM Comments at 3; NYS DHSES Comments at 1; PRDPO Comments at 2.
77 See Attorney Generals Comment at 7-9.
78 Id. at 8.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
15well.’”79   Others suggest choosing languages needed according to the needs of particular jurisdictions.80  
We direct the Bureau to seek comment on the best approach to determine which additional languages 
should be supported and what those languages should be.
24. To the extent that it would be minimally burdensome to implement, we direct the Bureau 
to designate additional languages – beyond English, ASL, and the 13 most commonly spoken languages 
in the United States – that should be supported through templates.  We also direct the Bureau to seek 
comment on the timeframe in which these additional languages could be supported.  We also delegate 
authority to the Bureau to ask any additional questions relating to the development and deployment of 
template-based multilingual alerting that would clarify the technical processes by which such alerts would 
be developed, updated, and delivered.
25. After an opportunity for comment, the Bureau will publish an Order in the Federal 
Register that establishes the specific implementation parameters for template-based multilingual alerting, 
including identification of the final set of emergency messages for multilingual WEA support, as well as 
their accompanying pre-scripted templates.81  We require Participating CMS Providers to comply with the 
requirements to support template-based alerting, as well as English, ASL, and the 13 most common 
languages (Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Arabic, French, Korean, Russian, Haitian Creole, 
German, Hindi, Portuguese, and Italian) within 30 months after the Bureau publishes its Order in the 
Federal Register.82  We also direct the Bureau to identify the corresponding timeframe for supporting 
additional languages.  
26. We believe 30 months is reasonable to implement the templates for the 13 languages, as 
well as English and ASL.  As we note above, both alert templates and the extraction of pre-loaded content 
on a mobile device to display an alert are functionalities that are already in use today.  We recognize that 
additional work is necessary to combine these functionalities to support multilingual WEA templates.  
Further, Verizon, ATIS, and CTIA point out that implementation of this requirement will require updates 
to standards, design development, and deployment efforts.83  Specifically, ATIS states that “any new data 
element in alert message metadata that would trigger the display of a template would require standards, 
79 Id.
80 See NYCEM Comment at 3 (“NYCEM understands the recommendation that WEA capable devices support 
delivery in the most spoken languages in the United States.  However, “most common” is relative to each individual 
jurisdiction and the most common nationally may not meet the needs of the local population.  For example, the list 
provided does not include several of NYC’s most-common languages, including Bengali, Polish, Urdu, and Yiddish.  
It would be inequitable to offer these languages alerts via mass notification, but not when an incident escalates to the 
level of WEA”); LAAWW Comments at 3-4; Attorneys General Comments at 2, 7.
81 Some commenters state they wish to be part of the translation process, or otherwise want the FCC to engage with 
native speakers and translators to ensure alerts are properly translated.  By proceeding in this manner, we create an 
opportunity for interested parties to take an active role in ensuring we have selected the correct messages to support 
through templates and that we have accurately translated them.  See Michigan State Police OMS Comments at 2 
(urging outreach to culturally and linguistically diverse communities when developing templates); NOAA/NWS 
Comments at 2 (“The NWS should have a strong role in the NWS WEA message language translation.  This will 
help ensure that all recipients of WEA messages, regardless of target language, will properly understand the 
message and take appropriate action to protect themselves and their property from the hazards”); PRDPO Comments 
at 2 (commenting the Commission should “[e]ngage professional translators and linguists in the development of all 
language access features, including template messages”).
82 2023 WEA FNPRM at para. 77.
83 ATIS Comments at 8; ATIS Reply at 3-4 (“ATIS WTSC agrees that use of pre-scripted and pre-installed 
templates on the device . . . will require a CAP update, in addition to updates to Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA) Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) and the Commercial Mobile Service 
Provider (CMSP) infrastructure and mobile devices”); CTIA Comments at 19; Letter from William H. Johnson, 
Senior Vice President, Verizon, to Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, FCC, at 2-3 (Rec. Feb. 27, 2023); 
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/10227186202891.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
16design, development, and deployment efforts, and potentially could also require new devices.”84  AT&T 
adds that Participating CMS Providers have limited control over the development, adoption, or timing of 
the implementation of new features that are tied to alerting authority equipment or OS and native software 
in WEA-capable devices.85  We observe that mobile device manufacturers and OS vendors have 
previously proven capable of developing new functionalities for WEA that required standards 
development, design development, and additional deployment efforts within 30 months.86  Verizon 
comments that the “proposed [30-month] compliance deadline may be feasible provided that . . . service 
providers, handset manufacturers and solution vendors are all engaged in implementation.”87  Verizon’s 
perspective that this 30-month compliance timeframe may be feasible is conditioned upon the 
Commission deciding not to adopt WEA performance reporting requirements – currently pending in this 
proceeding – at the same time.88  We do not adopt all the requirements that the 2023 WEA FNPRM 
proposed in this Report and Order, including the proposed performance reporting requirements at the 
same time.  
27. We believe that applying the 30-month compliance timeframe to all Participating CMS 
Providers affords sufficient time to comply.  CCA requests sufficient time for small carriers to implement 
this requirement, as well as others that the Commission proposed, in light of the challenges that many 
smaller and rural carriers face in “prioritizing personnel and similar technical resources, accessing vendor 
assistance and support, scheduling and funding projects, accessing mobile devices with the latest 
functionalities, etc.”89  Irrespective of whether small and rural carriers choose to allocate resources to 
participate in the standards process in which wireless industry has routinely engaged to support 
compliance with the Commission’s WEA requirements, the record suggests that this process can be 
completed within 12 months and will benefit all Participating CMS Providers equally.90  The remaining 
18 months in the 30-month compliance timeframe include 12 months for software development and 
testing and 6 months for deployment in regular business cycles.91  We believe that any delays that small 
and rural carriers may encounter in accessing the network equipment or mobile devices needed to support 
the requirements we adopt today can be accommodated within the 6-month flexibility that we offer to all 
84 ATIS Comments at 8.
85 Id. at 8-9.
86 See, e.g., Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Announces New Enhancements to Wireless Emergency 
Alerts are Now Available, PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, Public Notice (2019).
87 Verizon Comments at 5.
88 Id.; see also CTIA Comments at 21 (“The Commission’s proposed timelines for implementation of changes to the 
WEA system fail to reflect the possibility of delayed development if more than one enhancement moves forward in 
parallel.  For example, the Commission’s estimate that 30 months from publication in the Federal Register would be 
sufficient for enhanced language support and performance reporting, and 36 months for multimedia capabilities, 
ignores the realities of developing and implementing each of these capabilities”).
89 CCA Comments at 10-12 (“smaller carriers will need sufficient time to implement the proposals”).
90 We note that, in proposing to require compliance within 30 months of the rule’s publication in the Federal 
Register, the Commission used the same record-supported analysis as it has relied upon since 2016.  See 2016 WEA 
R&O and FNPRM at 11161-62, para. 79.  I.e., 12 months for appropriate industry bodies to finalize and publish 
relevant standards, 12 months for Participating CMS Providers and device manufacturers to develop and integrate 
software upgrades consistent with those standards, and an additional six months to deploy this technology in WEA-
capable-mobile devices. See 2016 WEA R&O at 11161-62, para. 79.  AT&T comments that the 12 months that we 
proposed to allow for standards development would be insufficient were we to have required support for multiple 
languages, multimedia content, and performance reporting, but we do not adopt a requirement to transmit 
multimedia content nor do we adopt a performance reporting requirement in this Report and Order.  See AT&T 
Comments at 31. 
91 2023 WEA FNPRM at para 77. Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
17Participating CMS Providers.  We also note that the Commission has historically not provided small 
businesses extra time to comply with its WEA rules.92   
28. Finally, we agree with LAAWW and the Attorneys General that languages should be 
maintained and reassessed to keep pace with evolving communities and technological capabilities.93  We 
therefore anticipate that, in the years to come, as technology evolves and as language needs change, we 
will continue to examine these issues to assess whether further adjustments are warranted.  
29. In order for a multilingual WEA to reach the intended recipient, the subscriber must first 
set the phone to the default language of their choice.  Raising public awareness about this critical step is 
an important component of ensuring consumers are able to take advantage of multilingual alerts.  Equally 
important is helping consumers understand how to set a WEA-capable device to a default language that 
enables them to receive multilingual alerts.  We encourage all stakeholders involved in the distribution of 
WEA (CMS providers, device retailers, alerting authorities, and consumer advocates) to conduct outreach 
to educate the public about setting their WEA-capable devices to their preferred language to receive 
multilingual alerts.  On our end, we also direct the Bureau to work with the Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau in creating a consumer guide that helps consumers learn about how to set their WEA-
enabled devices to their preferred language and making the guide available in the 13 languages that we 
are requiring for WEA today and ASL.
B. Integrating Location-Aware Maps into Alert Messages
30. To help people personalize threats that potentially affect them, we require WEA-capable 
mobile devices to support the presentation of Alert Messages that link the recipient to a native mapping 
application on their mobile device to depict the recipient’s geographic position relative to the emergency 
incident. The map must include the following features: the overall geographic area, the contour of the area 
subject to the emergency alert within that geographic area, and the alert recipient’s location relative to 
these geographic areas.  We require this functionality only on devices that have access to a mapping 
application, 94 where the Alert Message’s target area is specified by a circle or polygon, and where the 
device has enabled location services and has granted location permissions to its native mapping 
application.  
31. The record demonstrates a compelling public safety need for WEA messages to include 
location-aware maps.95  Location-aware maps will personalize threats so recipients will more quickly 
understand whether an alert applies to them and hasten protective actions.  The Portland Regional 
92 See generally Amendments to Part 11 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System, Second 
Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, 33 FCC Rcd 1320 
(2018); 2016 WEA R&O at para. 82 (only allowing additional time for small businesses to comply with the alert 
logging requirement where the record showed that larger businesses were already in compliance, but smaller 
businesses were not); Third WEA R&O; The Commercial Mobile Alert System, Second Report and Order and 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, PS Docket No. 07-287, 23 FCC Rcd 10765 (2008); The Commercial 
Mobile Alert System, First Report and Order, PS Docket No. 07-287 (2008).
93 LAAWW Comments at 3-4; Attorneys General Comments at 2.
94 Letter from Scott K. Bergmann, Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA, to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, FCC, 4 (rec. Oct. 6, 2023).
95 Advocacy Groups for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Comments at 7; APCO Comments at 2-3; Colorado Alerting 
Authorities Comments at 15; County of San Diego Comments at 3; King County Comments at 2; LAAWW 
Comments at 3; Michigan State Police OMS Comments at 3; NOAA/NWS Comments at 2-3 (lending support for 
this functionality, but also commenting on the need for maps to reflect threats in motion); NYCEM Comments at 4-
5; Portland Regional Disaster Preparedness Organization comments at 3; Sonoma County Comments at 2; USGS 
Comments at 5 (noting that location-aware maps may be useful for situational awareness after an earthquake’s initial 
shaking has passed, but they are unsure if that information meets the requirements for sending a WEA); see also 
Verizon Reply at 3 (“The comments of industry and public safety commenters show common ground in support of 
the targeted multimedia capabilities Verizon recommends, including location-aware maps”).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
18Disaster Preparedness Organization comments that “[o]ne of the most common complaints about WEAs 
is the lack of a map to show exactly which areas are impacted.”96  According to NYCEM, ATIS, the 
County of San Diego, Language & Accessibility in Alert & Warning Workgroup, and Michigan State 
Police OMS, location-aware maps would allow alert recipients to more easily understand whether an 
Alert Message is intended for them.97  We agree with NYCEM that this will, in turn, spur people to take 
actions to protect their lives and property more quickly than they otherwise might, including in situations 
where a timely response can save lives.98  We also agree with ATIS that location-aware maps could 
mitigate the effects of target area overshoot.99  
32. We find that it is technically feasible to present location-aware maps, provided location 
services are enabled and permissions for its use are granted to the native mapping application.  Notably, 
CSRIC VIII finds that it is technically feasible to integrate location-aware maps into WEA, stating that “if 
the Alert Area is defined [by a circle or polygon,] the WEA text could be displayed on the device along 
with a map of the Alert Area and an indication on the map of the recipient’s location.”100  Further, we 
require this feature only where the target area is described as a circle or polygon because, as CSRIC VIII 
noted in its recent report on the feasibility of location-aware maps in connection with WEA, pursuant to 
our rules and relevant standards, these are the only target area descriptions that are transmitted to mobile 
devices.101  Mobile devices will need these target area descriptions to graphically depict the Alert 
Message’s target area within the native mapping application.  We also agree with NYCEM that such a 
mapping capability should only be required where location services are enabled and permissions for its 
use are granted to the native mapping application, because “most modern devices require user permission 
for locations services to work.”102  We defer to industry to specify through the standards process exactly 
how WEA-capable mobile devices may connect the end user to the WEA-enabled map.  We only require 
that Participating CMS Providers’ WEA-capable mobile devices clearly present the map or the option to 
access the map concurrent with the Alert Message.  A few ways this might be achieved are for WEA-
capable mobile devices to display a WEA-enabled map within the WEA message itself, to display a 
clickable link to a native mapping application within the WEA message, or to provide a link via a 
separate pop-up message that directs the user to the WEA-enabled map.103  No additional information 
96 Portland Regional Disaster Preparedness Organization Comments at 3.
97 ATIS Comments at 13 (“[t]his proposed WEA enhancement will allow users to better understand whether the alert 
applies to their locations”); NYCEM Comments at 5 (“NYCEM agrees with the CSRIC VIII recommendation that 
location-aware maps be included in WEA messages to allow the user to better personalize the alert and take 
action”); County of San Diego Comments at 3; LAAWW Comments at 3; Michigan State Police OMS Comments at 
3.
98 ATIS Comments at 13; NYCEM Comments at 5.
99 ATIS Comments at 28 (“If presentation has occurred outside the Alert Area boundaries because location could not 
be acquired, the user will be better able to understand whether there is a need to act”).
100 CSRIC VIII API Report at 12.
101 See 47 CFR 10.450(a); see also ATIS Device-Based Geofencing Standard at 2 (defining Warning Area 
Coordinates Information Element as including polygons and circles, but not geocodes); CSRIC VIII WEA API 
Report at 14.  When a geocode is used to define the target area for a WEA alert, it is used to target distribution of the 
alert but then that data is stripped out prior to transmission to mobile devices.
102 NYCEM Comments at 4-5 (noting that this would require a consumer device to have location services enabled 
and permissions granted, but that for those that do this, this change “would allow the user to better personalize the 
alert and take action”).  
103 Advocacy Groups for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Comments at 7 (“The Commenters support requiring 
Participating CMS Providers to support (to the extent technically feasible) the presentation of location-aware maps 
in WEA messages”); Colorado Alerting Authorities Comments at 15 (“Maps available via a link should convey 
critical location awareness information”); CSRIC VIII API Report at 12-14; LAAWW Comments at 3 (“LAAWW 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
19would need to be broadcast over CMS Provider infrastructure to enable this functionality under any of 
these approaches.104  See Figure 1 below for an example of how a WEA location-aware map could look.
Figure 1.
Figure 1 is based on the look and feel of a common native mapping application using default settings.  
The red circle represents the Alert Message’s geographic target area and the blue dot with a lighter blue 
uncertainty area around it represents the user’s location.  We do not share some commenters’ concerns 
that the inclusion of location-aware maps may require further study to ensure they do not confuse 
consumers.105  Consumers regularly use the mapping applications in which the WEA target areas will be 
agrees alerting text should include a link to a map”); NOAA/NWS Comments at 2 (“Mobile devices should support 
location aware maps where the user clicks a button below the WEA message to open a map”).
104 Accordingly, whereas the Commission proposed to codify this requirement as an Alert Message requirement for 
Participating CMS Providers, the record shows that the only changes needed to effectuate this functionality are in 
the mobile device, so we codify it as an equipment requirement instead.    
105 FEMA Comments at 6 (“FEMA encourages behavioral and social science experts to address the benefits or 
detriments associated with the inclusion of location-aware maps in WEA. FEMA IPAWS has engaged with several 
experts in the field and there is some concern that the inclusion of a map may delay action or create confusion 
among some of the population as to where they are currently in the map”); Jeanette Sutton Comments at 1 (“disaster 
researchers have not yet established how maps should be presented, their effectiveness of communicating the area 
under threat, and the ability of public message receivers to accurately assess their threat based upon maps”); AT&T 
Comments at 14-15; ATIS Comments at 13.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
20presented and are already familiar with how those applications display user location relative to geographic 
features.  
33. We require Participating CMS Providers to comply with this requirement 36 months from 
the rule’s publication in the Federal Register, as proposed.106  We find that 36 months allows more than 
sufficient time for Participating CMS Providers to complete of all necessary steps to make location-aware 
maps available to their subscribers, including technical design, standards development, testing, and 
deployment.107  We note that no commenter demonstrated that compliance in this timeframe would be a 
technological impossibility.  According to ATIS, “[l]ocation-aware maps will require updates to the ATIS 
Mobile Device Behavior specification and design and development of mobile devices.”108  CSRIC VIII 
recommended ATIS develop standards and best practices for this functionality.109  AT&T comments that 
ATIS has already begun this work.110  Because ATIS has already begun this work and we believe 
requirement is less complex than others we have required to be implemented in similar timeframes, we 
believe that 30 months would be sufficient.111  However, we note that AT&T, Verizon, and CTIA’s raise 
concerns that the required adoption of several new WEA capabilities may create resource constraints and 
cause delays to deployment.  For example, Verizon comments that the “proposed compliance deadline . . . 
may be feasible provided that . . . service providers, handset manufacturers and solution vendors are all 
engaged in implementation” and provided that it is not required to implement WEA performance 
106 2023 WEA FNPRM at para. 78; see Wireless Emergency Alerts; Amendments to Part 11 of the Commission’s 
Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 
FCC Rcd 11112 (2016) (previously, 30 months was the longest the Commission had ever allowed for a compliance 
timeframe); see also See Amendments to Part 11 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System, 
Second Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, 33 FCC Rcd 
1320, paras. 12-14 (2018) (CSRIC V proposed a compliance timeframe of 42 months for enhanced geo-targeting, 
but the Commission required compliance in less than two years).
107 See CSRIC VIII WEA API Report at 14-15 (stating that consultation with experts in mobile accessibility should 
be included in the location-aware map design process and that the best approach for designing and displaying 
graphics and minimizing network impact should be studied), 26-27 (recommending that the Commission’s 
compliance timeframe for this requirement allow industry 18-24 months for WEA stakeholder collaboration, 
usability testing, and standards/best practices development and an additional 18-24 months for mobile device/OS 
deployments, for a total of 36-48 months).  See also Letter from Scott K. Bergmann, Senior Vice President, 
Regulatory Affairs, CTIA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, 4 (rec. Oct. 6, 2023) (arguing that study of the 
accessibility of maps should be part of the implementation process).
108 ATIS Comments at 13-14.
109 CSRIC VIII API Report at 12 (recommending that ATIS, with input from public warning risk communications 
experts and from alert originators, should develop standards and best practices for multimedia alerting).
110 AT&T Comments at 14-15 (“ATIS currently is considering how to enable WEA messages to utilize available 
location information and harness native mapping solutions on capable devices”).
111 See Amendments to Part 11 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System, Second Report 
and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, 33 FCC Rcd 1320, paras. 14, 49 
(2018).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
21reporting requirements at the same time.112  We grant Participating CMS Providers an additional six 
months to implement mapping to accommodate their concerns.113  
34. As noted by CSRIC VIII, a WEA-enabled map may not be accessible to screen readers, 
which means the map may not be useful to blind and low vision individuals.114  To ensure that this 
mapping capability is accessible to as many people as possible and that the inclusion of maps enhances 
the effectiveness of WEA, we encourage alerting authorities to continue to include a text-based 
description of the Alert Message’s target area in their Alert Message.  This is of service to a broad range 
of users, including those individuals who choose not to enable location services or grant location 
permissions to their device’s native mapping application, or those who use legacy devices without such an 
application.  This will contribute to the overall clarity of the Alert Message and enable those with vision 
impairments and other access and function needs to understand the geographic area affected by an 
emergency by using screen readers to understand the Alert Message’s text.115  We also expect industry to 
consult with mobile accessibility experts in the process of standardizing and developing this functionality 
to determine whether there are advances in technology that would allow location information in the map, 
as well as the user’s location, to be accessible to screen readers.116
C. WEA Performance and Public Awareness Testing
35. To allow alerting authorities to develop a better understanding of how WEA operates 
within their unique jurisdictions and circumstances and to engage in important public awareness 
exercises, we require Participating CMS Providers to support up to two end-to-end WEA tests, per county 
(or county equivalent), per year, that consumers receive by default.117  In advance of conducting such a 
“WEA Performance and Public Awareness Test,” an alerting authority must do the following: 1) conduct 
outreach and notify the public in advance of the planned WEA test and that no emergency is, in fact, 
occurring; 2) include in its test message that the alert is “only a test”; 3) coordinate the test among 
Participating CMS Providers that serve the geographic area targeted by the test, state, local, and Tribal 
emergency authorities, relevant State Emergency Communications Committees (SECCs), and first 
112 Verizon Comments at 5; see also CTIA Comments at 21 (“The Commission’s proposed timelines for 
implementation of changes to the WEA system fail to reflect the possibility of delayed development if more than 
one enhancement moves forward in parallel.  For example, the Commission’s estimate that 30 months from 
publication in the Federal Register would be sufficient for enhanced language support and performance reporting, 
and 36 months for multimedia capabilities, ignores the realities of developing and implementing each of these 
capabilities”); AT&T Comments at 31-32 (noting that “the Commission’s estimated allotment of 12 months to work 
through appropriate standards bodies for changes that require software and firmware updates—which would include 
the support for multiple languages, multimedia content, and performance reporting requirements—is insufficient”).
113 The WEA performance reporting requirements the Commission sought comment on in the 2023 WEA FNRPM 
remain pending.  See 2023 WEA FNPRM at paras. 47-64.
114 See CSRIC VIII API Report at 14.
115 Blind Advocacy Groups Comments at 2 (“Many people who are blind already use the built-in screen reading 
functions on their phone” and also urging that geographic area elements be readable by screen readers).  Screen 
readers are unable to read maps without specifically provisioned “alternative text.” Alternative text (alt text) is a 
written description of an online image that provides a description of an image when an image is inaccessible to the 
user. See Rachel Handley, What is Alt Text? (May 22, 2023), https://www.semrush.com/blog/alt-text/. 
116 Blind Advocacy Groups Comments at 4 (discussing best practices to access multimedia content which includes 
using WCAG when possible).  See, e.g., W3C WAI tutorials on describing images:  
https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/informative/; https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/complex/.
117 Alerting authorities may continue to use any Alert Message classification for these tests.  A WEA Performance 
and Public Awareness Test is not a new or discrete Alert Message classification.  Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
22responder organizations;118 and 4) provide notification to the public in widely accessible formats that the 
test is only a test and is not a warning about an actual emergency.  We observe that these conditions also 
attend alerting authorities’ conduct of EAS “Live Code” Tests, which the public receives by default.  
Commenters state that these conditions are also reasonable to apply in the WEA context.119  Permitting 
alerting authorities to conduct limited WEA Performance and Public Awareness Testing as a matter of 
course will boost alerting authority and consumer confidence in WEA, allow alerting authorities to 
determine if the communications tools they wish to use, such as website hyperlinks embedded in WEA 
messages, will function as intended when needed, and provide WEA stakeholders with a way to assess 
Participating CMS Providers’ performance of WEA.120  WEA Performance and Public Awareness Tests 
will also allow alerting authorities to raise awareness about the types of disasters to which a region is 
susceptible121 and provide alerting authorities with the ability to verify how changes in wireless providers’ 
service offerings affect the local availability of WEA.122  By making it easier for alerting authorities to 
conduct effective WEA tests, this action will make WEA more effective overall. 
36. We limit the number of WEA Performance and Public Awareness Tests that Participating 
CMS Providers must support each year by county or county equivalent (for example, by Tribal land), 
rather than by alerting authority, as proposed.123  We agree with King County and CTIA that limiting the 
number of permissible tests by alerting authority may be insufficient to mitigate the risk of alerting 
fatigue because people in counties over which alerting authorities have overlapping jurisdictions could 
118 Consistent with our work under the Safe Connections Act, we recommend that Participating CMS Providers and 
alerting authorities consider notifying domestic violence support organizations, so that these organizations can in 
turn advise those at risk who may have secret phones to turn off their phones in advance of the test.  See Maura 
Zurick, “Domestic Violence Victims Warned Over Phone Alert,” Newsweek (Oct. 3, 2023), 
https://www.newsweek.com/domestic-violence-victims-warned-national-emergency-alert-1831911.
119 47 CFR § 11.61(a)(5); King County Comments (“We believe that requiring pre-test outreach and coordination to 
be reasonable”); USGS at 6 (“The USGS finds the specified conditions to be reasonable”).  We decline to require 
alert originators to keep records regarding compliance with these conditions as some support.  See ATIS Comments 
at 21; see also USGS Comments at 6.  Because these are the same conditions that support live code EAS testing, we 
believe alert originators are familiar with and have demonstrated a history of compliance with our rules.
120 AT&T Comments at 4; County of San Diego Comments at 4 (“The County of San Diego recommends regular 
live WEA testing be completed by the mobile carriers and the FCC to validate carrier compliance with WEA rules 
and regulations”); NYCEM Comments at 8 (“NYCEM also agrees that WEA tests are a useful way to ensure 
operational readiness and proficiency training . . . NYCEM often uses a link to the Notify NYC website for photo-
hosting, and in the past, it has caused traffic management issues.  Updates to the site’s infrastructure cannot be fully 
tested until the next emergency without conducting an end-to-end test”); Verizon Comments at 13 (“Expanding 
‘live’ state and local government tests . . . may improve consumer education and alert originator awareness).
121 Amendments to Part 11 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System, Order, PS Docket 
Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, at 1 (Mar. 15, 2023) (VITEMA proposes to conduct this test as part of its annual Caribe 
Wave Tsunami Awareness exercise, which it conducts due to the elevated risk that this type of natural disaster poses 
to the people of the U.S. Virgin Islands).
122 Amendments to Part 11 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System, Order, PS Docket 
Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, at 3 (Dec. 21, 2022) (“The Montana DOJ Letter also notes other purposes of this test: 
verifying the effectiveness of Montana’s entire AMBER Alert process; verifying successful alerts processing after 
major software upgrades were completed by the Montana National Weather Service in Great Falls, Montana; 
verifying the distribution of alerts in rural Eastern Montana after reports of carrier issues; verifying the distribution 
of alerts after the expansion of carrier coverage; and confirming the effectiveness of IPAWS solutions after 
enhancements were made to CodeRED”).
123 2023 WEA FNPRM at para. 36, Appendix A.  Incidental overshoot into a county due to another county’s test does 
not count against the number of tests a county is allowed to conduct that intentionally cover that county.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
23receive a “countless number of additional WEA tests each year.”124  We recognize that public-facing tests 
can potentially result in consumers opting out of WEA or diminish the perceived urgency of responding 
to emergency alerts.125  The outreach that we require alerting authorities to undertake in advance of 
issuing a WEA Performance and Public Awareness Test also helps to address commenters’ concerns 
about alert fatigue.126  We distinguish the negative affect that erroneous WEA tests can have on public 
confidence in WEA  from WEA Performance and Public Awareness Tests issued pursuant to the 
requirements we adopt today. 127  Alerting authorities have the discretion and judgment to test WEA in a 
way that serves the interests of their communities. 
37. With these revisions, we remove regulatory obstacles to WEA performance testing and 
reduce time and cost burdens on alert originators by eliminating the need to obtain a waiver.  Today, 
alerting authorities may conduct end-to-end tests of the WEA system only using a State/Local WEA Test, 
which the public does not receive by default.  Instead, only those people who affirmatively opt in to 
receive State/Local WEA tests will receive them.  Alerting authorities currently must obtain a waiver to 
conduct WEA tests that the public receives by default.  King County, USGS, and Portland Regional 
Disaster Preparedness Organization state that this can be cumbersome and places an unnecessary 
administrative burden on alerting authorities and CMS Providers128  By doing away with this paperwork 
requirement, we enable alerting authorities to more easily access this important tool.  
38. Our experience with “Live Code” EAS tests over the years suggests that two WEA 
Performance and Public Awareness Tests per year is sufficient to meet alerting authorities’ public safety 
objectives and that the preconditions pursuant to which they are issued are effective at limiting the 
potential for public confusion.  The Commission has found that effective public awareness testing helps 
124 CTIA Comments at 20; King County Comments at 3 (also noting that “giving every eligible authority two live 
code tests per year could theoretically cause residents of a jurisdiction such as King County to receive more than 80 
live tests per year, or on average one every 4½ days”).
125 CTIA Comments at 20; ATIS Comments at 20.
126 ATIS Comments at 20 (“ATIS WTSC strongly believes that multiple or overlapping jurisdictions should be 
expected to coordinate and stagger/consolidate their tests to avoid alert fatigue”); CTIA Comments at 8, 20; 
LAAWW Comments at 5 (“LAAWW recommends WEA testing be completed in a controlled setting to avoid 
over￿alerting by using broad￿based live testing on channels that could potentially be opted out of should regular 
testing be perceived as a nuisance instead of the intended value assuring alerting systems are working properly”); 
Michigan State Police OMS Comments at 4; NYCEM Comments at 4, 8-9 (“While it is important to educate the 
public, alert fatigue would be felt heavily here, likely resulting in opt-outs . . . NYCEM fully agrees with the FCC’s 
proposal to allow for two end-to-end WEA tests per year so long as the four outlined conditions are met . . . 
amending the rules will likely increase alert fatigue; however, with proper outreach as outlined in the Commission’s 
conditions, alerting authorities can mitigate this.  Strong coordination should be required across overlapping 
jurisdictions to ensure no geographical area is targeted more than twice per year”); see also NYS DHSES Comments 
at 2 (“We agree that increased WEA testing, especially when visible to all consumers by default, risks increasing 
alerting fatigue among the public and could result in more people turning off WEA alerts, hindering the objectives 
of WEA alerting . . . Therefore, we support requiring coordination in overlapping geographic areas, to reduce 
duplicative testing, and we support requiring notification to state and local emergency authorities before tests are 
performed”). 
127 ATIS Comments at 20 (referencing a test in Florida that was accidentally sent using the attention signal during 
late night hours). 
128 See King County Comments at 3 (“We support the proposal to allow alerting authorities to send live test 
messages without having to use the cumbersome waiver process”); see also Portland Regional Disaster Preparedness 
Organization at 3 (“We support the proposal to allow alerting authorities to send live test messages without having 
to use the cumbersome waiver process”); USGS Comments at 6 (“The USGS ShakeAlert System would benefit 
from the ability to do two end-to-end WEA tests per alerting authority each year without waivers”).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
24the public to understand how to respond to WEAs in the event of an actual emergency.129  Verizon states 
that public-facing tests can be a valuable public education tool.130  NYCEM states that it needs to be able 
to conduct tests that the public receives by default to ascertain whether the servers on which it hosts the 
web content that they embed in WEAs have sufficient capacity to handle the increase in load generated by 
sending a WEA that contains an embedded link.131  We note that alert originators who wish to conduct 
additional testing may continue to utilize the State/Local WEA test code, which allows alert originators to 
send test messages only to those who proactively opt in to receive them.  As the Commission noted in the 
2023 WEA FNPRM, we continue to believe that State/Local WEA Tests are valuable tools for system 
readiness testing and proficiency training.  To the extent State/Local WEA Tests are used for proficiency 
training and alerting authorities’ system checks, the fact that the public does not receive State/Local WEA 
Tests by default is beneficial.132
39. Alerting authorities can use WEA Performance and Public Awareness Tests as a tool to 
gather data about how WEA works in practice, as the Commission has done repeatedly over the years.133  
Multiple alerting authorities highlight the importance of receiving data about how WEA performs in their 
local jurisdictions.134  State/Local WEA Tests may be less effective than WEA Performance and Public 
Awareness Tests for this purpose because the amount of data that transmission of a State/Local WEA Test 
can generate is limited by the number of people within the target area that have affirmatively opted in to 
129 Amendments to Part 11 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System, PS Docket Nos. 15-
91 and 15-94, Order (Jul. 29, 2019) (approving a testing waiver in Hamilton County, Ohio in response to “the 
significant need to explain and test this emergency public information tool”). 
130 APCO Comments at 5; King County Comments at 3 (“We support the proposal to allow alerting authorities to 
send live test messages without having to use the cumbersome waiver process”); USGS Comments at 6; Verizon 
Comments at 13 (“Expanding ‘live’ state and local government tests, for example, may improve consumer education 
and alert originator awareness, and in some respects resembles the periodic test alerts used for EAS and tornado 
sirens”).
131 NYCEM Comments at 8 (“For example, as previously noted, NYCEM often uses a link to the Notify NYC 
website for photo-hosting, and in the past, it has caused traffic management issues. Updates to the site’s 
infrastructure cannot be fully tested until the next emergency without conducting an end-to-end test.”).
132 2023 WEA FNPRM at para. 34.
133 See Report: August 11, 2021 Nationwide WEA Test, Docket Nos. 15-91, 15-94 (“On August 11, 2021, FEMA, in 
coordination with the Federal Communications Commission (Commission), conducted a nationwide test of Wireless 
Emergency Alerts (WEA), which is a system designed to notify the public through their mobile devices about 
emergencies that may affect them.  The 2021 nationwide WEA test was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of 
WEA to distribute an emergency message nationwide”); see also September 2022 WEA Performance Exercise, 
Docket No. 15-91, 15-94 (asserting that the purpose of the 2022 test was to gain knowledge on the speed, accuracy, 
and reliability of WEA alerts). 
134 NYCEM Comments at 8 (“The value of the data gathered from an end-to-end system test can be seen following 
the localized WEA tests conducted by 37 emergency management agencies in September 2022.  The data presented 
in the report shows that 91.1% of the 12,000 volunteers located within the targeted areas received a test alert.  In a 
densely populated urban area such as New York City, the 8.9% of targeted devices that did not receive the WEA 
would equate to over 750,000 people not being alerted.  The report also highlighted a disparity in WEA overshoot, 
with a median delivery distance of 3.13 miles, a significant amount of people in an urban environment. The findings 
of this data prove additional testing is needed to support further development given the disparities in the expected 
performance of WEA”); OR-Alert Governance Committee Comments at 1 (“Testing would be much more 
successful and beneficial if we, as alerting authorities, could understand how and where the message was delivered, 
how far outside of the intended polygon the message actually went, and other metrics”); Portland Regional Disaster 
Preparedness Organization Comments at 3 (“Testing would be much more useful if alert originators could 
understand if and how WEAs are received”).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
25receive tests of this type.135  To further facilitate WEA testing for this purpose, we offer alerting 
authorities access to a Commission survey instrument that has proven effective at gathering data about 
WEA’s reliability, accuracy, and speed.136  While we continue to evaluate the record on our proposed 
performance reporting requirements,137 we believe that this revision of our testing rules will at least help 
address alerting authorities’ immediate needs for WEA performance information in their jurisdictions. 
40. We require Participating CMS Providers to comply with this requirement within 30 days 
of the Federal Register’s publication of notice that OMB has completed its review of these information 
collection requirements, as proposed.  No commenter objected to this proposal. 
D. Establishing a WEA Database for Availability Reporting
41. To equip alerting authorities with information that allows them to prepare for reliable 
emergency communications during disasters, we require all CMS Providers to refresh their WEA election 
status by filing this information in an electronic database hosted by the Commission.  The WEA Database 
will be an interactive portal where CMS Providers submit information about the availability of WEA on 
their networks.  CMS Providers are required to attest whether they participate in WEA “in whole” 
(meaning that they have “agreed to transmit WEA Messages in a manner consistent with the technical 
standards, protocols, procedures, and other technical requirements implemented by the Commission in the 
entirety of their geographic service area,” and that all mobile devices that they offer at the point of sale 
are WEA-capable), “in part” (meaning that that they offer WEA but the geographic service area condition 
does not apply, the mobile device condition does not apply, or both), or they may elect not to 
participate.138  Currently, CMS Providers have filed their WEA election attestations in a static format in a 
Commission docket, and many have not been updated since they were first filed over a decade ago.139  
42. The WEA Database will aggregate WEA participation information in one location for 
ease of access and understanding, increasing its utility for emergency planning purposes and for the 
public.  We agree with New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services that 
135 See King County Comments at 3 (“While the opt-in WEA test function can be helpful, we do not have any 
information on differences that may exist between how live messages and test messages are handled and 
disseminated, so it is difficult to have confidence in the results of tests sent using the test system”).  Alerting 
authorities still may use State/Local WEA Tests at their discretion to assess WEA’s performance.  To the extent that 
alert originators are able to use these tests to generate data about WEA performance, that data should be 
representative of WEA’s actual performance during an emergency because Participating CMS Providers are 
required to transmit State/Local WEA Tests in a manner that complies with the Alert Message Requirements 
specified in Subpart D.  See 47 CFR § 10.350(c).  Aside from the fact that the public does not receive State/Local 
WEA Tests by default, Participating CMS Providers transmit them like any other Alert Message. 
136  September 2022 WEA Performance Exercise, 14-19 (Apr. 24, 2023) 
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-392829A1.pdf.  We direct the Bureau to develop translations of the 
survey materials in the 13 languages we require Participating CMS Providers to support for multilingual alerting as 
well as ASL.
1372023 WEA FNPRM at para 55 (“To help measure and enforce compliance with our proposed performance 
requirements, as well as to help public safety stakeholders understand how WEA works in their respective areas, we 
propose that Participating CMS Providers submit data to the Commission regarding WEA’s reliability, accuracy and 
speed using the WEA Database.  In doing so, we also address and build on the record developed in our 2022 Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2022 FNPRM), where public safety commenters argue that performance reporting 
would directly assist them in using WEA effectively, and that reliability, speed, and accuracy are the most important 
performance metrics on which Participating CMS Providers should report”), 2023 WEA FNPRM at para 63 (seeking 
comments on alternative performance reporting approaches).
138 47 CFR § 10.10(k) (in whole); 47 CFR § 10.10(k) (in part); see also 2023 WEA FNPRM at 22-23, paras. 38-40.  
We decline AT&T’s request that we redefine “in whole” WEA participation to exclude mobile device support.  See 
AT&T Comments at 27-28.  This issue is outside of the scope of this proceeding.
139 See PS Docket No. 08-146. Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
26“[a]lerting authorities benefit from knowing which CMS providers support WEA, in which geographic 
areas, and for which mobile devices.”140  CTIA argues that “[n]o evidence suggests that the public is 
unaware that WEA is available in virtually every area of the country,”141 but that statement disregards the 
alerting authorities’ perspective that they need nuanced information about WEA’s availability, 
specifically if WEA is not available in every CMS network in their alert and warning jurisdiction or in 
every geographic area in their alert and warning jurisdiction, so that they can make alternative 
arrangements to deliver emergency communications.142  While we acknowledge CTIA’s perspective that 
much of the information that the WEA Database will contain is already publicly available,143 the record 
shows that we can significantly increase this information’s utility by aggregating it in one place.  The 
New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services, for example, states that WEA 
participation “information is cumbersome for each alerting authority to gather, so having this available 
and up-to-date in one location would be a significant improvement over current practice.”144  To the 
extent that this information is already publicly available, however, we agree with Verizon that it will be 
minimally burdensome to provide.145  Aggregating this information in the WEA Database will also 
directly benefit consumers.  As Michigan State Police OMS and other alerting authorities state, “knowing 
the coverage area and capability of cell phones, consumers can make decisions about how they want to 
equip their own interests in receiving WEA.”146  Accordingly, we find that this requirement has potential 
to help people to protect their lives and property by encouraging and promoting the use of smartphones as 
emergency preparedness tools.
43. We require each CMS Provider to disclose the entities on behalf of which it files its 
election, irrespective of whether it elects to participate in WEA.  WEA election attestation disclosures 
must include (a) the name and WEA participation of the CMS Provider;147 (b) the name and WEA 
participation status of any subsidiary companies on behalf of which the CMS Provider’s election is 
140 NYS DHSES Comments at 2-3.
141 CTIA Comments at 15.
142 County of San Diego Comments at 5; see also Michigan State Police OMS Comments at 5-6 (“This will give 
Alert Originators the opportunity to find alternative methods to reach individuals and families with life-saving 
information”); see also NYCEM Comments at 9 (“Having knowledge of WEA dead zones would allow for alerting 
authorities to prepare alternate ways to alert the population outside of the service area”).
143 CTIA Comments at 15.
144 NYS DHSES Comments at 2-3.
145 Verizon Comment at 8 (“Providing biographical information such as the provider’s name, together with the brand 
names under which facilities-based service is offered, is appropriate. Such information is already provided and 
available and posted in other contexts, such as the FCC Form 499 and the Commission’s online Form 499 filer 
database.”).
146 See Michigan State Police OMS Comments at 3 (“The FCC should require carriers to fully report their level of 
participation, and ownership (holding companies, DBA’s, etc.) in a WEA Database.  Knowing the coverage area and 
capability of cell phones, consumers can make decisions about how they want to equip their own interests in 
receiving WEA and other wireless alerts.”); LAAWW Comment at 5; County of San Diego Comments at 4; PRDPO 
Comments at 4.
147 The Commission generally sought comment on how the Commission can leverage any relevant information that 
is available through CORES.  2023 WEA FNPRM at para 39. The Commission did not receive comment on this 
issue.  We believe that eliciting CMS Providers’ FCC Registration Numbers (FRNs) and Form 499 identifiers as 
part of this data collection would facilitate the association of data that the Commission already has about a CMS 
Provider with their WEA election.  This will allow the WEA Database to prepopulate that data in its election 
attestation form and ultimately reduce the burden of filing.  Below, we direct the Bureau to issue a PN to specify the 
details of how Participating CMS Providers enter data in the WEA Database, including how they identify 
themselves.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
27filed;148 (c) any “doing business as” names under which the CMS Provider or its subsidiaries offer 
wireless service to the public.  We agree with the King County Emergency Management that disclosing 
all of the names under which a CMS Provider does business is necessary for consumers to meaningfully 
access the information that the WEA Database contains because consumers will often only know a 
corporate entity by the name under which it markets service.149  Similarly, we find that requiring CMS 
Providers to separately identify its WEA participation status and that of each of its subsidiary entities is 
necessary to allow consumers to understand potential nuances in WEA participation among subsidiary 
entities owned or controlled by the same parent company.150  
44. To empower alerting authorities with information about where WEA is and is not 
available within their communities, we require Participating CMS Providers to disclose the geographic 
areas in which they offer WEA.  CMS Providers that offer WEA in an area that is geographically 
coextensive with their wireless voice coverage area may satisfy this requirement by simply attesting to 
that fact.  For each such provider, the Commission will use the Graphical Information System (GIS) voice 
coverage area map that the provider has already submitted to the Commission in furtherance of their 
obligations to the Commission’s Broadband Data Collection.151  We agree with AT&T that “[t]he use of 
the voice GIS coverage areas would minimize the reporting burden on CMSPs while providing Alert 
Originators with relevant information about the availability of WEA” because many CMS Providers 
likely already maintain information about their network coverage in GIS format.152  Verizon believes that 
most Participating CMS Providers do offer WEA in a geographic area that is coextensive with their 
wireless voice coverage area.153  For all such providers, the burden of compliance with this requirement 
will be negligible.  
45. CMS Providers that offer WEA in an area that is not co-extensive with their wireless 
voice coverage area must submit a geospatial data file compatible with the WEA Database describing 
their WEA coverage area to satisfy this requirement.  We disagree with Verizon and AT&T that the 
information about Participating CMS Providers’ wireless coverage areas that is publicly available today, 
including via the Commission’s National Broadband Map, is sufficient to inform alerting authorities’ use 
of WEA.154  CMS Providers that choose to participate in WEA in part do not attest that their WEA service 
148 Including when the subsidiary company is a Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO) or wireless reseller 
wholly-owned or operated by the CMS Provider.
149 See King County Comments at 4 (“We believe that commercial mobile service (CMS) providers should be 
required to file under their “doing business as” (d.b.a) name or the name that consumers would know them by: it 
does no good to most consumers to see that “Cellco Partnership” provides WEA coverage when they are looking for 
information on Verizon Wireless.”); The Commission notes that Cellco Partnership does business under the name of 
Verizon Wireless.  See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless, (Nov. 5, 
2020), https://www.gao.gov/products/b-418155.4%2Cb-418155.5.
150 I.e., when the CMS Provider’s participation status is different from an entity on behalf of which they file (e.g., 
where one participates in WEA “in whole” and the other “in part”).  
151 Federal Communications Commission Broadband Data Collection Help Center, Formatting Mobile Voice 
Availability Coverage Maps (June 22, 2022), https://help.bdc.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/articles/6047464151195-Formatting-
Mobile-Voice-Availability-Coverage-Maps.
152 AT&T Comments at 27; see also CTIA Reply at 13 (“Where WEA is available throughout the wireless 
provider’s network, the Broadband Data Collection information could be relied upon to show where WEA is 
available”); Verizon Comments at 9.
153 Verizon Comments at 9 (“Verizon expects that very few if any providers electing to participate in the WEA 
program do not transmit WEA alerts throughout their entire 4G coverage area”).
154 Verizon Comments at 9 (“The Commission’s own publicly-available mapping resources already provide the 
Commission and alert originators with granular information regarding a wireless provider’s LTE coverage, and 
nothing prevents alert originators and their vendors from using those resources to calibrate their alerting practices 
today”); AT&T Comments at 27.  See Federal Communications Commission Broadband Data Collection Help 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
28area is coextensive with their wireless voice coverage area.155  Without the additional attestation that the 
WEA Database will elicit, it would therefore be unreasonable for an alerting authority to infer that any 
information that these CMS Providers make available about their wireless voice coverage area is 
representative of their WEA service area.  
46. We require Participating CMS Providers to complete their WEA election attestation by 
submitting to the WEA Database a list of all the mobile devices they offer at the point of sale, indicating 
for each such device whether it is WEA-capable.  Participating CMS Providers will be able to fulfil this 
obligation by listing the devices that they sell and their WEA capabilities via the WEA Database’s online 
interface. 
47. Communities can only benefit from the many WEA enhancements that the Commission 
has required Participating CMS Providers to support to the extent that deployed mobile devices support 
them.  Creating an aggregated account of the WEA capabilities of the mobile devices that Participating 
CMS Providers sell will allow alerting authorities to understand the extent to which their communities 
will benefit from messages crafted to take advantage of modern WEA functionalities, such as a longer, 
360-character version of an Alert Message, a Spanish-language version of an Alert Message, or clickable 
hyperlinks.156  According to NYCEM, this information would “allow for jurisdictions to supplement the 
alert with additional messaging as needed.”157  APCO observes that this, in turn, will enable alerting 
authorities to use WEA more effectively as one emergency communications tool among many at their 
disposal.158  For these reasons, we do not share AT&T’s concern that “the Commission’s WEA Database 
is likely to suffer from the same underutilization as the Commission’s database of hearing-aid compatible 
devices.”159  Further, whereas the Hearing-Aid Compatible database is primarily intended to be consumer-
facing (and each consumer is likely most concerned with the compatibility of devices that they are 
personally considering for purchase from a particular provider), the publication of the WEA data that will 
be collected in the WEA Database is primarily intended for use by alerting authorities that need to have 
the wholistic view of the WEA capabilities of mobile devices in use in their communities that the WEA 
Database will provide.  
48. We direct the Bureau, in coordination with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and 
the Office of Economics and Analytics, to implement the requirements of this collection and the 
publication of the data collected.  We further direct the Bureau to publish information about how 
Participating CMS Providers will be able to submit their data and to announce when the WEA Database is 
ready to accept filings.  We require all CMS Providers, irrespective of whether they have already 
submitted a WEA election attestation in the WEA election docket, to refresh their elections to participate 
in WEA using the WEA Database within 90 days of the Bureau’s publication of a public notice 
announcing (1) OMB approval of any new information collection requirements or (2) that the WEA 
Database is ready to accept filings, whichever is later.  Most CMS Providers have not updated their 
Center, Formatting Mobile Voice Availability Coverage Maps (July 7, 2023), https://help.bdc.fcc.gov/hc/en-
us/articles/6047464151195-Formatting-Mobile-Voice-Availability-Coverage-Maps.
155 47 CFR § 10.10(l) (defining CMS Provider participation “in part”).
156 See NYCEM Comments at 9.
157 Id.
158 APCO Comments at 6.
159 AT&T Comments at 30-31 (“[I]n recently removing the burdensome requirements for wireless providers to 
report HAC devices into the Commission’s HAC database that was intended to inform the public of the availability 
of such devices, the Commission recognized that ‘[i]t is logical to assume that the typical consumer will turn to a 
company’s web site before thinking to look for a completed FCC form.’  Similarly, Alert Originators and wireless 
users are more likely to turn to CMSP websites to find useful information about WEA-capable devices than the 
Commission’s proposed WEA Database.”); ATIS Comments at 35; CTIA Comments at 15.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
29election to transmit alert messages since filing their initial election in 2008.160  As a result, we are 
concerned that many WEA elections could now be outdated and do not accurately reflect WEA’s current 
availability.161  We agree with Verizon that “refreshing service provider elections are sensible, given the 
time that has lapsed since service providers submitted their elections over a decade ago and the many 
intervening changes in the wireless industry.”162  We also allow Participating CMS Providers to use the 
WEA Database to notify the Commission of any change of their election to participate in WEA, whether 
that change be an increase or decrease in WEA participation.163  Participating CMS Providers must 
continue to notify new and existing subscribers of their withdrawal using the specific notification 
language required by the rules,164 which triggers a subscriber’s right to terminate their subscription 
without penalty or early termination fee.165  A CMS Provider withdraws from WEA if its participation 
status changes from “in whole” to “in part” or “no” or if it changes its participation status from “in part” 
to “no.”  The Commission proposed to require compliance with this requirement within 30 days of the 
publication of this public notice.166  On our own initiative, however, we extend this compliance timeframe 
to 90 days to allow Participating CMS Providers the 60-days’ notice that our rules require them to provide 
to their subscribers in advance of any withdrawal of their WEA participation.167  After refreshing their 
elections, we require Participating CMS Providers to update their WEA election information in the WEA 
Database biannually as we do with our Broadband Data Collection (BDC).168  While the FNPRM 
proposed for this information to be updated within 30 days of any change to a Participating CMS 
Provider’s WEA coverage areas or the WEA capabilities of the mobile devices it sells, but we are 
persuaded by CTIA and CCA that filing every 6 months (biannually) is consistent with our BDC 
requirements would accomplish our goals without unduly burdening Participating CMS Providers.169  
49. We are persuaded not to require Participating CMS Providers to provide an account of 
their roaming partners via the WEA Database at this time.  We agree with Verizon that “given the 
comprehensive roaming arrangements across the industry, maintaining this information would be too 
unwieldy for individual providers and result in confusing, duplicative information for consumers.”170  
50. We are also persuaded not to require CMS Providers to attest to the WEA capabilities of 
resellers of their facilities-based services at this time, unless those resellers are wholly-owned or 
160 See 2023 WEA FNPRM at 26, para. 46.
161 Id.
162 Verizon Comments at 8.
163 See 47 CFR § 10.220 (“A CMS provider that elects to transmit WEA Alert Messages, in part or in whole, may 
withdraw its election without regulatory penalty or forfeiture if it notifies all affected subscribers as well as the 
Federal Communications Commission at least sixty (60) days prior to the withdrawal of its election.”).
164 47 CFR § 10.240 (Notification to new subscribers of non-participation in WEA); 47 CFR § 10.250 (Notification 
to existing subscribers of non-participation in WEA).
165 47 CFR § 10.270 (Subscribers’ right to terminate subscription).
166 Id.
167 See 47 CFR § 10.220.
168 Below, we direct the Bureau to assess, in coordination with the Commission’s Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau and Office of Economics and Analytics the extent to which updates to geospatial voice coverage data in the 
Broadband Data Collection can automatically populate in the WEA Database, reducing the potential burden of 
compliance with this requirement. Information for Filers (Dec. 22, 2022), 
https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData/filers; 
169 Letter from Scott K. Bergmann, Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA, to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, FCC, 4-5 (rec. Oct. 6, 2023); Letter from Angela Simpson, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, 
Competitive Carriers Association, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, 1 (rec. Oct. 16, 2023).
170 Verizon Comments at 9.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
30controlled by the CMS Provider.171  We agree with CTIA that Participating CMS Providers should not be 
required to provide information to which they may not have access, such as participation information for 
entities they do not control.172  The record demonstrates that Participating CMS Providers may not have 
access to WEA participation information about Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs) or wireless 
resellers, even when they have a direct business relationship with such entities.  According to Verizon, 
“[f]acilities-based providers do not directly control and may not have direct visibility into the WEA 
capabilities of . . . MVNO/resellers’ customer devices, or all the particular facilities-based providers with 
whom the MVNO/reseller has a business relationship,”173 and that “CMS Providers do not ordinarily have 
visibility into whether a MVNO/reseller’s mobile devices are WEA-capable or the extent to which an 
MVNO/reseller is provisioning its own wireless RAN facilities, for example through CBRS spectrum.”174   
51.We also agree with Verizon, however, that “it is reasonable and appropriate for 
MVNO/resellers to publicly disclose the WEA capabilities of the devices and the facilities-based services 
they directly offer to their own customers” because of their significant role in the wireless marketplace.175  
We observe that many MVNOs and wireless resellers have elected to participate in WEA.  We encourage 
these entities to use the WEA Database to keep their WEA election information up to date so that alerting 
authorities and consumers can be informed about the extent to which they should expect WEAs to be 
delivered via their networks.176
52. We determine that information submitted to the WEA Database under the rules adopted 
today does not warrant confidential treatment and should be available to the public, as proposed.  We 
observe that the WEA availability information that Participating CMS Providers would submit to the 
WEA Database is already publicly available, although not aggregated with other WEA information.  The 
information that Participating CMS Providers would supply to the WEA Database about their WEA 
coverage area is already publicly available through the National Broadband Map, which makes available 
for download the mobile voice coverage areas collected through the Broadband Data Collection.  
Similarly, many Participating CMS Providers already make publicly available information about the 
WEA-capable mobile devices that they offer at the point of sale.  We do not believe that the public 
availability of this information raises any concerns about national security or competitive sensitivity, and 
it would not include any personally identifiable information or consumer proprietary network 
information.  No commenter objected to this proposal.177  
E. Legal Authority
53. We find that the Commission has ample legal basis to adopt the targeted revisions to the 
rules that we adopt today that are designed to make WEA more accessible to a wider range of people, 
including members of the public who primarily speak a language other than English or Spanish and 
171 See Letter from Taci Biswese, Vice President & Associate General Counsel, NCTA - The Internet & Television 
Association, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 1 (Rec. Sept. 15, 2023) (“Mobile Virtual Network Operators 
(MVNOs) that do not control the facilities providing WEA messages should not be required to formally elect 
whether to participate in WEA or otherwise report on the WEA capabilities of underlying mobile wireless network 
owners, nor should such network owners be required to report on the WEA capabilities of MVNOs”).
172 CTIA Comments at 16.
173 Verizon Comments at 8.  
174 Id.  
175 Id. at 9.
176 Some MVNOs have elected to participate in WEA.  See, e.g., Letter from Patrick Fonzo, Compliance Officer, 
Google North America, Inc. to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC at 1 (Apr. 28, 2015); Letter from Jean Parker, 
Legal Director, CREDO Mobile, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC at 1 (Aug. 16, 2012).  The Commission does 
not have election information for many others.  
177 2023 WEA FNPRM at 36, paras. 69-71.  The Commission considers requests that materials or information 
submitted to the Commission be withheld from public inspection pursuant under 47 CFR § 0.459.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
31people with disabilities.  These amendments are grounded in our authority under the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended, as well as the WARN Act.178  We reject commenters’ assertions to the contrary.
54. CCA contends179 that there are limits on the Commission’s authority to adopt 
enhancements to the system given the timing specifications in the WARN Act180 and its provision that the 
Commission “shall have no rulemaking authority under this chapter, except as provided in subsections 
(a), (b), (c), and (f).”181  
55. Consistent with the WARN Act, WEA “enable[s] commercial mobile service alerting 
capability for commercial mobile service providers that voluntarily elect to transmit emergency alerts.”182 
The WEA system is a voluntary program designed to deliver life-saving emergency information to the 
public, and the Commission has worked hard to build enhancements into the system since it was created.  
The system now includes embedded links to additional information, Spanish-language alerts, and 
geotargeting designed to help messages reach the intended audience that needs the information to act in 
an emergency.183  Today’s improvements, which will help reach audiences that speak additional 
languages or that have disabilities that could limit WEA’s utility in its present form, build on these prior 
efforts.  Those providers opting to support the system must be prepared to accommodate these 
enhancements and to follow the rules that the Commission adopts.  
56. With that important context in mind, we find no merit in CCA’s contentions. Contrary to 
CCA’s view, the time periods set out in subsections (a), (b), and (c) only established deadlines for initial 
actions on the directives described in those provisions.  Moreover, we note that subsection (f), which is 
also referenced in subsection (d), contains no deadline for the Commission’s regulatory authority over 
WEA technical testing.184  Under CCA’s interpretation of the statute, our WEA rulemaking authority 
would have lapsed after establishing initial rules in 2008; yet this reading is inconsistent with Congress’s 
amendment of the WARN Act in 2021, when it directed the Commission to examine the feasibility of 
expanding the reach of emergency alerts using new technologies.185  Over time, the Commission’s 
enhancements to WEA and Congress’s recognition of the importance of the system, including those 
enhancements, reflect Congress’s endorsement of how the Commission was exercising its authority under 
the WARN Act.  
57. In any event, however, the Commission’s legal authority concerning emergency alerts is 
based not solely on the provisions of the WARN Act but also on several provisions of the 
Communications Act, which is the backdrop against which Congress adopted the WARN Act.  In 
particular, section 303(b) directs the Commission to “[p]rescribe the nature of the service to be rendered” 
178 See 2023 WEA FNPRM at para. 103. 
179 See CCA Comments at 2; see also CCA Comments, PS Docket Nos. 15-91, 15-94 and 22-329, at 8-9 (filed Dec. 
23, 2022) (CCA Cybersecurity Comments); Verizon Comments at 15 & n.32 (contending that certain FNPRM 
questions “raise technical concerns as well as questions about the Commission’s authority to move the WEA system 
in such a fundamentally different direction”).
180 47 U.S.C. § 1201(a).
181 47 U.S.C. § 1201(d).
182 47 U.S.C. § 1201(a).
183  See 47 CFR §§ 10.320(d) (geographic targeting), 10.441 (embedded references), 10.480 (language support).  
184 See 47 U.S.C. § 1201(f) (“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.”).
185 See Section 9201 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, 
§ 9201(a), Pub. L. 116-283, 134 Stat. 3388.   Moreover, as noted above, a bipartisan group of lawmakers 
representing both chambers of Congress has expressed keen interest in continuing to upgrade WEA to support 
multilingual capabilities.  See supra note 38.  Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
32by licensees.186  The rule changes we make today do just that—lay down rules about the nature of services 
to be rendered by Participating CMS Providers.187  They do so pursuant to our finding that the “public 
convenience, interest, or necessity requires”188 doing so and in fulfillment of the statutory purpose of 
“promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications.”189  To the 
extent that section 602(d) of the WARN Act limits the Commission’s rulemaking authority, it does so 
only as to the authority granted under that Act and does not limit the Commission’s preexisting and well-
established authority under the Communications Act.190
F. Assessing the Benefits and Costs
58. We find that the benefits from the improvements made to WEA we adopt today exceed 
their cost.  In the 2023 WEA FNPRM, the Commission estimated that the proposed rules would result in 
an industry-wide, one-time compliance cost of $39.9 million and an annually recurring cost of $422,500 
to update the WEA standards and software necessary to comply with the rules adopted in this Report and 
Order.  While we do not adopt all the 2023 WEA FNPRM’s proposals, such as including thumbnail 
images, modifying the attention signal and vibration cadence capabilities, or requiring any performance-
related benchmarking or reporting, we believe that the 2023 WEA FNPRM’s estimate remains a 
reasonable ceiling for the cost of compliance with the rules that we adopt today.  The activities in which 
industry will engage to comply with the requirements we adopt today (the creation and revision of 
standards and the development and testing of software) are not easily amenable to subdivision based on 
lines of text written or lines of code programmed.  While the WEA standards will undoubtedly require 
less revision and less code will need to be written to comply with the requirements we adopt today, we do 
not attempt to quantify the extent of cost reduction that will result.  The record reflects the significant 
benefits arising from WEA support for additional functionalities, including enhancing language support 
and providing location-aware maps.  These enhanced functionalities of WEA will make WEAs 
comprehensible for some language communities for the first time, helping to keep these vulnerable 
communities safer during disasters.  These enhancements will also encourage consumers to remain opted-
in to receiving WEA messages and incentivize emergency managers that are currently not alerting 
authorities to become authorized with FEMA to use WEA as a tool for providing information in times of 
emergencies.  With increased participation by both consumers and emergency managers, WEAs will be 
more likely to be both sent and received, leading to an incremental increase in lives saved, injuries 
prevented, and reductions in the cost of deploying first responders.  We base our assessment of costs on 
the quantitative framework on which the Commission relied in the 2023 WEA FNPRM.191  We note that 
the Commission sought comment on the costs and benefits of our proposed rules in the 2023 WEA 
FNPRM,192 but received a sparse record in response, including no dollar figure estimates.193  Although 
186 47 U.S.C. § 303(b); see also id. § 301 (requiring licensees to operate only “under and in accordance with this 
chapter and with a license … granted under the provisions of this chapter”).
187 See Cellco Partnership v. FCC, 700 F.3d 534, 542 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (upholding section 303(b) as a basis to 
prescribe a data-roaming rule for licensees providing mobile-internet service).  As in Cellco, we read section 303(b) 
together with sections 303(r) and 316 as providing additional supporting authority.  See id. at 543.
188 47 U.S.C. § 303.
189 47 U.S.C. § 151.
190 To be clear, the phrase “this chapter” in 47 U.S.C. § 1201 refers to chapter 11 of title 47 of the United States 
Code and corresponds to the phrase “this title” in the original Security and Accountability for Every Port Act, which 
referred to title VI thereof, i.e. the WARN Act. 
191 2023 WEA FNPRM at 40-56, paras. 83-96.
192 Id. 
193 See, e.g., CCA Comments at 10 (“The FNPRM’s cost-benefit analysis severely underestimates the resources, 
timeframes, costs, and burdens associated with achieving and maintaining compliance with any new WEA 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
33most of the benefits are difficult to quantify, we believe they outweigh the overall costs of the adopted 
rules.  
1. Benefits
59. We believe that the rules we adopt today will result in benefits measurable in terms of 
lives saved and injuries and property damage prevented.194  We agree with Verizon that these rule changes 
could offer “tangible safety benefits to consumers and alert originators.”195  According to CTIA and 
Southern Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Southern Linc (Southern Linc), WEA has become one of 
the most effective and reliable alert and warning tools for public safety and the public.196  The 
requirements we adopt today will both promote the availability of those benefits for a greater number of 
people and enhance their benefit for those for whom they were already available.  We also recognize that 
it is difficult to assign precise dollar values to changes to WEA that improve the public’s safety, life, and 
health.197  
60.Making WEA Accessible to Millions of People Who Primarily Speak a Language Other 
Than English or Spanish .  Currently, the 76 CMS Providers participating in WEA send alerts to 75% of 
mobile phones in the country.198  Among the 26 million people who do not primarily speak English or 
Spanish, nearly 15.4 million speak primarily one of the 12 languages that we integrate into the WEA 
system in addition to English and Spanish.199  Assuming 66% of these individuals are covered by the 
WEA system,  approximately 11.5 million people who have been receiving WEA messages in languages 
they may have difficulty comprehending would understand the content of WEA messages under the 
proposed WEA language support.200  We agree with Verizon that “the public safety benefits to non-
requirements.  Significant additional standards work must occur before a clear picture of effort, cost, and timeline 
can be fully considered.”).
194 See Michele M. Wood, Dennis Mileti, Hamilton Bean, Brooke Liu, Jeannette Sutton, and Stephanie Madden, 
Milling and Public Warnings, 50 Environment and Behavior (2017), 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317242672_Milling_and_Public_Warnings.
195 Verizon Comments at 1.
196 CTIA Comment at 1. 
197 Resilient Networks, Report and Order, PS Docket 21-346, FCC 22-50, para. 46 (2022) (Resilient Networks 
Order) (“it would be impossible to quantify the precise financial value of these health and safety benefits”).
198 Fox News, FEMA tests ‘presidential alert’ to 225 million electronic devices, https://www.foxnews.com/us/fema-
tests-presidential-alert-to-225-million-electronic-devices (last visited Aug. 30, 2023) (“FEMA officials estimate 
nearly 75 percent of all mobile phones in the country, including major carriers, will receive the (presidential) alert”).
199 Among the 26 million people who do not primarily speak English or Spanish, 15,375,637 individuals speak one 
of the additional 12 languages that we propose to add to the WEA system.  Staff calculation based on Sandy Dietrich 
and Erik Hernandez, Language Use in the United States: 2019, page 8 (2022), 
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2022/acs/acs-50.pdf.  Assuming 75% of these 
individuals are able to receive WEA messages, approximately 10 million [15,375,637*75% = 9,994,164] additional 
people would receive these messages in the primary language they speak.
200 Assuming 75% of these individuals are able to receive WEA messages, approximately 11.5 million 
[15,375,637*75% = 11,531,728] additional people would receive these messages in the primary language they 
speak.  Numbering Resource Utilization/Forecast (NRUF) data show that, at year end-2021 in the United States, 
there were 439 million wireless connections, which are measured as phone numbers being assigned to mobile 
wireless devices.  See Communications Marketplace Report et al., GN Docket No. 22-203, Report, FCC 22-103, at 
56, para. 73 (Dec. 30, 2022).   The number of wireless connections greatly exceeds the U.S. population which was 
under 332 million based on 2020 U.S. Census data.  U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Census Bureau Today Delivers State 
Population Totals for Congressional Apportionment (Apr. 26, 2021), 
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/04/2020-census-data-release.html.  Although the connection count 
includes both traditional handsets and other connected devices, e.g., wearables, for simplicity, we assume that the 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
34English-speaking consumers and communities by improving access to life-saving information are self-
evident.”201  Even if alerts reach just 1% of this population per year (i.e., roughly 150,000 people) the 
potential of WEA to prevent property damage, injuries, and deaths could be enormous.  Further, over 12 
million people are with a hearing difficulty.202  Requiring Participating CMS Providers to provide 
subscribers with the ability to opt-in to receive ASL alerts would help effectively prevent property 
damages, injuries, and loss of life for these individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing.
61.Integrating Location-Aware Maps into Alert Messages.  Alert messages that link the 
recipient to a native mapping application would help the public to personalize alerts, allowing them to 
better understand the geographic area under threat and their location relative to it.203  We agree with ATIS 
and NYCEM that location-aware maps will provide the public with a better understanding of the 
emergency alerts they receive.204  It follows that this will likely cause recipients to take protective action 
more quickly than they otherwise would.  This requirement will yield particular benefits in the most time-
sensitive emergencies, such as earthquakes and wildfires, where every second can count. 
62.WEA Performance and Public Awareness Tests.  We agree with AT&T and Verizon, 
among others, that adopting rules to permit alerting authorities to conduct up to two WEA Performance 
and Public Awareness Tests per year may improve alerting authorities’ awareness of and confidence in 
WEA and provide alerting authorities with a tool to improve consumer education about and confidence in 
WEA.205  This awareness and education will result in more prompt and effective public response to WEAs 
when issued, potentially saving lives, protecting property, and reducing the cost of deploying first 
responders.  Further, this rule may encourage more alerting authorities to participate in WEA due to 
promoting a better understanding of it, and with increased participation by alerting authorities, more of 
the public will benefit from the lifesaving information conveyed by WEA.  We also agree with APCO 
that “[t]esting is fundamental to public safety communications and will improve the system’s 
trustworthiness and effectiveness.”206  We further believe harmonizing WEA and EAS test rules would 
simplify alerting authorities’ efforts to test and exercise their public alert and warning capability and 
allow EAS and WEA tests to be more closely and easily coordinated.  
63.Establishing a WEA Database for Availability Reporting.  We determine that the rules 
adopted today establishing a WEA Database and requiring CMS Providers to refresh their WEA 
participation election will equip alerting authorities with information they need to plan for reliable 
communications during disasters and raise their confidence in WEA.  We agree with alerting authorities 
that the WEA Database will allow them to know both where WEA is and is not available within their alert 
entire U.S. population can be reached via mobile connections.  We also assume that the number of wireless 
connections per person is independent of whether the devices receive alerts from WEA.  A violation of the first 
assumption would decrease our estimate, a violation of the second could either increase or decrease the estimate.     
201 Verizon Comments at 3.
202 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey:  Disability Characteristics in the United States, Table S1810, 
“Disability Characteristics”, 
https://data.census.gov/table?q=S1810:+DISABILITY+CHARACTERISTICS&tid=ACSST1Y2021.S1810 (last 
visited Sept. 14, 2023).  
203 CSRIC VIII API Report at 11.
204 ATIS Comments at 13 (“[t]his proposed WEA enhancement will allow users to better understand whether the 
alert applies to their locations”); NYCEM Comments at 5 (“NYCEM agrees with the CSRIC VIII recommendation 
that location-aware maps be included in WEA messages to allow the user to better personalize the alert and take 
action”).
205 AT&T Comment at 4; Verizon Comment at 13 (“Expanding “live” state and local government tests, for example, 
may improve consumer education and alert originator awareness, and in some respects resembles the periodic test 
alerts used for EAS and tornado sirens.”).  
206 APCO Comment at 5.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
35and warning jurisdictions, allowing them to maximize the public safety value derived from other 
emergency communications tools.207  Creating an aggregated account of the WEA capabilities of the 
mobile devices that Participating CMS Providers sell will also allow alerting authorities to understand the 
extent to which their communities will benefit from messages crafted to take advantage of modern WEA 
functionalities, such as a longer, 360-character version of an Alert Message, a Spanish-language version 
of an Alert Message, or clickable hyperlinks.208  We also agree with T-Mobile that “this information will 
help the public and alert originators understanding which wireless providers support WEA, where the 
service is available, and what handsets can be obtained to reap the full benefits of WEA.”209  
2. Costs
64. We estimate that the rules we adopt today could result in an industry-wide, one-time 
compliance cost of, at most, $42.4 million to update the WEA standards and software necessary to 
comply with the rules adopted in this Report and Order and an annually recurring cost of $422,500 for 
recordkeeping and reporting.  In this Report and Order, we take appropriate steps to ensure that these 
costs are not unduly burdensome.210  At the same time, as the Commission observed in the 2023 WEA 
FNPRM, CMS Providers’ participation in WEA is voluntary.211  Any Participating CMS Provider that 
does not wish to comply with the rules we adopt today may withdraw their election to participate in WEA 
without penalty, and incur no implementation costs as a result.212   
65. Consistent with our prior estimates,213 our one-time cost $42.4 million to update the WEA 
standards and software necessary to comply with the proposals in the Further Notice includes 
approximately a $845,000 to update applicable WEA standards and approximately a $41.5 million to 
update applicable software.  We quantify the $845,000 cost of modifying standards as the annual 
compensation for 30 network engineers compensated at the national average wage for their field 
($$62.25/hour),214 plus a 45% mark-up for benefits ($28.01/hour)215 working for the amount of time that it 
207 County of San Diego Comments at 5 (“The key information that should be made public or at least privately 
known by Alert Originators is the location data where WEAs (and other alerts) may not be received by consumers 
due to ‘dead spots’ or ‘outages’”); King County Comments at 4; Michigan State Police OMS Comments at 5-6; 
NYCEM Comments at 9 (“Having knowledge of WEA dead zones would allow for alerting authorities to prepare 
alternate ways to alert the population outside of the service area”); NOAA/NWS Reply at 2; NYS DHSES 
Comments at 2-3 (“Alerting authorities benefit from knowing which CMS providers support WEA, in which 
geographic areas, and for which mobile devices. This information is cumbersome for each alerting authority to 
gather, so having this available and up-to-date in one location would be a significant improvement over current 
practice”).
208 See NYCEM Comments at 9.
209 T-Mobile Comments at 12.
210 See infra Appx. B, Section E Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements for Small Entities (Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Steps Taken to Minimize Significant 
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered).
211 2023 WEA FNPRM at 46, para 96.
212 See 47 U.S.C. § 1201(b)(2)(D), 47 U.S.C. § 1202(b)(2)(D).
213 2023 WEA FNPRM at 43-44, para. 93 (in the 2023 WEA FNPRM, the Commission estimated a $39.9 million 
one-time cost, consisting of $814,000 cost to update applicable WEA standards and a $39.1 million cost to update 
applicable software, based on an earlier version of Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Summary published 
by the Bureau of Labor Statistics).
214 See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, Occupational Employment and 
Wages, May 2022, 15-1241 Computer Network Architects, https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes151241.htm (last 
visited Sept. 14, 2023) (stating that the mean hourly wage for a computer network architect is $62.25/hour).
215 According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of June 2023, civilian wages and salaries averaged $29.86/hour 
and benefits averaged $13.39/hour.  Total compensation therefore averaged $29.86 + $13.39, rounded to $43.26.  
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
36takes to develop a standard (one hour every other week for one year, 26 hours) for 12 distinct standards.216  
Our $41.5 million cost estimate for software updates consists of $12.2 million for software modifications 
and $29.3 million for software testing.217  The Commission quantified the cost of modifying software as 
the annual compensation for one software developer compensated at the national average wage for their 
field ($132,930/year), plus a 45% mark-up for benefits ($59,819/year), working for the amount of time 
that it takes to develop software (ten months) at each of the 76 CMS Providers that participate in WEA.218  
The Commission quantified the cost of testing these modifications (including integration testing, unit 
testing and failure testing) to require 12 software developers compensated at the national average for their 
field working for two months at each of the 76 CMS Providers that participate in WEA.219  In quantifying 
costs for software development, the Commission has used the same framework since 2016 for changes to 
software ranging from expanding WEA’s maximum character limit to enhanced geo-targeting.220  
Because the Commission received no comment to the aforementioned costs framework that specifies a 
different analytical framework or dollar figure estimate, we find that it remains accurate to describe the 
costs attendant to the rules the Commission proposed.  Because we do not adopt all the rules the 
See Press Release, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation—June 2023 (Sept. 12, 
2023), https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf.  Using these figures, benefits constitute a markup of 
$13.39/$29.86 ~ 45% (Compensation Benefit Mark-up).  We therefore markup wages by 45% to account for 
benefits.  We calculate the benefit markup as follows: $62.25 × 45% = $28.01/hour.
216 This is calculated as follows: 30 network engineers × ($62.25 + $28.01) per hour per network engineer × 26 
hours per standard × 12 standards = $844,834.  We round this figure to $845,000 to avoid the false appearance of 
precision in our estimate.  See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, 
Occupational Employment and Wages,, May 2022, 15-1241 Computer Network Architect,  
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes151241.htm (last visited Sept. 14, 2023) (stating that the mean hourly wage for a 
computer network architect is $62.25/hour); Letter from Tom Goode, General Counsel, ATIS, to Marlene Dortch, 
Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed Sept. 6, 2016) (stating that, when standards need to be modified for 
WEA, it would be common practice for groups of approximately 30 individuals with relevant technical expertise 
meet approximately bi-weekly for an hour to discuss the modifications); Wireless Emergency Alerts; Amendments to 
Part 11 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System, PS Docket Nos. 15-91, 15-94, Second 
Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, 33 FCC Rcd 1320, 1344-45, para. 33, n.154 (2018) (listing 
the 12 WEA standards).
217 We calculate the total costs to update the software as $12.2 million + $29.3 million = $41.5 million.
218 This is calculated as follows: ($132,930 + $59,819) annually per Participating CMS Provider × 10 months / 12 
months per year × 76 Participating CMS Providers = $12,207,437.  See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational 
Employment and Wage Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2022, 15-1252 Software Developers, 
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes151252.htm, (last visited Sept. 14, 2022) (stating that the mean annual wage for 
a software developer is $132,930/year); Verizon, PS Docket No. 15-91, Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 5 (Jan. 
13, 2016) (stating that it takes manufacturers and vendors 12 months to incorporate WEA standards into their 
products and test them); FCC, Master WEA Registry, 
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/wea_masterregistry112019.xls (last visited Aug. 19, 2022) (reflecting that 76 
CMS Providers participate in WEA either in whole or in part).
219 This is calculated as follows: 12 software developers × ($132,930 + $59,819) annually per Participating CMS 
Provider × 2 months / 12 months per year × 76 Participating CMS Providers = $ 29,297,848.  Id.
220 See Wireless Emergency Alerts; Amendments to Part 11 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the Emergency 
Alert System, PS Docket Nos. 15-91, 15-94, Report and Order and Further Notice or Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC 
11112, 11168-81 paras. 96-103 (2016) (“According to ATIS, when standards
need to be modified for WEA, it would be common practice for groups of approximately 30 individuals
with relevant technical expertise meet approximately bi-weekly for an hour to discuss the
modifications.  Commenters assert that these standards-setting processes can be completed within 12
months, or 26 bi-weekly, one-hour meetings.”); see also Amendments to Part 11 of the Commission's Rules 
Regarding the Emergency Alert System, PS Docket Nos. 15-91, 15-94, Second Report and Order and Second Order 
on Reconsideration, 33 FCC Rcd 1320, 1344-45, para. 33 (2018) (“We received no objections to this approach in the 
record.”).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
37Commission proposed in the 2023 WEA FNPRM, we believe the rules we adopt today will cost less than 
what was proposed in the 2023 WEA FNPRM, but do not quantify how much less here. 
66. We determine that costs associated with our adopted rules related to WEA availability 
reporting to be relatively low for Participating CMS Providers that participate in WEA in whole or that 
otherwise offer WEA in the entirety of their geographic service area because such Participating CMS 
Providers have already provided the Commission with the geospatial data needed to fulfill a significant 
aspect of their reporting obligation in furtherance of their obligations to support the Commission’s 
Broadband Data Collection.221  We agree with T-Mobile that “[w]here WEA is available throughout a 
wireless provider’s network, the GIS files used for the biannual Broadband Data Collection should serve 
this purpose. If a wireless provider does not offer WEA throughout its network, it should be allowed to 
submit a different GIS depicting WEA coverage.”222  We determine that in the Supporting Document of 
Study Area Boundary Data Reporting in Esri Shapefile Format, the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs estimates that it takes an average of 26 hours for a data scientist to modify a shapefile.223  We 
believe submitting WEA availability information in geospatial data format should require no more time 
than modifying a shapefile.  Therefore, we believe 26 hours would be an upper bound of the time required 
for a Participating CMS Provider to report its WEA availability in geospatial data format.  Given that the 
average wage rate is $55.40/hour for data scientists,224 with a 45% markup for benefits,225 we arrive at 
$780.33 as the hourly compensation rate for a data scientist.  We estimate an aggregate cost of WEA 
availability reporting to be approximately $$160,000 (≈ $80.33 per hour × 26 hours × 76 providers = 
$158,732, rounded to $160,000),226 which may be recurring on an annual basis since availability may 
change and need to be updated over time. Within these 26 hours, we believe that Participating CMS 
Providers will also be able to provide the availability information required by the rules adopted today, 
including lists of all the mobile devices the Participating CMS Provider offers at the point of sale, list of 
the Participating CMS Provider’s DBAs and subsidiaries, and any changes of WEA service.  Many 
Participating CMS Providers already create and maintain this information, and therefore, we believe that 
providing this information to the WEA Database would require minimal time burdens and would be 
within the cost estimates. 
67. No commenter objected to our belief that CMS Providers would not incur any cost to 
comply with our proposal to allow alerting authorities to conduct two public awareness tests per year.  
Based on the foregoing analysis, we find it reasonable to expect that these improvements will result in 
lives saved, injuries avoided, and a reduced need to deploy first responders.  We conclude that the 
expected public safety benefits exceed the costs imposed by the rules adopted today.
221 See generally, Establishing the Digital Opportunity Data Collection; Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data 
Program, WC Docket Nos. 19-195 and 11-10, Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (2019) (discussing costs of requiring submission of broadband coverage maps (polygons) from fixed 
providers).
222 T-Mobile Comment at 12-13.
223 See Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget Executive Office of the 
President, 2022 Study Area Boundary Data Reporting in Esri Shapefile Format DA 12-1777 and DA 13-282, 
Supporting Statement - OMB Control No. 3060-1181, at 5, para. 12 (Feb. 15, 2022), 
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=202202-3060-009.
224 See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, Occupational Employment and 
Wages, May 2022, 15-2051 Data Scientists, https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes152051.htm (last visited Sept. 14, 
2023) (stating that the mean hourly wage for a data scientist is $55.40/hour).
225 See Compensation Benefit Mark-up.
226 2023 WEA FNPRM at 44-45, para. 94 (in the 2023 WEA FNPRM, the Commission estimated a $139,000 
recurring cost based on an earlier version of Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Summary published by 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
38IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
68.Regulatory Flexibility Act.  The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA)227 
requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, 
unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.”228  Accordingly, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the potential impact of the rule and policy changes adopted and 
proposed in the Third Report and Order, on small entities.  The FRFA is set forth in Appendix B.  We 
have also prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the potential impact of 
rule and policy change proposals on small entities in the Fourth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.  The 
IRFA is set forth in Appendix C. 
69.Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis.  This document contains new or modified 
information collection requirements.  They will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).229  OMB, the 
general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new or modified information 
collection requirements contained in this proceeding.  In addition, we note that, pursuant to the Small 
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(4), we previously 
sought, but did not receive, specific comment on how the Commission might “further reduce the 
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”230  The 
Commission does not believe that the new or modified information collection requirements we adopt here 
will be unduly burdensome on small businesses.  
70.Congressional Review Act.  The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs, that this 
rule is non-major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. § 804(2).  The Commission will send a 
copy of this Third Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant 5 
U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
71.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).
72.Additional Information.  For additional information on this proceeding, contact Michael 
Antonino, Cybersecurity and Communications Reliability Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security 
Bureau (202) 418-7965, or by email to Michael.Antonino@fcc.gov.    
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
73. ACCORDINGLY IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1, 2, 
4(i), 4(n), 301, 303(b), 303(e), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 307, 309, 316, 403, and 706 of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 154(i), 154(n), 301, 303(b), 303(e), 303(g), 303(j), 
303(r), 307, 309, 403, and 606, as well as by sections 602(a), (b), (c), (f), 603, 604 and 606 of the 
Warning Alert and Response Network (WARN) Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 1201(a), (b), (c), (f), 1203, 1204 and 
1206, that this Third Report and Order IS hereby ADOPTED.
74. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Part 10 of the Commission’s rules IS AMENDED as 
specified in Appendix A, and such rules WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE  thirty-six (36) months after 
publication of this Third Report and Order in the Federal Register, changes to 47 CFR §§ 10.210 and 
227 5 U.S.C. §§ 601–612.  The RFA 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).   
228 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).
229 44 U.S.C. § 3507(d).
230 See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
3910.350, which may contain new or modified information collection requirements, and will not become 
effective until the completion of any review by the Office of Management and Budget under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act that the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) determines is 
necessary, and changes to 47 CFR §§ 10.480 and 10.500(e), which are the subject of a further Bureau-
level rulemaking, and will not become effective until thirty (30) months after the Bureau publishes a 
subsequent Order in the Federal Register.  PSHSB will publish a notice in the Federal Register 
announcing the relevant effective date for each of these sections.231
75. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Office of the Secretary, Reference Information 
Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Third Report and Order and Fourth Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, including the Final and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
76. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Office of the Managing Director, Performance & 
Program Management, SHALL SEND a copy of this Third Report and Order in a report to be sent to 
Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 
§ 801(a)(1)(A). 
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
231 Pub. L. No. 104-13, 109 Stat. 163 (May 22, 1995), codified at 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501 et seq.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
40APPENDIX A
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed above, Part 10 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as 
follows: 
PART 10 – WIRELESS EMERGENCY ALERTS
1. The authority citation for part 10 is revised to read as follows:  
Authority: 47 U.S.C §§ 151, 152, 154(i), 154(n), 201, 301, 303(b), 303(e), 303(g), 303(j), 303(r), 307, 
309, 316, 403, 544(g), 606, 1201, 1202, 1203, 1204, and 1206.
* * * * *
2. Delayed indefinitely, amend § 10.210 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text, 
redesignating current paragraph (b) as paragraph (d), removing current paragraph (c), and adding new 
paragraphs (b) and (c), and revising the redesignated paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 10.210 WEA participation election procedures.
(a) A CMS provider that elects to transmit WEA Alert Messages must elect to participate in part or in 
whole, as defined by § 10.10(l) and (m), and shall electronically file in the Commission’s WEA Database 
attesting that the Provider: 
* * *
(b) A CMS Provider that elects to participate in WEA must disclose the following information in their 
election filed in the Commission’s WEA Database:
(1) The entities on behalf of which the Participating CMS Provider files its election, including the 
subsidiary companies (whether those subsidiaries are wholly owned or operated CMS Providers, 
Mobile Virtual Network Operators, or wireless resellers) on behalf of which their election is filed 
and the “doing business as” names under which a Participating CMS Provider offers WEA; 
(2) The geographic area in which the Participating CMS Provider agrees to offer WEA alerts, 
either as: 
(i) an attestation that they offer WEA in the entirety of their voice coverage area as 
reported to the Commission in the Broadband Data Collection or any successors; or 
(ii) geospatial data submitted to the Commission through the WEA Database
(3) The extent to which all mobile devices that the Participating CMS Provider offers at the point 
of sale are WEA-capable, as demonstrated by the following:
(i) the mobile devices, as defined in § 10.10(j), that the Participating CMS Provider offers 
at their point of sale; and
(ii) the WEA-capable mobile devices, as defined in § 10.10(k), that the Participating 
CMS Provider offers at their point of sale.
(c) If the terms of a CMS Provider’s WEA participation change in any manner described by paragraph (b) 
of this section, it must update the information promptly such that the information in the WEA Database 
accurately reflects the terms of their WEA participation.  Updates (if any) for the period from August 16 
through February 15 must be filed by the following March 1, and updates for the period from February 16 
through August 15 must be filed by the following September 1 of each year.  Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
41(d) A CMS Provider that elects not to transmit WEA Alert Messages shall file electronically in the 
Commission’s WEA Database attesting to that fact.  Their filing shall include any subsidiary companies 
on behalf of which the election is filed and the CMS Provider’s “doing business as” names, if applicable. 
* * * * *
3. Delayed indefinitely, amend § 10.350 by adding new paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 10.350 WEA testing and proficiency training requirements.
* * * * *
(d) Performance and Public Awareness Tests. Participating CMS Providers may participate in no more 
than two (2) WEA tests per county (or county equivalent), per calendar year that the public receives by 
default, provided that the entity conducting the test: 
(i) Conducts outreach and notifies the public before the test that live event codes will be used, but 
that no emergency is, in fact, occurring; 
(ii) To the extent technically feasible, states in the test message that the event is only a test; 
(iii) Coordinates the test among Participating CMS Providers and with state and local emergency 
authorities, the relevant SECC (or SECCs, if the test could affect multiple states), and first 
responder organizations, such as PSAPs, police, and fire agencies); and 
(iv) Provides in widely accessible formats the notification to the public required by this paragraph 
that the test is only a test and is not a warning about an actual emergency.
* * * * *
4. Delayed indefinitely, amend § 10.480 by designating the introductory text as paragraph 
(a), revising paragraph (a), and adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 10.480 Language support.
(a) Participating CMS Providers are required to transmit WEA Alert Messages that are issued in the 
Spanish language or that contain Spanish-language characters.  
(b) Participating CMS Providers are required to support the display of a pre-scripted alert pre-installed 
and stored in the mobile device that corresponds to the default language of the mobile device. 
* * * * *
5. Delayed indefinitely, amend § 10.500 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 10.500 General requirements.
* * * * *
(e) Extraction of alert content in English and the subscriber-specified default language, if applicable.
(1) Storing pre-scripted alerts in English, Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Arabic, 
French, Korean, Russian, Haitian Creole, German, Hindi, Portuguese, and Italian.
(2) Allowing the subscriber to choose to receive pre-scripted Alert Messages in American Sign 
Language (ASL) instead of or in addition to their mobile device’s subscriber-specified default 
language setting.  
* * * * *
6. Amend § 10.500 by revising paragraph (i) to read as follows:Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
42§ 10.500 General requirements.
* * * * *
(i) For Alert Messages with a target area specified by a circle or polygon, when a device has location 
services enabled and has granted location permissions to its native mapping application, Participating 
CMS Providers must support the presentation of a map along with an emergency alert message that 
includes at least 
(1) the shape of the target area, 
(2) the user’s location relative to the target area, and 
(3) a geographical representation of a target area in which both the targeted area and user are 
located. 
* * * * *Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
43APPENDIX B
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA)1 an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Wireless Emergency Alerts, Amendments 
to Part 11 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System, Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (2023 WEA FNPRM) released in April 2023.2  The Commission sought written public 
comments on the proposals in the 2023 WEA FNPRM, including comments on the IFRA.  Three 
commenters specifically addressed the IRFA and we address those comments below in Section B.  This 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.3
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Final Rules
2. In this Third Report and Order, the Commission adopts rules to empower alert 
originators to enhance the utility of Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) as an alerting tool, making WEA 
more accessible and enabling WEA to provide more personalized alerts.  Specifically, we require 
Participating Commercial Mobile Service Providers (Participating CMS Providers) to enable alerting 
authorities to display translated Alert Message content via the use of emergency alert message templates.  
In addition, our efforts to make WEA messages more accessibility extend to the deaf and hard of hearing 
community pursuant to our requirement that Participating CMS Providers’ WEA-capable mobile devices 
support templates in American Sign Language (ASL).  We conclude that enabling the display of 
translated Alert Message content via the use of emergency alert message templates will allow alert 
originators to inform those communities that primarily speak a language other than English or Spanish of 
emergencies and save more lives.  The Commission also adopts rules to require Participating CMS 
Providers’ WEA-capable mobile devices to support the presentation of WEA messages that link the 
recipient to a native mapping application.  This requirement will allow alert originators to personalize 
alerts, spurring people to take protective action more quickly and to understand whether an alert applies to 
their them.  Further, to allow alerting authorities to understand WEA’s reliability, speed, and accuracy 
and to promote the use of WEA as a tool for raising public awareness about emergencies likely to occur, 
we require Participating CMS Providers to support up to two end-to-end WEA tests, per county or county 
equivalent, per year, that consumers receive by default, subject to the conditions described in the Third 
Report and Order.  Our adoption of this rule promotes compliance and presents a minimal burden for 
Participating CMS Providers.4  Finally, the Commission adopts rules to require Participating CMS 
Providers to submit certain information in the WEA Database.  Requiring the disclosure of data outlined 
in the Third Report and Order will allow alert originators and consumers more insight into WEA’s 
availability and enable a transparent understanding of WEA. 
3. In light of the significant public safety benefits, which include the capacity to save lives, 
mitigate and prevent injuries, the Commission believes that the actions taken in the Third Report and 
Order further the public interest.  
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA
4. Three commenters specifically addressed the proposed rules and policies presented in the 
IRFA.  The Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) argued that flexibility of implementing the adopted 
1 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, 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 Wireless Emergency Alerts, Amendments to Part 11 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert 
System, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, PS Docket No. 15-91, 15-94, Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, FCC 23-30, Appx. B., Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Apr. 21, 2023) (2023 WEA FNPRM).
3 5 U.S.C. § 604.
4 See ATIS Comments at 21; see also USGS Comments at 6.  No commenter objects to this proposal. Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
44rules would promote participation in WEA by smaller and regional carriers.5  CCA also argued that the 
“supply chain and level of support for handsets for smaller and regional carriers generally lags behind the 
nationwide carriers, and this should also be a consideration.”6  Further, CCA stated the additional 
requirements would disproportionately burden smaller and regional carriers because of the raised 
difficulty and costs to administer WEA, and because the cumulative costs of complying with the FCC’s 
other requirements and proposals more broadly, including within public safety, burdens small teams and 
limited resources of many smaller carriers.7  In addition, CCA commented, “many smaller and rural 
carriers face challenges in prioritizing personnel and similar technical resources, accessing vendor 
assistance and support, scheduling and funding projects, accessing mobile devices with the latest 
functionalities, etc.,” and suggests increased time for compliance for non-nationwide carriers.8  
5. Southern Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Southern Linc (Southern Linc) raised 
concerns similar to those raised by CCA, namely, that the Commission should account for the 
disproportionate impact that the proposed requirements in the 2023 WEA FNPRM would have on smaller 
and regional carriers and the Commission should provide small and medium-sized mobile service 
providers additional time to comply.9
6. CTIA – The Wireless Association (CTIA) argued that to the extent the proposals made in 
the 2023 WEA FNPRM would require a complete overhaul of the WEA System, that “[s]ubstantial 
changes to the WEA system also may disproportionately impact regional and smaller, rural carriers, who 
often rely on third-party vendors to implement WEA functions and may not be able to bear the additional 
technical and financial burdens, rendering their ongoing voluntary participation in WEA infeasible.”10  
7. The Commission considered the potential impact of the rules proposed in the IRFA on 
small entities and we concluded that these mandates provide Participating CMS Providers with a 
sufficient measure of flexibility to account for any technical and/or cost-related concerns.  We have 
determined that implementing these improvements to WEA are technically feasible for small entities and 
other Participating CMS Providers and the cost of implementation is reasonable.  To help facilitate 
compliance with the requirements in the Third Report and Order, we adopted a compliance timeframe 
that is longer than the timeframe necessary to complete the requirements based on the record.11  Our 
adopted timeframe is also longer than the compliance timeframes for previously adopted rules for WEA 
which should help facilitate compliance by smaller providers.  We believe that the public interest benefits 
5 Competitive Carriers Association, Comments, PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, at 7, (rec. Jul. 21, 2023) (CCA 
Comments).
6 Id.  
7 Id. at 10. 
8 Id. at 12.
9 Southern Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Southern Linc, Reply, PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, at 6-8, 
(rec. Aug. 21, 2023) (“Southern Linc Reply”).
10 CTIA, Comments, PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, at 10, (rec. Jul 21, 2023) (“CTIA Comments”).
11 The requirement for compliance within 30 months of the publication of the Bureau’s Order in the Federal 
Register is based the record-supported analysis the Commission has previously relied upon.  See Wireless 
Emergency Alerts Amendments to Part 11 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System, PS 
Docket Nos. 15-91, 15-94, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 11112, 
11161-62, para. 79 (2016).  The 30-month timeframe allows 12 months for the appropriate industry bodies to 
finalize and publish relevant standards, 12 months for Participating CMS Providers and device manufacturers to 
develop and integrate software upgrades consistent with those standards, and an additional 6 months to deploy this 
technology in WEA-capable-mobile devices.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
45of expanding the reach and accessibility of WEA significantly outweigh the costs that small and other 
providers will incur to implement the requirements adopted in the Third Report and Order.  
C. Response to Comments by Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration
8. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this 
proceeding.
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will 
Apply
9. 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 rules adopted herein.12  The RFA generally 
defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small 
organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”13  In addition, the term “small business” has the 
same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.”14  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.15
10.Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions.  Our actions, 
over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present.  We therefore describe here, 
at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein.16  First, while 
there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility 
analysis, according to data from the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in 
general a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees.17  These types of 
small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 32.5 million 
businesses.18
11. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-
for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”19 The 
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual 
electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations.20  Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there 
12 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(4).
13 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).
14 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.”
15 15 U.S.C. § 632.
16 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(3)-(6).
17 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, Frequently Asked Questions, “What is a small business?,” 
https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/03093005/Small-Business-FAQ-2021.pdf.  (Nov 2021).
18 Id. 
19 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).
20 The IRS benchmark is similar to the population of less than 50,000 benchmark in 5 U.S.C § 601(5) that is used to 
define a small governmental jurisdiction. Therefore, the IRS benchmark has been used to estimate the number small 
organizations in this small entity description.  See Annual Electronic Filing Requirement for Small Exempt 
Organizations — Form 990-N (e-Postcard), "Who must file," https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/annual-
electronic-filing-requirement-for-small-exempt-organizations-form-990-n-e-postcard.  We note that the IRS data 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
46were approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less 
according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.21 
12. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined 
generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.”22  U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2017 Census 
of Governments23 indicate that there were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general 
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States.24  Of this number there were 
36,931 general purpose governments (county25, municipal and town or township26) with populations of 
less than 50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments - independent school districts27 with enrollment 
populations of less than 50,000.28  Accordingly, based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we 
estimate that at least 48,971 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”29
does not provide information on whether a small exempt organization is independently owned and operated or 
dominant in its field.
21 See Exempt Organizations Business Master File Extract (EO BMF), "CSV Files by Region," 
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-organizations-business-master-file-extract-eo-bmf.  The IRS 
Exempt Organization Business Master File (EO BMF) Extract provides information on all registered tax-
exempt/non-profit organizations. The data utilized for purposes of this description was extracted from the IRS EO 
BMF data for businesses for the tax year 2020 with revenue less than or equal to $50,000, for Region 1-Northeast 
Area (58,577), Region 2-Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes Areas (175,272), and Region 3-Gulf Coast and Pacific Coast 
Areas (213,840) which includes the continental U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii.  This data does not include information 
for Puerto Rico.  
22 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).
23 See 13 U.S.C. § 161.  The Census of Governments survey is conducted every five (5) years compiling data for 
years ending with “2” and “7”.  See also Census of Governments, https://www.census.gov/programs-
surveys/cog/about.html. 
24 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Census of Governments – Organization Table 2. Local Governments by Type and 
State: 2017 [CG1700ORG02],  https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html.  Local 
governmental jurisdictions are made up of general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township) 
and special purpose governments (special districts and independent school districts).  See also tbl.2. CG1700ORG02 
Table Notes_Local Governments by Type and State_2017. 
25 See id. at tbl.5.  County Governments by Population-Size Group and State: 2017 [CG1700ORG05],  
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html.  There were 2,105 county governments 
with populations less than 50,000.  This category does not include subcounty (municipal and township) 
governments.  
26 See id. at tbl.6.  Subcounty General-Purpose Governments by Population-Size Group and State: 2017 
[CG1700ORG06], https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html.  There were 18,729 
municipal and 16,097 town and township governments with populations less than 50,000. 
27 See id. at tbl.10.  Elementary and Secondary School Systems by Enrollment-Size Group and State: 2017 
[CG1700ORG10], https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html.  There were 12,040 
independent school districts with enrollment populations less than 50,000.  See also tbl.4.  Special-Purpose Local 
Governments by State Census Years 1942 to 2017 [CG1700ORG04], CG1700ORG04 Table Notes_Special Purpose 
Local Governments by State_Census Years 1942 to 2017.
28 While the special purpose governments category also includes local special district governments, the 2017 Census 
of Governments data does not provide data aggregated based on population size for the special purpose governments 
category.  Therefore, only data from independent school districts is included in the special purpose governments 
category.
29 This total is derived from the sum of the number of general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or 
township) with populations of less than 50,000 (36,931) and the number of special purpose governments - 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
4713.Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).  This industry comprises 
establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide 
communications via the airwaves.30  Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide 
services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless internet access, and 
wireless video services.31 The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees.32  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms in this 
industry that operated for the entire year.33  Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees.34  Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, 
as of December 31, 2020, there were 797 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of 
wireless services.35  Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 715 providers have 1,500 or fewer 
employees.36  Consequently, using the SBA’s small business size standard, most of these providers can be 
considered small entities.  
14.Broadband Personal Communications Service.  The broadband personal communications 
services (PCS) spectrum encompasses services in the 1850-1910 and 1930-1990 MHz bands.37  The 
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable to these services is Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).38  The SBA small business size standard for this industry 
classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.39  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 
show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year.40  Of this number, 2,837 
firms employed fewer than 250 employees.41  Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission 
estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
independent school districts with enrollment populations of less than 50,000 (12,040), from the 2017 Census of 
Governments - Organizations tbls.5, 6 & 10.
30 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite),),” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&year=2017&details=517312.
31 Id.
32 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517112).
33 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 
2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517312,  
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  
34 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard. 
35 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2021),
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-379181A1.pdf. 
36 Id.
37 See 47 CFR § 24.200.
38 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite),” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&year=2017&details=517312.
39 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517112).
40 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 
2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517312,  
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  
41 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
4815. Based on Commission data as of November 2021, there were approximately 5,060 active 
licenses in the Broadband PCS service.42  The Commission’s small business size standards with respect to 
Broadband PCS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses 
for these services.  In auctions for these licenses, the Commission defined “small business” as an entity 
that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 
million for the preceding three years, and a “very small business” as an entity that, together with its 
affiliates and controlling interests, has had average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for 
the preceding three years.43  Winning bidders claiming small business credits won Broadband PCS 
licenses in C, D, E, and F Blocks.44
16. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as 
a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service.  Further, the 
Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or 
transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated.  Additionally, since the Commission does not collect 
data on the number of employees for licensees providing these, at this time we are not able to estimate the 
number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA’s small business size 
standard.
17. Narrowband Personal Communications Services. Narrowband Personal Communications 
Services (Narrowband PCS) are PCS services operating in the 901-902 MHz, 930-931 MHz, and 940-941 
MHz bands.45  PCS services are radio communications that encompass mobile and ancillary fixed 
communication that provide services to individuals and businesses and can be integrated with a variety of 
competing networks.46  Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)47 is the closest industry 
with a SBA small business size standard applicable to these services.  The SBA small business size 
standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.48  U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year.49  
Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees.50  Thus under the SBA size standard, 
the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
42 Based on a FCC Universal Licensing System search on November 16, 2021,  
https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp.  Search parameters: Service Group = All, “Match 
only the following radio service(s)”, Radio Service = CW; Authorization Type = All; Status = Active.  We note that 
the number of active licenses does not equate to the number of licensees.  A licensee can have one or more licenses.
43 See 47 CFR § 24.720(b).
44 See Federal Communications Commission, Office of Economics and Analytics, Auctions, Auctions 4, 5, 10, 11, 
22, 35, 58, 71 and 78, https://www.fcc.gov/auctions. 
45 See 47 CFR § 24.5.
46 Id.
47 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite),” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&year=2017&details=517312.
48 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517112).
49 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 
2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517312,  
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  
50 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
4918. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were approximately 4,211 
active Narrowband PCS licenses.51  The Commission’s small business size standards with respect to 
Narrowband PCS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of 
licenses for these services.  For the auction of these licenses, the Commission defined a “small business” 
as an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three 
preceding years of not more than $40 million.52  A “very small business” is defined as an entity that, 
together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years 
of not more than $15 million.53  Pursuant to these definitions, 7 winning bidders claiming small and very 
small bidding credits won approximately 359 licenses.54  One of the winning bidders claiming a small 
business status classification in these Narrowband PCS license auctions had an active license as of 
December 2021.55   
19. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as 
a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service.  Further, the 
Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or 
transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated.  Additionally, since the Commission does not collect 
data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA’s small 
business size standard.  
20.Wireless Communications Services.  Wireless Communications Services (WCS) can be 
used for a variety of fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite services. 
Wireless spectrum is made available and licensed for the provision of wireless communications services 
in several frequency bands subject to Part 27 of the Commission’s rules.56  Wireless Telecommunications 
Carriers (except Satellite)57 is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable to 
these services.  The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it 
has 1,500 or fewer employees.58  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that 
51 Based on a FCC Universal Licensing System search on December 10, 2021, 
https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp.  Search parameters: Service Group = All, “Match 
only the following radio service(s)”, Radio Service = CN; Authorization Type = All; Status = Active.  We note that 
the number of active licenses does not equate to the number of licensees.  A licensee can have one or more licenses.
52 See 47 CFR § 24.321(a)(1)-(2).
53 Id.
54 See Federal Communications Commission, Economics and Analytics, Auctions, Auction 41: Narrowband PCS, 
Summary, Closing Charts, License By Bidder,
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/wireless/auctions/41/charts/41cls2.pdf; Auction 50: Narrowband PCS, 
Summary, Closing Charts, License By Bidder, 
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/wireless/auctions/50/charts/50cls2.pdf. 
55 Based on a FCC Universal Licensing System search on December 10, 2021, 
https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp.  Search parameters: Service Group = All, “Match 
only the following radio service(s)”, Radio Service = CN; Authorization Type = All; Status = Active.  We note that 
the number of active licenses does not equate to the number of licensees.  A licensee can have one or more licenses.
56 See 47 CFR §§ 27.1 – 27.1607.
57 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite),” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&year=2017&details=517312.
58 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517112).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
50operated in this industry for the entire year.59  Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees.60  Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in 
this industry can be considered small.
21. The Commission’s small business size standards with respect to WCS involve eligibility 
for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for the various frequency bands 
included in WCS.  When bidding credits are adopted for the auction of licenses in WCS frequency bands, 
such credits may be available to several types of small businesses based average gross revenues (small, 
very small and entrepreneur) pursuant to the competitive bidding rules adopted in conjunction with the 
requirements for the auction and/or as identified in the designated entities section in Part 27 of the 
Commission’s rules for the specific WCS frequency bands.61   
22. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as 
a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service.  Further, the 
Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or 
transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated.  Additionally, since the Commission does not collect 
data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA’s small 
business size standard.  
23.700 MHz Guard Band Licensees.  The 700 MHz Guard Band encompasses spectrum in 
746-747/776-777 MHz and 762-764/792-794 MHz frequency bands.  Wireless Telecommunications 
Carriers (except Satellite)62 is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable to 
licenses providing services in these bands.  The SBA small business size standard for this industry 
classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.63  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 
show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year.64  Of this number, 2,837 
firms employed fewer than 250 employees.65  Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission 
estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
24. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were approximately 224 
active 700 MHz Guard Band licenses.66  The Commission’s small business size standards with respect to 
59 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 
2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517312,  
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  
60 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.
61 See 47 CFR §§ 27.201 – 27.1601. The Designated entities sections in Subparts D – Q each contain the small 
business size standards adopted for the auction of the frequency band covered by that subpart. 
62 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite),” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&year=2017&details=517312.
63 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517911517312 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517121517112).
64 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 
2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517312,  
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  
65 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.
66 Based on a FCC Universal Licensing System search on December 14, 2021, 
https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp.  Search parameters: Service Group = All, “Match 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
51700 MHz Guard Band licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the 
auction of licenses.  For the auction of these licenses, the Commission defined a “small business” as an 
entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding 
$40 million for the preceding three years, and a “very small business” an entity that, together with its 
affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the 
preceding three years.67  Pursuant to these definitions, five winning bidders claiming one of the small 
business status classifications won 26 licenses, and one winning bidder claiming small business won two 
licenses.68 None of the winning bidders claiming a small business status classification in these 700 MHz 
Guard Band license auctions had an active license as of December 2021.69   
25. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as 
a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service.  Further, the 
Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or 
transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated.  Additionally, since the Commission does not collect 
data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA’s small 
business size standard.  
26.Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses.  The lower 700 MHz band encompasses spectrum in the 
698-746 MHz frequency bands.  Permissible operations in these bands include flexible fixed, mobile, and 
broadcast uses, including mobile and other digital new broadcast operation; fixed and mobile wireless 
commercial services (including FDD- and TDD-based services); as well as fixed and mobile wireless uses 
for private, internal radio needs, two-way interactive, cellular, and mobile television broadcasting 
services.70 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)71 is the closest industry with a SBA 
small business size standard applicable to licenses providing services in these bands.  The SBA small 
business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.72  
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the 
only the following radio service(s)”, Radio Service = WX; Authorization Type = All; Status = Active.  We note that 
the number of active licenses does not equate to the number of licensees.  A licensee can have one or more licenses.
67 See 47 CFR § 27.502(a).
68 See Federal Communications Commission, Economics and Analytics, Auctions, Auction 33: Upper 700 MHz 
Guard Bands, Summary, Closing Charts, Licenses by Bidder, 
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/wireless/auctions/33/charts/33cls2.pdf, Auction 38: Upper 700 MHz Guard 
Bands, Summary, Closing Charts, Licenses by Bidder, 
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/wireless/auctions/38/charts/38cls2.pdf. 
69 Based on a FCC Universal Licensing System search on December 14, 2021, 
https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp.  Search parameters: Service Group = All, “Match 
only the following radio service(s)”, Radio Service = WX; Authorization Type = All; Status = Active.  We note that 
the number of active licenses does not equate to the number of licensees.  A licensee can have one or more licenses.
70 See Federal Communications Commission, Economics and Analytics, Auctions, Auctions 44, 49, 60: Lower 700 
MHz Band, Fact Sheet, Permissible Operations, https://www.fcc.gov/auction/44/factsheet, 
https://www.fcc.gov/auction/49/factsheet, https://www.fcc.gov/auction/60/factsheet. 
71 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite),” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&year=2017&details=517312.
72 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517112).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
52entire year.73  Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees.74  Thus under the SBA 
size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered 
small.
27. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were approximately 2,824 
active Lower 700 MHz Band licenses.75  The Commission’s small business size standards with respect to 
Lower 700 MHz Band licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the 
auction of licenses.  For auctions of Lower 700 MHz Band licenses the Commission adopted criteria for 
three groups of small businesses.  A very small business was defined as an entity that, together with its 
affiliates and controlling interests, has average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the 
preceding three years, a small business was defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and 
controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, 
and an entrepreneur was defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has 
average gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years.76 In auctions for Lower 
700 MHz Band licenses seventy-two winning bidders claiming a small business classification won 329 
licenses,77  twenty-six winning bidders claiming a small business classification won 214 licenses,78 and 
three winning bidders claiming a small business classification won all five auctioned licenses.79
28. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as 
a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service.  Further, the 
Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or 
transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated.  Additionally, since the Commission does not collect 
data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA’s small 
business size standard.  
29.Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses.  The upper 700 MHz band encompasses spectrum in the 
746-806 MHz bands.  Upper 700 MHz D Block licenses are nationwide licenses associated with the 758-
73 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 
2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517312,  
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  
74 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.
75 Based on a FCC Universal Licensing System search on December 14, 2021, 
https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp.  Search parameters: Service Group = All, “Match 
only the following radio service(s)”, Radio Service = WY, WZ; Authorization Type = All; Status = Active.  We note 
that the number of active licenses does not equate to the number of licensees.  A licensee can have one or more 
licenses.
76 See 47 CFR § 27.702(a)(1)-(3). 
77 See Federal Communications Commission, Economics and Analytics, Auctions, Auction 44: Lower 700 MHz 
Guard Bands, Summary, Closing Charts, Licenses by Bidder, 
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/wireless/auctions/44/charts/44cls2.pdf. 
78 See Federal Communications Commission, Economics and Analytics, Auctions, Auction 49: Lower 700 MHz 
Guard Bands, Summary, Closing Charts, Licenses by Bidder, 
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/wireless/auctions/49/charts/49cls2.pdf. 
79 See Federal Communications Commission, Economics and Analytics, Auctions, Auction 60: Lower 700 MHz 
Guard Bands, Summary, Closing Charts, Licenses by Bidder, 
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/wireless/auctions/60/charts/60cls2.pdf. Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
53763 MHz and 788-793 MHz bands.80  Permissible operations in these bands include flexible fixed, 
mobile, and broadcast uses, including mobile and other digital new broadcast operation; fixed and mobile 
wireless commercial services (including FDD- and TDD-based services); as well as fixed and mobile 
wireless uses for private, internal radio needs, two-way interactive, cellular, and mobile television 
broadcasting services.81 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)82 is the closest industry 
with a SBA small business size standard applicable to licenses providing services in these bands.  The 
SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees.83  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this 
industry for the entire year.84  Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees.85  Thus, 
under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be 
considered small.
30. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were approximately 152 
active Upper 700 MHz Band licenses.86  The Commission’s small business size standards with respect to 
Upper 700 MHz Band licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the 
auction of licenses.  For the auction of these licenses, the Commission defined a “small business” as an 
entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding 
$40 million for the preceding three years, and a “very small business” an entity that, together with its 
affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the 
preceding three years.87  Pursuant to these definitions, three winning bidders claiming very small business 
status won five of the twelve available licenses.88     
31. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as 
a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service.  Further, the 
Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or 
transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated.  Additionally, since the Commission does not collect 
data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
80 See 47 CFR § 27.4.
81 See Federal Communications Commission, Economics and Analytics, Auctions, Auction 73: 700 MHz Band, Fact 
Sheet, Permissible Operations, https://www.fcc.gov/auction/73/factsheet. We note that in Auction 73, Upper 700 
MHz Band C and D Blocks as well as Lower 700 MHz Band A, B, and E Blocks were auctioned.
82 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite),” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&year=2017&details=517312.
83 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517112).
84 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 
2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517312,  
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  
85 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.
86 Based on a FCC Universal Licensing System search on December 14, 2021, 
https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp.  Search parameters: Service Group = All, “Match 
only the following radio service(s)”, Radio Service = WP, WU; Authorization Type = All; Status = Active.  We note 
that the number of active licenses does not equate to the number of licensees.  A licensee can have one or more 
licenses.
87 See 47 CFR § 27.502(a).
88 See Auction of 700 MHz Band Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 73, Public Notice, DA-
08-595, Attachment A, Report No. AUC-08-73-I (Auction 73) (March 20, 2008).  The results for Upper 700 MHz 
Band C Block can be found on pp. 62-63.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
54estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA’s small 
business size standard.  
32.Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) - (1710–1755 MHz and 2110–2155 MHz bands 
(AWS-1); 1915–1920 MHz, 1995–2000 MHz, 2020–2025 MHz and 2175–2180 MHz bands (AWS-2); 
2155–2175 MHz band (AWS-3); 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz (AWS-4)).  Spectrum is made 
available and licensed in these bands for the provision of various wireless communications services.89  
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)90 is the closest industry with a SBA small 
business size standard applicable to these services.  The SBA small business size standard for this 
industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.91  U.S. Census Bureau data for 
2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year.92  Of this number, 
2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees.93  Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission 
estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
33. According to Commission data as December 2021, there were approximately 4,472 
active AWS licenses.94  The Commission’s small business size standards with respect to AWS involve 
eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for these services.  For 
the auction of AWS licenses, the Commission defined a “small business” as an entity with average annual 
gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million, and a “very small business” as an 
entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million.95  
Pursuant to these definitions, 57 winning bidders claiming status as small or very small businesses won 
215 of 1,087 licenses.96  In the most recent auction of AWS licenses 15 of 37 bidders qualifying for status 
as small or very small businesses won licenses.97
34. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as 
a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service.  Further, the 
Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or 
transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated.  Additionally, since the Commission does not collect 
data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
89 See 47 CFR § 27.1(b).
90 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite),” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&year=2017&details=517312.
91 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517112).
92 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 
2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517312,  
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  
93 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.
94 Based on a FCC Universal Licensing System search on December 10, 2021, 
https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp.  Search parameters: Service Group = All, “Match 
only the following radio service(s)”, Radio Service = AD, AH, AT, AW; Authorization Type = All; Status = Active.  
We note that the number of active licenses does not equate to the number of licensees.  A licensee can have one or 
more licenses.
95 See 47 CFR §§ 27.1002, 27.1102, 27.1104, 27.1106.
96 See Federal Communications Commission, Economics and Analytics, Auctions, Auction 66: Advanced Wireless 
Services (AWS-1), Summary, Spreadsheets, 
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/wireless/auctions/66/charts/66cls2.pdf. 
97 See Auction of Advanced Wireless Services (AWS-3) Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 
97, Public Notice, DA-15-131, Attachments A-B, (Auction No. 97) (January 30, 2015).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
55estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA’s small 
business size standard.  
35.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,”98 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)).99  Wireless cable operators that use spectrum in the BRS 
often supplemented with leased channels from the EBS, provide a competitive alternative to wired cable 
and other multichannel video programming distributors.  Wireless cable programming to subscribers 
resembles cable television, but instead of coaxial cable, wireless cable uses microwave channels.100    
36. In light of the use of wireless frequencies by BRS and EBS services, the closest industry 
with a SBA small business size standard applicable to these services is Wireless Telecommunications 
Carriers (except Satellite).101  The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business 
as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.102  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 
2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year.103  Of this number, 2,837 firms employed 
fewer than 250 employees.104  Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a 
majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
37. According to Commission data as December 2021, there were approximately 5,869 
active BRS and EBS licenses.105  The Commission’s small business size standards with respect to BRS 
involves eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for these 
services.  For the auction of BRS licenses, the Commission adopted criteria for three groups of small 
businesses.  A very small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, 
98 The use of the term "wireless cable" does not imply that it constitutes cable television for statutory or regulatory 
purposes.
99 See 47 CFR § 27.4; see also 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, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 
9589, 9593, para. 7 (1995).
100 Generally, a wireless cable system may be described as a microwave station transmitting on a combination of 
BRS and EBS channels to numerous receivers with antennas, such as single-family residences, apartment 
complexes, hotels, educational institutions, business entities and governmental offices. The range of the transmission 
depends upon the transmitter power, the type of receiving antenna and the existence of a line-of-sight path between 
the transmitter or signal booster and the receiving antenna. 
101 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite),” https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517312&year=2017&details=517312.
102 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517112).
103 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 
2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517312,  
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  
104 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.
105 Based on a FCC Universal Licensing System search on December 10, 2021,  
https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp.  Search parameters: Service Group = All, “Match 
only the following radio service(s)”, Radio Service =BR, ED; Authorization Type = All; Status = Active.  We note 
that the number of active licenses does not equate to the number of licensees.  A licensee can have one or more 
licenses.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
56has average annual gross revenues exceed $3 million and did not exceed $15 million for the preceding 
three years, a small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has 
average gross revenues exceed $15 million and did not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years, 
and an entrepreneur is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross 
revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years.106 Of the ten winning bidders for BRS 
licenses, two bidders claiming the small business status won 4 licenses, one bidder claiming the very 
small business status won three licenses and two bidders claiming entrepreneur status won six licenses.107  
One of the winning bidders claiming a small business status classification in the BRS license auction has 
an active licenses as of December 2021.108   
38. The Commission’s small business size standards for EBS define a small business as an 
entity that, together with its affiliates, its controlling interests and the affiliates of its controlling interests, 
has average gross revenues that are not more than $55 million for the preceding five (5) years, and a very 
small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates, its controlling interests and the affiliates of its 
controlling interests, has average gross revenues that are not more than $20 million for the preceding five 
(5) years.109  In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a 
general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service.  Further, the 
Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or 
transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated.  Additionally, since the Commission does not collect 
data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA’s small 
business size standard.  
39.The Educational Broadcasting Services.  Cable-based educational broadcasting services 
fall under the broad category of the Wired Telecommunications Carriers industry.110  The Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or 
providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the 
transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks.111  
Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. 112  
Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to 
106 See 47 CFR § 27.1218(a). 
107 See Federal Communications Commission, Economics and Analytics, Auctions, Auction 86: Broadband Radio 
Service, Summary, Reports, All Bidders, 
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/wireless/auctions/86/charts/86bidder.xls. 
108 Based on a FCC Universal Licensing System search on December 10, 2021,  
https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp.  Search parameters: Service Group = All, “Match 
only the following radio service(s)”, Radio Service =BR; Authorization Type = All; Status = Active.  We note that 
the number of active licenses does not equate to the number of licensees.  A licensee can have one or more licenses.
109 See 47 CFR § 27.1219(a). 
110 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517311&year=2017&details=517311.  Examples of this category are:  
broadband Internet service providers (e.g., cable, DSL); local telephone carriers (wired); cable television distribution 
services; long-distance telephone carriers (wired); closed circuit television (CCTV) services; VoIP service providers, 
using owner operated wired telecommunications infrastructure; direct-to-home satellite system (DTH) services; 
telecommunications carriers (wired); satellite television distribution systems; and multichannel multipoint 
distribution services (MMDS).
111 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517311&year=2017&details=517311. Id.
112 Id.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
57provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services; wired (cable) 
audio and video programming distribution; and wired broadband Internet services.” 113  
40. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies businesses having 1,500 
or fewer employees as small.114  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in 
this industry that operated for the entire year.115  Of this total, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 
employees.116 Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered 
small.  Additionally, according to Commission data as of December 2021, there were 4,477 active EBS 
licenses.117  The Commission estimates that the majority of these licenses are held by non-profit 
educational institutions and school districts and are likely small entities.
41.Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment 
Manufacturing.  This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and 
television broadcast and wireless communications equipment.118  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.119  The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies businesses 
having 1,250 employees or less as small.120  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 656 
firms in this industry that operated for the entire year.121  Of this number, 624 firms had fewer than 250 
employees.122  Thus, under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered 
small.
42.Software Publishers. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in 
computer software publishing or publishing and reproduction.123  Establishments in this industry carry out 
operations necessary for producing and distributing computer software, such as designing, providing 
113 Id.
114 Id. See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517311 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517111).
115 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of 
Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517311, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517311&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false. 
116 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.
117 Based on a FCC Universal Licensing System search on December 17, 2021.  
https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp.  Search parameters: Service Group = All, “Match 
only the following radio service(s)”, Radio Service =ED; Authorization Type = All; Status = Active.  We note that 
the number of active licenses does not equate to the number of licensees.  A licensee can have one or more licenses.
118 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 
Communications Equipment Manufacturing,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=334220&year=2017&details=334220. 
119 Id.
120 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 334220.
121 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 
2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 334220, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=334220&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  
122 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  
123 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “511210 Software Publishers,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=511210&year=2017&details=511210.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
58documentation, assisting in installation, and providing support services to software purchasers.124  These 
establishments may design, develop, and publish, or publish only.125  The SBA small business size 
standard for this industry classifies businesses having annual receipts of $41.5 million or less as small.126  
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 indicate that 7,842 firms in this industry operated for the entire year. 127  
Of this number 7,226 firms had revenue of less than $25 million.128  Based on this data, we conclude that 
a majority of firms in this industry are small.
43.Noncommercial Educational (NCE) and Public Broadcast Stations.  Noncommercial 
educational broadcast stations and public broadcast stations are television or radio broadcast stations 
which under the Commission's rules are eligible to be licensed by the Commission as a noncommercial 
educational radio or television broadcast station and are owned and operated by a public agency or 
nonprofit private foundation, corporation, or association; or are owned and operated by a municipality 
which transmits only noncommercial programs for education purposes.
44. The SBA small business size standards and U.S. Census Bureau data classify radio 
stations129 and television broadcasting130 separately and both categories may include both noncommercial 
and commercial stations.  The SBA small business size standard for both radio stations and television 
broadcasting classify firms having $41.5 million or less in annual receipts as small.131  For Radio Stations, 
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 1,879 of the 2,963 firms that operated during that year had 
revenue of less than $25 million per year.132  For Television Broadcasting, U.S. Census Bureau data for 
2017 show that 657 of the 744 firms that operated for the entire year had revenue of less than 
124 Id.
125 Id.
126 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 511210 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 513210).  
127 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of 
Shipments, or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 511210, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=511210&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.   
128 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and 
revenues are used interchangeably, see https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices.
129 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “515112 Radio Stations,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=515112&year=2017&details=515112.
130 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “515120 Television Broadcasting,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=515120&year=2017&details=515120.
131 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 515112 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 516110) (Radio Stations); NAICS 
Code 515120 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 516120) (Television Broadcasting).  
132 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of 
Shipments, or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 515112, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=515112&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms 
that meet the SBA size standard.  We note that the U.S. Census Bureau withheld publication of the number of firms 
that operated for the entire year.  We also note that the U.S. Census Bureau withheld publication of the number of 
firms that operated with sales/value of shipments/revenue in the individual categories for less than $100,000, and 
$100,000 to $249,999 to avoid disclosing data for individual companies (see Cell Notes for the sales/value of 
shipments/revenue in these categories).  Therefore, the number of firms with revenue that meet the SBA size 
standard would be higher that noted herein.  We further note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the 
terms receipts and revenues are used interchangeably, see 
https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
59$25,000,000.133  While the U.S. Census Bureau data does not indicate the number of non-commercial 
stations, we estimate that under the applicable SBA size standard the majority of noncommercial 
educational broadcast stations and public broadcast stations are small entities.
45. According to Commission data as of December 31, 2022, there were 4,590 licensed 
noncommercial educational radio and television stations.134  In addition, the Commission estimates as of 
December 31, 2022, there were 383 licensed noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations, 383 
Class A TV stations, 1,912 LPTV stations and 3,122 TV translator stations.135  The Commission does not 
compile and otherwise does not have access to financial information for these stations that permit it to 
determine how many stations qualify as small entities under the SBA small business size standards.  
However, given the nature of these services, we will presume that all noncommercial educational and 
public broadcast stations qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size standards.
46.Radio Stations.  This industry is comprised of “establishments primarily engaged in 
broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public.”136  Programming may originate in their own studio, 
from an affiliated network, or from external sources.137  The SBA small business size standard for this 
industry classifies firms having $41.5 million or less in annual receipts as small.138  U.S. Census Bureau 
data for 2017 show that 2,963 firms operated in this industry during that year.139  Of this number, 1,879 
firms operated with revenue of less than $25 million per year.140  Based on this data and the SBA’s small 
business size standard, we estimate a majority of such entities are small entities.
47. The Commission estimates that as of December 31, 2022, there were 4,484 licensed 
commercial AM radio stations and 6,686 licensed commercial FM radio stations, for a combined total of 
11,170 commercial radio stations.141 Of this total, 11,168 stations (or 99.98 %) had revenues of $41.5 
133 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of 
Shipments, or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 515120, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=515120&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms 
that meet the SBA size standard.  We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts 
and revenues are used interchangeably, see https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices.
134 Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2022, Public Notice, DA 22-721 (rel. Jan. 11, 2022) (December 
2022 Broadcast Station Totals PN), https://www.fcc.gov/document/broadcast-station-totals-december-31-2022.
135 Id.
136 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “515112 Radio Stations,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=515112&year=2017&details=515112.
137 Id.
138 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 515112 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 516110).
139 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of 
Shipments, or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 515112, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=515112&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  We note that the US Census Bureau withheld publication of the number of firms that operated for the 
entire year. 
140 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  We note that the U.S. Census Bureau withheld publication of the number of firms that 
operated with sales/value of shipments/revenue in the individual categories for less than $100,000, and $100,000 to 
$249,999 to avoid disclosing data for individual companies (see Cell Notes for the sales/value of shipments/revenue 
in these categories).  Therefore, the number of firms with revenue that meet the SBA size standard would be higher 
that noted herein.  We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and revenues 
are used interchangeably, see https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices.
141 Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2022, Public Notice, DA 22-721 (rel. Jan. 11, 2022) (December 
2022 Broadcast Station Totals PN), https://www.fcc.gov/document/broadcast-station-totals-december-31-2022.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
60million or less in 2021, according to Commission staff review of the BIAKelsey Media Access Pro 
Online Database (MAPro) on January 13, 2023,142 and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities 
under the SBA definition.  In addition, the Commission estimates that as of December 31, 2022, there 
were 4,207 licensed noncommercial (NCE) FM radio stations, 2,015 low power FM (LPFM) stations, and 
8,950 FM translators and boosters.143  The Commission however does not compile, and otherwise does 
not have access to financial information for these radio stations that would permit it to determine how 
many of these stations qualify as small entities under the SBA small business size standard.  Nevertheless, 
given the SBA’s large annual receipts threshold for this industry and the nature of these radio station 
licensees, we presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small 
business size standard.
48.  We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as “small” 
under the above definition, business (control) affiliations144 must be included.  Our estimate, therefore, 
likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the revenue 
figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.  In addition, 
another element of the definition of “small business” requires that an entity not be dominant in its field of 
operation.  We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a 
specific radio or television broadcast station is dominant in its field of operation.  Accordingly, the 
estimate of small businesses to which the rules may apply does not exclude any radio or television station 
from the definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive.  An 
additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned 
and operated.  Because it is difficult to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, the estimate of 
small businesses to which the rules may apply does not exclude any radio or television station from the 
definition of a small business on this basis and similarly may be over-inclusive.
49.FM Translator Stations and Low-Power FM Stations.  FM translators and Low Power 
FM Stations are classified in the industry for Radio Stations.145  The Radio Stations industry comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public.146  Programming 
may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.147  The SBA small 
business size standard for this industry classifies firms having $41.5 million or less in annual receipts as 
small.148  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 2,963 firms operated during that year.149  Of that 
142 BIA Advisory Services, BIAKelsey Media Access Pro Online Radio Database, http://www.biakelsey.com/data-
platforms/media-access-pro (last visited January 13, 2023).
143 Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2022, Public Notice, DA 22-721 (rel. Jan. 11, 2022) (December 
2022 Broadcast Station Totals PN), https://www.fcc.gov/document/broadcast-station-totals-december-31-2022.
144 “[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 the power to control both.” 13 CFR § 21.103(a)(1).
145 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “515112 Radio Stations,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=515112&year=2017&details=515112. 
146 Id.
147 Id.
148 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 515112 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 516110).
149 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of 
Shipments, or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 515112,
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=515112&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  We note that the US Census Bureau withheld publication of the number of firms that operated for the 
entire year. Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
61number, 1,879 firms operated with revenue of less than $25 million per year.150   Therefore, based on the 
SBA’s size standard we conclude that the majority of FM Translator stations and Low Power FM Stations 
are small.  Additionally, according to Commission data, as of December 31, 2022, there were 8,950 FM 
Translator Stations and 2,015 Low Power FM licensed broadcast stations.151  The Commission however 
does not compile and otherwise does not have access to information on the revenue of these stations that 
would permit it to determine how many of the stations would qualify as small entities.  For purposes of 
this regulatory flexibility analysis, we presume the majority of these stations are small entities.
50.Television Broadcasting.  This industry is comprised of “establishments primarily 
engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.”152  These establishments operate television 
broadcast studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public.153  These 
establishments also produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, 
which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule.  Programming may 
originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.  The SBA small 
business size standard for this industry classifies businesses having $41.5 million or less in annual 
receipts as small.154 2017 U.S. Census Bureau data indicate that 744 firms in this industry operated for the 
entire year.155  Of that number, 657 firms had revenue of less than $25,000,000.156  Based on this data we 
estimate that the majority of television broadcasters are small entities under the SBA small business size 
standard. 
51. As of December 31, 2022, there were 1,375 licensed commercial television 
stations.157  Of this total, 1,282 stations (or 93.2%) had revenues of $41.5 million or less in 2021, 
according to Commission staff review of the BIAKelsey Media Access Pro Online Television Database 
(MAPro) on January 13, 2023,158 and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA 
definition.  In addition, the Commission estimates as of December 31, 2022, there were 383 licensed 
noncommercial educational (NCE) television stations, 383 Class A TV stations, 1,912 LPTV stations and 
150 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  We note that the U.S. Census Bureau withheld publication of the number of firms that 
operated with sales/value of shipments/revenue in the individual categories for less than $100,000, and $100,000 to 
$249,999 to avoid disclosing data for individual companies (see Cell Notes for the sales/value of shipments/revenue 
in these categories).  Therefore, the number of firms with annual receipts that meet the SBA size standard would be 
higher that noted herein. We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and 
revenues are used interchangeably, see https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices.
151 Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2022, Public Notice, DA 22-721 (rel. Jan. 11, 2022) (December 
2022 Broadcast Station Totals PN), https://www.fcc.gov/document/broadcast-station-totals-december-31-2022.
152 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “515120 Television Broadcasting,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=515120&year=2017&details=515120.
153 Id.
154 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 515120 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 516120). 
155 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of 
Shipments, or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 515120, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=515120&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.
156 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and 
revenues are used interchangeably, see https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices.
157 Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2022, Public Notice, DA 22-721 (rel. Jan. 11, 2022) (December 
2022 Broadcast Station Totals PN), https://www.fcc.gov/document/broadcast-station-totals-december-31-2022. 
158 BIA Advisory Services, BIAKelsey Media Access Pro Online Television Database, 
http://www.biakelsey.com/data-platforms/media-access-pro (last visited on Jan. 13, 2023).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
623,122 TV translator stations.159  The Commission however does not compile, and otherwise does not have 
access to financial information for these television broadcast stations that would permit it to determine 
how many of these stations qualify as small entities under the SBA small business size standard.  
Nevertheless, given the SBA’s large annual receipts threshold for this industry and the nature of these 
television station licensees, we presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the above 
SBA small business size standard.
52.Cable and Other Subscription Programming.  The U.S. Census Bureau defines this 
industry as establishments primarily engaged in operating studios and facilities for the broadcasting of 
programs on a subscription or fee basis.160  The broadcast programming is typically narrowcast in nature 
(e.g., limited format, such as news, sports, education, or youth-oriented).  These establishments produce 
programming in their own facilities or acquire programming from external sources.161 The programming 
material is usually delivered to a third party, such as cable systems or direct-to-home satellite systems, for 
transmission to viewers.162  The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms with 
annual receipts less than $41.5 million as small.163  Based on U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017, 378 firms 
operated in this industry during that year.164  Of that number, 149 firms operated with revenue of less than 
$25 million a year and 44 firms operated with revenue of $25 million or more.165    Based on this data, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of firms operating in this industry are small. 
53.Cable System Operators (Rate Regulation Standard).  The Commission has developed its 
own small business size standard for the purpose of cable rate regulation.  Under the Commission’s rules, 
a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers nationwide.166  Based on industry 
data, there are about 420 cable companies in the U.S.167  Of these, only seven have more than 400,000 
subscribers.168  In addition, under the Commission’s rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 
159 Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2022, Public Notice, DA 22-721 (rel. Jan. 11, 2022) (December 
2022 Broadcast Station Totals PN), https://www.fcc.gov/document/broadcast-station-totals-december-31-2022.
160 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “515210 Cable and Other Subscription Programming,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=515210&year=2017&details=515210.
161 Id.  
162 Id.  
163 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 515210.
164 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of 
Shipments, or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 515210, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=515210&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.  The US Census Bureau withheld publication of the number of firms that operated for the entire year to 
avoid disclosing data for individual companies (see Cell Notes for this category).
165 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard. We note that the U.S. Census Bureau withheld publication of the number of firms that 
operated with sales/value of shipments/revenue in all categories of revenue less than $500,000 to avoid disclosing 
data for individual companies (see Cell Notes for the sales/value of shipments/revenue in these categories).  
Therefore, the number of firms with revenue that meet the SBA size standard would be higher than noted herein.  
We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and revenues are used 
interchangeably, see https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices. 
166 47 CFR § 76.901(d).  
167 S&P Global Market Intelligence, S&P Capital IQ Pro, U.S. MediaCensus, Operator Subscribers by Geography 
(last visited September 15, 2023).
168 S&P Global Market Intelligence, S&P Capital IQ Pro, Top Cable MSOs 12/21Q (last visited September 15, 
2023); S&P Global Market Intelligence, Multichannel Video Subscriptions, Top 10 (April 2022).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
6315,000 or fewer subscribers.169  Based on industry data, there are about 4,139 cable systems (headends) in 
the U.S.170  Of these, about 639 have more than 15,000 subscribers.171  Accordingly, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of cable companies and cable systems are small.
54.Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard).  The Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, contains a size standard for a “small cable operator,” which is “a cable operator that, directly or 
through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than one percent of all subscribers in the United States 
and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed 
$250,000,000.”172  For purposes of the Telecom Act Standard, the Commission determined that a cable 
system operator that serves fewer than 677,000 subscribers, either directly or through affiliates, will meet 
the definition of a small cable operator based on the cable subscriber count established in a 2001 Public 
Notice.173  Based on industry data, only six cable system operators have more than 677,000 subscribers.174  
Accordingly, the Commission estimates that the majority of cable system operators are small under this 
size standard.  We note however, that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on 
whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 
million.175  Therefore, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable 
system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the definition in the Communications 
Act.
55.Satellite Telecommunications.  This industry comprises firms “primarily engaged in 
providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and 
broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or 
reselling satellite telecommunications.”176  Satellite telecommunications service providers include satellite 
and earth station operators.  The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business 
with $35 million or less in annual receipts as small.177  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 
169 47 CFR § 76.901(c).  
170 S&P Global Market Intelligence, S&P Capital IQ Pro, U.S. MediaCensus, Operator Subscribers by Geography 
(last visited September 15, 2023).
171 S&P Global Market Intelligence, S&P Capital IQ Pro, Top Cable MSOs 12/21Q (last visited September 15, 
2023).
172 47 U.S.C. § 543(m)(2).
173 FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 
2225 (CSB 2001) (2001 Subscriber Count PN).  In this Public Notice, the Commission determined that there were 
approximately 67.7 million cable subscribers in the United States at that time using the most reliable source publicly 
available.  Id.  We recognize that the number of cable subscribers changed since then and that the Commission has 
recently estimated the number of cable subscribers to traditional and telco cable operators to be approximately 58.1 
million.  See Communications Marketplace Report, GN Docket No. 20-60, 2020 Communications Marketplace 
Report, 36 FCC Rcd 2945, 3049, para. 156 (2020) (2020 Communications Marketplace Report).  However, because 
the Commission has not issued a public notice subsequent to the 2001 Subscriber Count PN, the Commission still 
relies on the subscriber count threshold established by the 2001 Subscriber Count PN for purposes of this rule.  See 
47 CFR § 76.901(e)(1).
174 S&P Global Market Intelligence, S&P Capital IQ Pro, Top Cable MSOs 12/21Q (last visited September 15, 
2023); S&P Global Market Intelligence, Multichannel Video Subscriptions, Top 10 (April 2022).
175 The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local 
franchise authority’s finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to §  76.901(e) of 
the Commission’s rules.  See 47 CFR §  76.910(b).
176 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517410 Satellite Telecommunications,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517410&year=2017&details=517410.
177 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517410.  Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
64firms in this industry operated for the entire year.178  Of this number, 242 firms had revenue of less than 
$25 million.179  Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring 
Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 71 providers that reported they were engaged in the 
provision of satellite telecommunications services.180  Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 
approximately 48 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.181  Consequently using the SBA’s small 
business size standard, a little more than of these providers can be considered small entities.
56.All Other Telecommunications.  This industry is comprised of establishments primarily 
engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation.182  This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in 
providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial 
systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, 
satellite systems.183  Providers of Internet services (e.g. dial-up ISPs) or voice over Internet protocol 
(VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry.184  
The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million 
or less as small.185  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry 
that operated for the entire year.186  Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million.187  Based 
on this data, the Commission estimates that the majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms can be 
considered small.
57.Direct Broadcast Satellite (“DBS”) Service.  DBS service is a nationally distributed 
subscription service that delivers video and audio programming via satellite to a small parabolic “dish” 
antenna at the subscriber’s location.  DBS is included in the Wired Telecommunications Carriers industry 
which comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission 
facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and 
178 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of 
Shipments, or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 517410, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517410&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false.
179 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and 
revenues are used interchangeably, see https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices.
180 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 26, Table 1.12 (2021),
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-379181A1.pdf. 
181 Id.
182 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517919 All Other Telecommunications,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517919&year=2017&details=517919.
183 Id.
184 Id.
185 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517919 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517810). 
186 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Sales, Value of 
Shipments, or Revenue Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEREVFIRM, NAICS Code 517919, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517919&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEREVFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false. 
187 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.  We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau glossary, the terms receipts and 
revenues are used interchangeably, see https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
65video using wired telecommunications networks.188  Transmission facilities may be based on a single 
technology or combination of technologies.189  Establishments in this industry use the wired 
telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired 
telephony services, including VoIP services, wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution; and 
wired broadband internet services.190  By exception, establishments providing satellite television 
distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.191
58. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies 
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small.192  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 3,054 
firms operated in this industry for the entire year.193  Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 
250 employees.194  Based on this data, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small under 
the SBA small business size standard.  According to Commission data however, only two entities provide 
DBS service - DIRECTV (owned by AT&T) and DISH Network, which require a great deal of capital for 
operation.195  DIRECTV and DISH Network both exceed the SBA size standard for classification as a 
small business.  Therefore, we must conclude based on internally developed Commission data, in general 
DBS service is provided only by large firms.
E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements for Small Entities
59. The Third Report and Order will adopt new or additional reporting, recordkeeping and/or 
other compliance obligations on small entities to report information about WEA availability in the WEA 
Database.  Specifically, the rules require all CMS Providers to:  (1) refresh their WEA election of whether 
to participate in WEA “in whole” or “in part” or not to participate in a Commission-hosted, publicly 
available WEA Database; (2) disclose the entities on behalf of which it files its election, irrespective of 
whether it elects to participate in WEA, including names of subsidiary companies and the “doing business 
as” names under which a CMS Provider offer wireless service; (3) disclose the geographic areas in which 
they offer WEA; (4) submit to the WEA Database a list of all the mobile devices they offer at the point of 
sale; and (5) use the WEA Database as a means of providing notice of withdrawing their election to 
Participating in WEA.196  
188 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” 
https://www.census.gov/naics/?input=517311&year=2017&details=517311. 
189 Id.
190 See id.  Included in this industry are: broadband Internet service providers (e.g., cable, DSL); local telephone 
carriers (wired); cable television distribution services; long-distance telephone carriers (wired); closed-circuit 
television (CCTV) services; VoIP service providers, using own operated wired telecommunications infrastructure; 
direct-to-home satellite system (DTH) services; telecommunications carriers (wired); satellite television distribution 
systems; and multichannel multipoint distribution services (MMDS).
191 Id. 
192 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517311 (as of 10/1/22, NAICS Code 517111)..
193 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United States, Selected Sectors: Employment Size of 
Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517311, 
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517311&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePrevie
w=false. 
194 Id.  The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that 
meet the SBA size standard.
195 See Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, 
Eighteenth Report, Table III.A.5, 32 FCC Rcd 568, 595 (Jan. 17, 2017).  
196 47 CFR § 10.10(k) (in whole); 47 CFR § 10.10(k) (in part). Very little of this information will be public-facing 
for the first time.  Wireless service area is already available via the Broadband Data Collection.  See Federal 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
6660. We estimate that the rules we adopt today could result in an industry-wide, one-time 
compliance cost of $42.4 million to update the WEA standards and software necessary to comply with the 
rules adopted in this Report and Order and an annually recurring cost of $160,000 for recordkeeping and 
reporting.  We estimate that Participating CMS Providers would, in the aggregate, incur a $42.4 million 
one-time cost to update the WEA standards and software necessary to comply the proposals in this 
Further Notice.  This figure consists of approximately a $845,000 cost to update applicable WEA 
standards and approximately a $41.5 million cost to update applicable software.  We quantify the cost of 
modifying standards as the annual compensation for 30 network engineers compensated at the national 
average wage for their field ($$62.25/hour), plus a 45% mark-up for benefits ($28.01/hour),197 working 
for the amount of time that it takes to develop a standard (one hour every other week for one year, 26 
hours) for 12 distinct standards.198  Our $41.5 million cost estimate on software updates consists of $12.2 
million for software modifications and $29.3 million for software testing.199  We quantify the cost of 
modifying software as the annual compensation for a software developer compensated at the national 
average for their field ($132,930/year), plus a 45% mark-up for benefits ($59,819/year),200 working for the 
amount of time that it takes to develop software (ten months) at each of the 76 CMS Providers that 
Communications Commission Broadband Data Collection Help Center, Formatting Mobile Voice Availability 
Coverage Maps, https://help.bdc.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/articles/6047464151195-Formatting-Mobile-Voice-Availability-
Coverage-Maps (June 22, 2022).  Nationwide Participating CMS Providers already make their mobile device 
support information public.  See WEA-capable Phones (Apr. 3, 2023), 
https://www.att.com/idpassets/images/support/pdf/WEA-capablePhones.pdf; See Devices Tested for WEA 
Functionality (last visited on September 15, 2023), https://www.t-mobile.com/content/dam/digx/tmobile/us/en/non-
dynamic-media/pdf/TMobileWEA.pdf; See Wireless Emergency Alert Compatible Devices (last visited on Aug. 18, 
2023), https://w ww.verizon.com/support/wireless-emergency-alerts-compatible-devices/.  WEA election status has 
always been public.  See generally PS Docket No. 08-146.  And, a particularly motivated consumer could likely use 
Google to ascertain which CMS Providers are providing service to which MVNOs and resellers.  See e.g. Jillian 
Goltzman and Rachel Hartman, Mint Mobile Cell Phone Plans Review and Prices (Aug. 18, 2023), 
https://www.usnews.com/360-reviews/services/cell-phone-plans/mint-
mobile#:~:text=Founded%20in%202016%2C%20Mint%20Mobile,t%20owned%20by%20the%20company. (“Mint 
Mobile functions as a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO).  It runs on T-Mobile’s cellular network, which 
means it uses T-Mobile's network but isn’t owned by the company”).
197 According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of June 2023, civilian wages and salaries averaged $29.86/hour 
and benefits averaged $13.39/hour.  Total compensation therefore averaged $29.86 + $13.39, rounded to $43.26.  
See Press Release, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation—June 2023 (Sept. 12, 
2023), https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf.  Using these figures, benefits constitute a markup of 
$13.39/$29.86 ~ 45% (Compensation Benefit Mark-up).  We therefore markup wages by 45% to account for 
benefits.  We calculate the benefit markup as follows: $62.25 × 45% = $28.01/hour.
198 This is calculated as follows: 30 network engineers × ($62.25 + $28.01) per hour per network engineer × 26 
hours per standard × 12 standards = $844,834.  We round this figure to $845,000 to avoid the false appearance of 
precision in our estimate.  See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, 
Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2022, 15-1241 Computer Network Architect (),  
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes151241.htm (last visited Sept. 14, 2023) (stating that the mean hourly wage for a 
computer network architect is $62.25/hour); Letter from Tom Goode, General Counsel, ATIS, to Marlene Dortch, 
Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed Sept. 6, 2016) (stating that, when standards need to be modified for 
WEA, it would be common practice for groups of approximately 30 individuals with relevant technical expertise 
meet approximately bi-weekly for an hour to discuss the modifications); Wireless Emergency Alerts; Amendments to 
Part 11 of the Commission's Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System, PS Docket Nos. 15-91, 15-94, Second 
Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, 33 FCC Rcd 1320, 1344-45, para. 33, n.154 (2018) (listing 
the 12 WEA standards).
199 We calculate the total costs to update the software as $12.2 million + $29.3 million = $41.5 million.
200 See Compensation Benefit Mark-up.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
67participate in WEA.201  We quantify the cost of testing these modifications (including integration testing, 
unit testing and failure testing) to require 12 software developers compensated at the national average for 
their field working for two months at each of the 76 CMS Providers that participate in WEA.202  In 
quantifying costs for software development, we have used the same framework since 2016 for changes to 
software ranging from expanding WEA’s maximum character limit to enhanced geo-targeting.203  
Because the Commission received no comment to the aforementioned costs framework that specifies a 
different analytical framework or dollar figure estimate, we find that it remains accurate to describe the 
costs attendant to the rules we adopt today.
61. We determine that costs associated with our adopted rules related to WEA availability 
reporting to be minimal for small entities that participate in WEA in whole or that otherwise offer WEA 
in the entirety of their geographic service area because such small entities may have already provided the 
Commission with the geospatial data needed to fulfill a significant aspect of their reporting obligation in 
furtherance of their obligations to support the Commission’s Broadband Data Collection.204  We agree 
with T-Mobile that “[w]here WEA is available throughout a wireless provider’s network, the GIS files 
used for the biannual Broadband Data Collection should serve this purpose. If a wireless provider does 
not offer WEA throughout its network, it should be allowed to submit a different GIS depicting WEA 
coverage.”205  We determine that in the Supporting Document of Study Area Boundary Data Reporting in 
Esri Shapefile Format, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs estimates that it takes an average 
of 26 hours for a data scientist to modify a shapefile.206  We believe submitting WEA availability 
information in geospatial data format should require no more time than modifying a shapefile.  Therefore, 
we believe 26 hours would be an upper bound of the time required for a Participating CMS Provider to 
report its WEA availability in geospatial data format.   Given that the median wage rate is $55.40/hour for 
201 This is calculated as follows: ($132,930 + $59,819) annually per Participating CMS Provider × 10 months / 12 
months per year × 76 Participating CMS Providers = $12,207,437.  See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational 
Employment and Wage Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2022, 15-1252 Software Developers, 
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes151252.htm (last visited Sept. 14, 2023) (stating that the mean annual wage for a 
software developer is $132,930/year); Verizon Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 5 (Jan. 13, 2016) (stating that it 
takes manufacturers and vendors 12 months to incorporate WEA standards into their products and test them); FCC, 
Master WEA Registry,  https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/wea_masterregistry112019.xls (last visited Sept. 7, 
2023) (reflecting that 76 CMS Providers participate in WEA either in whole or in part).
202 This is calculated as follows: 12 software developers x ($132,930 + $66,465) annually per Participating CMS 
Provider x 2 months / 12 months per year x 76 Participating CMS Providers = $ 30,308,040.  
203 See Wireless Emergency Alerts; Amendments to Part 11 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the Emergency 
Alert System, PS Docket Nos. 15-91, 15-94, Report and Order and Further Notice or Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC 
11112, 11168-81 paras. 96-103 (2016) (“According to ATIS, when standards need to be modified for WEA, it 
would be common practice for groups of approximately 30 individuals with relevant technical expertise meet 
approximately bi-weekly for an hour to discuss the modifications.  Commenters assert that these standards-setting 
processes can be completed within 12 months, or 26 bi-weekly, one-hour meetings.”); see also Amendments to Part 
11 of the Commission's Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System, PS Docket Nos. 15-91, 15-94, Second Report 
and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, 33 FCC Rcd 1320, 1344-45, para. 33 (2018) (“We received no 
objections to this approach in the record.”).
204 See generally, Establishing the Digital Opportunity Data Collection; Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data 
Program, WC Docket Nos. 19-195 and 11-10, Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (2019) (discussing costs of requiring submission of broadband coverage maps (polygons) from fixed 
providers).
205 T-Mobile Comments at 12-13.
206 See Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget Executive Office of the 
President, 2022 Study Area Boundary Data Reporting in Esri Shapefile Format DA 12-1777 and DA 13-282, 
Supporting Statement - OMB Control No. 3060-1181, at 5- paras. 12 (Feb. 15, 2022), 
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=202202-3060-009.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
68data scientists,207 with a 45% markup for benefits,208 we arrive at $80.33 as the hourly compensation rate 
for a data scientist.  We estimate an aggregate cost of WEA availability reporting to be approximately 
$160,000 (≈ $80.33 per hour × 26 hours × 76 providers = $158,732, rounded to $160,000), which may be 
recurring on an annual basis since availability may change and need to be updated over time.  Within 
these 26 hours, we believe that Participating CMS Providers will also be able to provide the availability 
information required by the rules adopted today, including lists of all the mobile devices the Participating 
CMS Provider offers at the point of sale, and any changes of WEA service.  Many Participating CMS 
Providers already create and maintain this information, and therefore, we believe that providing this 
information to the WEA Database would require minimal time burdens and within the cost estimates. The 
Commission received no objections to this estimate in the record.  
62. We reason that no additional, ongoing or annualized burdens will result from this 
reporting obligation for small entities and other Participating CMS Providers because the requirement that 
we adopt today does not change the approach that Participating CMS Providers must take to updating 
their elections once this one-time renewed election is completed.  For example, the rules adopted today do 
not impose annual certification of a CMS Provider’s participation in WEA, but rather require reporting in 
the WEA Database only in event of a change of a CMS Provider’s participation in WEA, as specified by 
this Third Report and Order.209  The Commission is not currently in a position to determine whether the 
rules adopted in the Third Report and Order will require small entities to hire attorneys, engineers, 
consultants, or other professionals to comply.
F. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 
Significant Alternatives Considered 
63. The RFA requires an agency to provide, “a description of the steps the agency has taken 
to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities…including a statement of the factual, 
policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the 
other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities 
was rejected.”210  
64. The Commission continues to adopt measures to improve WEA and continues to meet its 
obligation to develop the nation’s emergency preparedness and response infrastructure by making WEA 
more accessible by adding multilingual (including ASL)functionality, integrating location-aware maps, 
enabling Performance and Public Awareness tests, and establishing a WEA Database for Participating 
CMS Providers to report information about WEA availability.  While doing so, the Commission is 
mindful that small entities may incur costs;  we weighed these costs against the public interest benefits of 
the new obligations and determined the benefits outweigh the costs.  The specific steps the Commission 
has taken to minimize costs and reduce the economic impact for small entities and alternatives considered 
are discussed below. 
65. In adopting the rule to enable alerting authorities to display translated Alert Message 
content via the use of emergency alert message templates, we found the record demonstrates that machine 
translation is not yet ripe for use today in WEA.211  The use of alert message templates should minimize 
207 See Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, Occupational Employment and 
Wages, May 2022, 15-2051 Data Scientists, https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes152051.htm (last visited Sept. 14, 
2023) (stating that the mean hourly wage for a data scientist is $55.40/hour).
208 See Compensation Benefit Mark-up.
209 See supra Part III.F.
210 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(6).
211 Apple Inc., Reply, PS Docket Nos 15-91 and 15-94, at 2, 14 (rec. Aug. 21, 2023) (Apple Reply) (“machine 
translation approaches should continue to be studied as they develop, and their usage not prematurely mandated”); 
ATIS Comments at 3 (“ATIS WTSC is not in a position to comment on whether machine translation technologies 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
69the impact of the adopted requirements for small entities because it will limit developing software and 
standards to enable machine translations.  Because the alert message templates will be produced by the 
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau after taking into account public feedback, small entities will 
not need to expend resources to translate emergency messages and develop template alert messages.  
66. AT&T, Verizon, and CTIA expressed concerns that it would take them longer to comply 
if we require compliance with all rules at once due to wireless industry’s resource constraints and the 
burdens of parallel standards and technological development.212  We provide additional time to 
accommodate these concerns.  We believe these timeframes will also minimize the burden on small 
entities.  Additionally, the rules adopted in the Third Report and Order are technologically neutral to 
provide small entities the flexibility to comply with our rules using technologies offered by a variety of 
vendors.
G. Report to Congress
67. The Commission will send a copy of the Third WEA Report and Order, including this 
FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.213  In addition, the 
Commission will send a copy of the Third WEA Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA.  A copy of the Third WEA Report and Order and FRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.214
are mature enough at this time to be used for WEA translations, but notes that the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (FEMA) and others have expressed reservations about the exclusive use of machine translations in 
emergency situations”); Attorneys General Comments at 5 (“Recent evidence shows that machine translation 
produces materially less accurate results when used to translate from English into several other languages”); 
Competitive Carriers Association, Comments, PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, at 3 (rec. Jul. 21, 2023) (CCA 
Comments) (“CCA members are not aware of existing machine translation technologies that are sufficiently reliable 
for use in emergency situations”); CTIA, Reply, PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, at 11 (rec. Aug. 21, 2023) (CTIA 
Reply) (“CTIA supports efforts by the Commission to evaluate the potential for machine translation that will guide 
future determination of any appropriate rules adopting its use”); Federal Emergency Management Agency Integrated 
Public Alert and Warning System Program Office Comments, PS. Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, at 2 (Jul. 29, 2023) 
(FEMA Comments) (“FEMA IPAWS has not conducted research to determine the efficacy of machine translation, 
but anecdotally some AOs have indicated that it has not advanced to the point of replacing their qualified 
translators”); NOAA/NWS Comments at 1 (“NWS is concerned about the quality of device translation because 
wording is critical in conveying the message for certain alerts. The NWS has found examples where calls-to-action 
could be misinterpreted based on a poor, incomplete, or inconsistent translation of an NWS alert”); NYCEM 
Comments at 2-3 (“NYCEM has concerns about the accuracy of translations, specifically regarding critical life-
saving calls-to-action”); NYPSC Reply at 2; County of Sonoma, California Department of Emergency Management 
and the City of Santa Rosa, California Fire Department Comments, PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, at 1 (Jul. 29, 
2023) (Sonoma County Comments) (“we are concerned that automatic translation can lead to unintended and 
deleterious consequences”); T-Mobile Comments at 4 (“Just last fall it was noted that ‘[m]achine translation tools 
like Google Translate can be super handy, and Big Tech often promotes them as accurate and accessible tools that’ll 
break down many intra-linguistic barriers in the modern world. But the truth is that things can go awfully wrong’”); 
T-Mobile USA, Inc., Reply, PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, at 3 (T-Mobile Reply); USGS Comments at 3 (“the 
Commission is right to be concerned about the accuracy of on-the-fly translation which may garble or change the 
meaning of the intended message. This may be especially problematic for place names that may become 
incomprehensible if improperly translated (e.g., Shoemaker Road might be translated as the nonexistent Camino del 
Zapatero”).
212 AT&T Comments at 32; CTIA Comments at 21; Verizon Comments at 3, 5. We also note that this Report and 
Order adopts fewer than all the 2023 WEA FNPRM’s proposed requirements.
213 See 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
214 See 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
70 APPENDIX D
List of Commenters
Comments
Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS)
American Foundation for the Blind, American Council of the Blind, National Disability Rights 
Network (Advocacy Groups for the Blind)
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials International, Inc. (APCO)
AT&T Services, Inc. (AT&T)
Competitive Carriers Association (CCA)
County of San Diego Department of Emergency Services
County of Sonoma, California Department of Emergency Management and the City of Santa Rosa, 
California Fire Department.
DeMarcus Strange
Disability and Communications Access Board (DCAB)
Federal Emergency Management Agency,  Integrated Public Alert and Warning System Program 
Office (FEMA IPAWS)
Franklin W. Bell
Jeanette Sutton
King County Emergency Management
Language and Accessibility in Alert and Warning Workgroup (LAAWW)
Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority, Jefferson County Emergency Communications Authority, 
Boulder Office of Disaster Management, Boulder County Communications, Boulder County Sheriff’s 
Office, Arapahoe County Office of Emergency Management, Arapahoe, County 911 Authority, Adams 
County E-911 Emergency Telephone Service Authority (Colorado Alerting Authorities)
Letitia James, New York State Attorney General, Philip J. Weiser, Colorado Attorney General, 
William Tong, Connecticut Attorney General, Brian L. Schwalb, District of Columbia Attorney 
General, Kwame Raoul, Illinois Attorney General, Anthony G. Brown, Maryland Attorney General, 
Andrea Joy Campbell, Massachusetts Attorney General, Keith Ellison, Minnesota Attorney General, 
Aaron D. Ford, Nevada Attorney General, Matthew J. Platkin, New Jersey Attorney General, Raúl 
Torrez, New Mexico Attorney General, Ellen F. Rosenblum, Oregon Attorney General, Peter Neronha, 
Rhode Island Attorney General, Charity R. Clark, Vermont Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, 
Washington Attorney General, Joshua L. Kaul, Wisconsin Attorney General, Hon. Sylvia O. Hinds-
Radix, New York City Corporation Counsel (Attorneys General)
Lilt, Inc.
Michigan State Police Emergency Management and Homeland Security Division’s Operations 
Management Section (Michigan State Police OMS)
Multimedia Telecommunications and Internet Council 
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Weather Service (NOAA NWS)
New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services (NYS DHSES)
NYC Emergency Management (NYCEM)
Regional Disaster Preparedness Organization of the Portland-Vancouver Metro Region (Portland 
Regional Disaster Preparedness Organization or PRDPO)
State of Oregon's OR-Alert Governance Committee 
Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc., Communication Service for the Deaf, 
Hearing Loss Association of America, National Association of the Deaf, Coalition on Inclusive 
Emergency Planning, Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Technology for the Deaf and 
Hard of Hearing, Gallaudet University (Advocacy Groups for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing)Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
71The Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA)
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Weather Service (NOAA NWS)
T-Mobile USA, Inc.
United States Geological Survey (USGS)
Verizon
Replies
Apple, Inc.
ATIS
CTIA
Electronic Frontier Foundation
New York State Public Service Commission (NYSPSC)
Southern Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Southern Linc
Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc., Communication Service for the Deaf, 
Hearing Loss Association of America, National Association of the Deaf, Coalition on Inclusive 
Emergency Planning, Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Technology for the Deaf and 
Hard of Hearing, Gallaudet University 
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Weather Service (NOAA NWS)
T-Mobile USA, Inc.
Twin Cities Public Television, Inc.
VerizonFederal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
72STATEMENT OF
CHAIRWOMAN JESSICA ROSENWORCEL
Re:Wireless Emergency Alerts, PS Docket No. 15-91; Amendments to Part 11 of the Commission’s 
Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System, PS Docket No. 15-94, Third Report and Order 
(October 19, 2023)
On October 4th, I was at Gallaudet University.  I spoke at an afternoon class taught by the 
school’s president, Roberta Cordano.  It was a session dedicated to understanding policy from the inside 
out.  But as erudite as my remarks were, we had a powerful object lesson in policymaking right then and 
there when the national test of the Wireless Emergency Alert system went off mid-lecture.  Students 
instinctively reached for their phones, not because this community heard their devices—we were at the 
Nation’s premier school for the deaf, after all—but because these special alerts have a distinctive 
vibration.  It was a reminder that when we build systems to support public safety, we make policy choices 
about who we reach and how it can help save lives.
Today we make another choice.  We extend the reach of the Wireless Emergency Alert system to 
13 languages, including American Sign Language.  We do this by requiring participating wireless 
providers to support templates based on a system that New York State Attorney General Letitia James 
brought to our attention following floods caused by Hurricane Ida when not all residents, especially those 
speaking Asian languages, got the information they needed for their safety.  She pressed us to recognize 
how expanding multilingual alerting can save lives.  We agree and we are taking action.  We are also 
requiring wireless providers to support location-aware maps so those who get these alerts have a better 
sense of precisely where the emergency is occurring.  On top of this, we are establishing a new database 
at the Federal Communications Commission to help provide alert originators with more insight into 
where and to what extent these alerts are available in their communities.
Then with an eye to the future, we announce that we are seeking to partner with entities that have 
the ability to test the delivery of these alerts through technologies like new satellite systems.  Why is this 
so important?  Because our alert systems need to be resilient and in many disasters terrestrial wireless 
towers are rendered inoperable.  We need alternative solutions, so we turn to space.
These are important changes to the Wireless Emergency Alert system.  They are among the most 
vital reforms we can make under existing law to make sure these warnings reach people when they need 
them most.  But I think the Warning Alert and Response Network Act, which created Wireless 
Emergency Alerts and was signed into law in 2008, is showing its age.  The law was passed just as the 
smartphone era began.  It assumes that the warnings we receive on wireless devices are an afterthought, 
secondary to those delivered over radio and television through the mandatory Emergency Alert System.  
As a result, participation in the Wireless Emergency Alerts remains voluntary.  These are the devices we 
have in our palms, pockets, and purses at all times.  Every carrier and every device should be capable of 
receiving these warnings.  This should not be voluntary.  It’s time to update the law.
For now, though, I would like to thank the New York Attorney General who brought this issue to 
our attention, the students at Gallaudet University who in real time made me think about this issue in new 
ways, and the staff responsible for this effort including Nicole McGinnis, Austin Randazzo, Erika Olsen, 
Michael Antonino, Shabbir Hamid, James Wiley, David Sieradzki, Steven Carpenter, Ahmed Lajouji, 
Rasoul Safavian, Rochelle Cohen, and Debra Jordan from the Public Safety and Homeland Security 
Bureau; Garnet Hanly from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau; Suzy Rosen Singleton and 
William David Wallace from the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau; Jeremy Marcus from the 
Enforcement Bureau; Chana Wilkerson and Joy Ragsdale from the Office of Communications Business 
Opportunities; Aleks Yankelevich from the Office of Economics and Analytics; and Douglas Klein, 
William Huber, and Deborah Broderson from the Office of General CounselFederal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
73STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER GEOFFREY STARKS
Re: Wireless Emergency Alerts, PS Docket No. 15-91; Amendments to Part 11 of the Commission’s 
Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System, PS Docket No. 15-94, Third Report and Order 
(October 19, 2023)
Wildfires in Hawaii.  Severe storms in Illinois, Mississippi, and Vermont.  Typhoons in Guam.  
Flooding in Alaska.  Hurricanes Franklin, Idalia, and Lee.  A quick look at FEMA’s alerts over the last 
few months starkly illustrates the number of extreme weather events our country is facing.  And while 
natural disasters may be the first emergencies that come to mind when we think of our wireless 
emergency alert system, federal, state, and local alerting authorities also use WEA for evacuate and 
shelter-in-place alerts, AMBER Alerts, and other emergency messages. 
By definition, in an emergency, time is of the essence.  Alert recipients must be able to receive, 
understand, and act upon WEA messages immediately.  Too frequently, it is the most vulnerable members 
of our communities – including non-English or Spanish speakers and vision- or hearing-impaired 
individuals – who get left behind.
Today, we take several important steps to ensure not only that we reach them, but do so in the 
most efficient and effective manner:  
1. We require providers who participate in WEA to support WEA alerts in the 13 most 
commonly spoken non-English languages in the United States.  
2. We require providers to support alerts in American Sign Language.  
3. We require mobile devices to support the presentation of alert messages with location-aware 
maps, so that recipients can see where they are in relation to the emergency, and plan their 
next steps. 
4. We require providers to support biannual WEA tests, to give alerting authorities’ information 
about alert use and performance, and to boost awareness of and trust in the WEA system.  
5. And finally, we require all commercial mobile service providers to make clear, in a new, 
publicly-accessible database, whether they participate in WEA, and if they do, in what 
geographic areas and on what devices.
It will take time and work for these new requirements to come to fruition.  In some cases, we are 
breaking new ground, pushing on the limits of current technical feasibility.  But it is our job to push those 
limits when it comes to protecting Americans, and promoting public safety.  Thank you to the many 
Commission staffers who worked on this item.  I am proud to support it.Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
74STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER ANNA M. GOMEZ
Re: Wireless Emergency Alerts, PS Docket No. 15-91; Amendments to Part 11 of the Commission’s 
Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System, PS Docket No. 15-94, Third Report and Order 
(October 19, 2023)
When a community faces a natural disaster or an emergency, having accurate information can 
make the difference between life and death.  Today, we take significant steps to ensure that more people 
are able to receive life-saving emergency information in the language and format they understand. 
Today, we vote to require that Wireless Emergency Alerts, or WEAs, are able to reach consumers 
in 13 languages and American Sign Language (ASL), in addition to English.  By adopting this report and 
order, consumers will now be able to receive alerts in Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Arabic, 
French, Korean, Russian, Haitian Creole, German, Hindi, Portuguese, Italian, and ASL.  Additionally, 
this action by the Commission requires a map of the general emergency area to be made available to 
consumers, makes it easier for alerting authorities to be able to test WEA performance in their 
communities, and creates a WEA Database where information is easily accessible to the public.
These are good steps to help communities have the information they need to stay safe during an 
emergency.  As we see an increase in natural disasters – wildfires, floods, and hurricanes – devastate 
entire communities that are not used to them, expanding access to life-saving information is becoming 
more and more important.  This is especially true for communities with limited resources that are doubly 
harmed by a dearth of information.
I also want to thank the Office of the Chairwoman for accepting our edits to this item to highlight 
the importance of outreach to consumers.  One critical step to be able to receive a multilingual WEA is to 
set your phone in your preferred language so that you can receive the alert in that language.  With our 
edits, we are encouraging all stakeholders to help raise awareness about this critical step, and ask the 
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to seek public comment about how to best conduct outreach 
to consumers regarding multilingual alerts.  So please, to all communities tuning in – tell us how we can 
make information about multilingual WEA most accessible to you. 
And in the spirit of outreach to consumers on this important item, please see separately my 
Statement in Spanish. Federal Communications Commission FCC 23-88
75DECLARACIÓN DE LA COMISIONADA ANNA M. GOMEZ
Re: Wireless Emergency Alerts, PS Docket No. 15-91; Amendments to Part 11 of the Commission’s 
Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System, PS Docket No. 15-94, Third Report and Order 
(October 19, 2023)
Cuando una comunidad enfrenta un desastre natural o una emergencia, disponer de información 
precisa puede marcar la diferencia entre la vida y la muerte.  Hoy, estamos adoptando decisiones 
significativas para asegurarnos de que más personas reciban información de emergencia de vital 
importancia, en el idioma y en el formato que comprenden. 
Hoy, votamos para pedir que las alertas de emergencia inalámbricas (Wireless Emergency Alerts, 
WEAs, por sus siglas en inglés) puedan llegar a los consumidores en 13 idiomas y en la Lengua de Señas 
Americana (ASL), además del inglés.  Al adoptar este informe y orden, los consumidores podrán recibir 
ahora alertas en español, chino, tagalo, vietnamita, árabe, francés, coreano, ruso, creole haitiano, alemán, 
hindi, portugués, italiano y ASL.  Asimismo, esta acción por parte de la Comisión exige que se ponga a 
disposición de los consumidores un mapa del área general de la emergencia; facilita a las autoridades 
pertinentes poner a prueba el desempeño de las alertas WEA en sus comunidades y crea una base de datos 
(WEA Database) donde la información es de fácil acceso por parte del público. 
Estas son positivas medidas para ayudar a las comunidades a contar con la información que 
necesitan para mantenerse a resguardo durante una emergencia.  Mientras observamos un aumento en el 
número de desastres naturales – incendios, inundaciones y huracanes – devastando comunidades enteras 
que no están acostumbradas a este tipo de emergencias, la expansión del acceso a información de vital 
relevancia se hace cada vez más importante. Esto es especialmente cierto para las comunidades con 
recursos limitados, las que resultan doblemente dañadas por la escasez de información.
También quiero agradecer a la oficina de la presidenta de la FCC (Office of the Chairwoman) por 
aceptar nuestras sugerencias de modificación a este ítem para subrayar la importancia de llegar al 
consumidor.  Una medida fundamental para que los consumidores puedan recibir una alerta WEA en su 
idioma es disponer la configuración del teléfono en ese idioma.  Con las modificaciones que hemos 
sugerido, instamos a todas las partes interesadas a ayudar a generar conciencia sobre esta relevante 
medida, y solicitamos a la oficina de seguridad pública y seguridad nacional (Public Safety and Homeland 
Security Bureau) de la Comisión Federal de Comunicaciones la realización de una consulta pública para 
obtener recomendaciones sobre cómo podemos perfeccionar la difusión pública de las alertas de 
emergencia multilingües.  Así que, a todas las comunidades que nos están escuchando – estamos 
esperando sus comentarios sobre cómo lograr que la información sobre las alertas de emergencia 
inalámbricas (WEA) multilingües sea más accesible para ustedes.