37750 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Flexibility Act (RFA) (September 19, 

1980, Pub. L. 96–354), section 1102(b) of 

the Social Security Act, section 202 of 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 (March 22, 1995; Pub. L. 104–4), 

Executive Order 13132 on Federalism 

(August 4, 1999) and the Congressional 

Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies 

to assess all costs and benefits of 

available regulatory alternatives and, if 

regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

net benefits (including potential 

economic, environmental, public health, 

and safety effects, distributive impacts, 

and equity). A regulatory impact 

analysis (RIA) must be prepared for 

major regulatory actions with 

economically significant effects ($100 

million or more in any 1 year). This 

document will prevent the enrollment 

of new home health providers and Part 

B non-emergency ground ambulance 

suppliers in Medicare, Medicaid, and 

CHIP in certain states. Though savings 

may accrue by denying enrollments, the 

monetary amount cannot be quantified. 

Since the imposition of the initial 

moratoria on July 31, 2013, more than 

1204 HHAs and 26 ambulance 

companies in all geographic areas 

affected by the moratoria had their 

applications denied. We have found the 

number of applications that are denied 

after 60 days declines dramatically, as 

most providers and suppliers will not 

submit applications during the 

moratoria period. Therefore, this 

document does not reach the economic 

threshold, and thus is not considered a 

major action. 

The RFA requires agencies to analyze 

options for regulatory relief of small 

entities. For purposes of the RFA, small 

entities include small businesses, 

nonprofit organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. Most 

hospitals and most other providers and 

suppliers are small entities, either by 

nonprofit status or by having revenues 

of less than $7.5 million to $38.5 

million in any one year. Individuals and 

states are not included in the definition 

of a small entity. CMS is not preparing 

an analysis for the RFA because it has 

determined, and the Secretary certifies, 

that this document will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

In addition, section 1102(b) of the Act 

requires us to prepare a regulatory 

impact analysis if an action may have a 

significant impact on the operations of 

a substantial number of small rural 

hospitals. This analysis must conform to 

the provisions of section 604 of the 

RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of 

the Act, CMS defines a small rural 

hospital as a hospital that is located 

outside of a metropolitan statistical area 

(MSA) for Medicare payment purposes 

and has fewer than 100 beds. CMS is not 

preparing an analysis for section 1102(b) 

of the Act because it has determined, 

and the Secretary certifies, that this 

document will not have a significant 

impact on the operations of a substantial 

number of small rural hospitals. 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 also 

requires that agencies assess anticipated 

costs and benefits before issuing any 

regulatory action whose mandates 

require spending in any 1 year of $100 

million in 1995 dollars, updated 

annually for inflation. In 2018, that 

threshold is approximately $150 

million. This document will have no 

consequential effect on state, local, or 

tribal governments or on the private 

sector. 

Executive Order 13771, titled 

‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling 

Regulatory Costs,’’ was issued on 

January 30, 2017 (82 FR 9339, February 

3, 2017). It has been determined that 

this notice is a transfer notice that does 

not impose more than de minimis costs 

and thus is not a regulatory action for 

the purposes of E.O. 13771. 

Executive Order 13132 establishes 

certain requirements that an agency 

must meet when it promulgates a 

proposed regulatory action (and 

subsequent final action) that imposes 

substantial direct requirement costs on 

state and local governments, preempts 

state law, or otherwise has Federalism 

implications. Because this document 

does not impose any costs on state or 

local governments, the requirements of 

Executive Order 13132 are not 

applicable. 

In accordance with the provisions of 

Executive Order 12866, this document 

was reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

Dated: July 17, 2018. 

Seema Verma, 

Administrator, Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16547 Filed 7–30–18; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 11 

[PS Docket No. 15–94; FCC 18–39] 

Emergency Alert System 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission amends its rules governing 

the Emergency Alert System (EAS) by 

establishing the Alert Reporting System 

(ARS), a comprehensive online filing 

system for EAS that combines the 

existing EAS Test Reporting System 

(ETRS) with a new, streamlined 

electronic system for the filing of State 

EAS Plans. By replacing paper-based 

State EAS Plans with an online filing 

system, the ARS will minimize the 

burdens on State Emergency 

Communications Committees (SECCs), 

and allow the FCC, the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA), and other authorized entities to 

better access and use up-to-date 

information about the EAS, thus 

increasing its value as a tool to protect 

life and property for all Americans. 

DATES: Effective September 4, 2018. 

Mandatory compliance dates: FCC will 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register announcing dates as outlined 

in paragraphs 54–55 and 72–73 in 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Austin Randazzo, Attorney Advisor, 

Policy and Licensing Division, Public 

Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, 

at 202–418–1462, or by email at 

Austin.Randazzo@fcc.gov. For 

additional information concerning the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this document, send an 

email to PRA@fcc.gov or contact Nicole 

Ongele, Office of Managing Director, 

Performance Evaluation and Records 

Management, 202–418–2991, or by 

email to PRA@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Report 

and Order (Report and Order) in PS 

Docket No. 15–94, FCC 18–39, released 

on April 10, 2018. The full text of this 

document is available for inspection 

and copying during normal business 

hours in the FCC Reference Center 

(Room CY–1257), 445 12th Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20554, or online at: 

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fccmake-emergency-alert-system-moreeffective. 

Synopsis 

1. This Report and Order revises the 

Commission’s EAS rules to establish the 

Alert Reporting System (ARS), a 

comprehensive online filing system that 

will combine the existing EAS Test 

Reporting System (ETRS) with a new, 

streamlined electronic system for the 

filing of State EAS Plans. Further, to 

ensure that the rules for State EAS Plans 

are clear and unambiguous, the Report 

and Order combines all State EAS Plan 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 37751 

related rules into a single section (11.21) 

of part 11. 

I. Background 

2. The EAS is a national public 

warning system used by EAS 

Participants to deliver emergency alerts 

to the public. The primary purpose of 

the EAS is to allow the President of the 

United States (President) to provide 

information to the general public during 

periods of national emergency. State 

and local authorities also use the 

common distribution architecture of the 

EAS to distribute voluntary weatherrelated and other emergency alerts to 

the public. 

3. There are two distribution methods 

for EAS alerts. The traditional method 

distributes alerts through a hierarchical, 

broadcast-based distribution system, in 

which an alert originator formats an 

alert using the EAS Protocol and 

initiates its transmission at a designated 

entry point. This ‘‘daisy chain’’ process 

relays the alert from one designated 

station to another until it is fully 

distributed. EAS alerts also are 

distributed over the internet through the 

Integrated Public Alert and Warning 

System (IPAWS), a national alerting 

system administered by FEMA. Under 

the IPAWS, EAS Participants monitor a 

FEMA-administered website for EAS 

messages that are written in the 

Common Alerting Protocol (CAP). 

4. While IPAWS relies upon the 

centralized distribution of alerts using 

an alert aggregator and an internet-based 

interface, the EAS’s ‘‘daisy chain’’ 

leverages the broadcast-based EAS 

distribution architectures in each of the 

states. The Commission’s rules require 

each state to file a State EAS Plan with 

the Commission documenting its EAS 

distribution architecture. State 

Emergency Communications 

Committees (SECCs), along with 

associated Local Emergency 

Communications Committees (LECCs), 

draft and file these plans on behalf of 

the states. The SECCs and LECCs are 

volunteer organizations composed of 

state broadcast associations, EAS 

Participants, emergency management 

personnel, and other stakeholders. 

SECCs grew out of a 1963 Executive 

Order that directed the Commission to 

cooperate with other governmental 

entities to develop emergency 

communications plans related to the 

Emergency Broadcast System (EBS). At 

that time, the Commission provided 

SECCs with templates for State EAS 

Plans that described the kinds of 

information that their plans should 

provide. 

5. Nationwide EAS Tests. On 

September 28, 2016 and September 27, 

2017, FEMA, in collaboration with the 

Commission, conducted the second and 

third nationwide tests of the EAS, 

respectively. The purpose of the tests 

was to assess the reliability and 

effectiveness of the EAS, with a 

particular emphasis on testing IPAWS. 

On April 21, 2017, the Public Safety and 

Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) 

released a public version of the second 

test’s results, which indicated that 

although the test had satisfied its 

primary purposes, there remained 

‘‘strong evidence that many test 

participants do not understand their 

roles in the EAS structure and are 

unfamiliar with the State EAS Plans that 

inform them of those roles.’’ 

6. EAS Test Reporting System (ETRS). 

In connection with the test, the 

Commission launched the ETRS, an 

electronic filing system and related 

database that upgraded the system the 

Commission used for the first 

nationwide EAS test. The ETRS requires 

EAS Participants to submit detailed 

information regarding their receipt and 

propagation, if applicable, of the alert 

code, including an explanation of any 

complications in receiving and 

propagating the code. The ETRS enables 

the Commission to maintain a 

centralized database of all EAS 

monitoring assignments and alert 

distribution pathways. 

II. Discussion 

7. Online State EAS Plan Filing in the 

Alert Reporting System. State EAS Plans 

must describe state and local EAS 

operations and ‘‘contain guidelines 

which must be followed by EAS 

Participants’ personnel, emergency 

officials, and [NWS] personnel to 

activate the EAS.’’ State EAS Plans must 

be reviewed and approved by the Chief, 

PSHSB, prior to their implementation 

‘‘to ensure that they are consistent with 

national plans, FCC regulations, and 

EAS operation.’’ 

8. Following the first nationwide EAS 

test in 2011, PSHSB recommended 

converting the State EAS Plan filing 

process into an online system in light of 

inconsistencies identified in a post-test 

analysis of the structure of State EAS 

Plans. Subsequently, the 

Communications Security, Reliability 

and Interoperability Council (CSRIC) IV 

recommended that State EAS Plans also 

be filed online and recommended that 

the Commission revise its rules to adopt 

an online platform, State EAS Plan 

template design, and identification 

mechanisms for facilities and 

geographic areas contained within State 

EAS Plans. In the document, the 

Commission noted the CSRIC’s 

recommendations and proposed 

converting the paper-based filing 

process for State EAS Plans into a 

secure online process that would 

interface with the ETRS. 

9. Online Filing. The Commission 

revises its Part 11 EAS rules to require 

SECCs to file State EAS Plans 

electronically via an online filing 

system. This will provide a baseline 

level of uniformity across State EAS 

Plans, in terms of both format and 

terminology, while affording sufficient 

flexibility to accommodate filers’ unique 

needs. This online State EAS filing 

platform, combined with the existing 

ETRS, will form the Alert Reporting 

System. The Commission believes that 

the ARS will ensure more efficient and 

effective delivery of Presidential as well 

as state, local and weather-related alerts 

as it will provide the Commission, 

FEMA, and other authorized entities 

with the means to more easily review 

and identify gaps in the EAS 

architectures, detect problems, and take 

measures to address these shortcomings. 

10. The Commission agrees with the 

many commenters that note the benefits 

of the online filing system. For example, 

broadcast engineer Sean Donelan 

(Donelan) states that a wellimplemented electronic filing system for 

EAS data will reduce the burden on 

state and local EAS committee 

volunteers. Use of an online filing 

system will also benefit EAS 

Participants, SECCs, and other EAS 

stakeholders by facilitating the 

Commission’s swift and efficient review 

of State EAS Plans. As the Washington 

State SECC notes, a standardized filing 

system ‘‘is long overdue’’ and will aid 

the Commission’s effort to review State 

EAS Plans. The Commission believes, as 

does Wisconsin SECC Broadcast Chair 

Gary Timm, commenting in his 

individual capacity (Timm), that the 

time required for SECCs to fill out a 

monitoring matrix would be minimal, 

and that other FCC databases could help 

keep the information updated. The 

online filing system will be an efficient 

tool for reviewing alerting architecture, 

as it will provide an end-to-end picture 

of the EAS distribution architecture for 

each state. Further, cross-referencing 

data from electronically filed State EAS 

Plans with data collected from the ETRS 

will make it easier to identify problems 

such as single points of failure. Finally, 

moving to an online system will reduce 

burdens on SECCs by pre-populating 

data fields in State EAS Plans with 

information from other FCC databases, 

enabling SECCs to readily update and 

revise their plans. 

11. The Commission believes that the 

efficient and effective administration of 

the EAS, i.e., its ability to deliver a 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
37752 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

Presidential Alert nationwide, requires 

some level of standardization of State 

EAS Plans. State EAS Plans currently 

lack consistent structure and content. 

An online filing system using uniform 

and consistent terminology will 

facilitate the input, analysis, and related 

uses of the Plan information. During the 

first nationwide EAS test, a lack of 

uniformity among State EAS Plans 

‘‘made it very difficult for the 

Commission and FEMA to create a 

national propagation map.’’ Similarly, 

the Commission agrees with CSRIC IV 

that the lack of uniform format in State 

EAS Plans ‘‘makes it difficult for the 

FCC to determine if a proper 

distribution network exists for . . . 

distribution [of the Presidential Alert] in 

each state.’’ Further, an online State 

EAS Plan filing system with consistent 

terminology and format will allow 

SECCs to ‘‘report changes to state plans 

and EAS EAN Event Code distribution 

in the least demanding and most 

efficient manner possible that still 

provides the Commission with current 

and accurate information.’’ 

12. Template. The Commission 

requires State EAS Plan data to be 

entered into a pre-configured online 

template. As the Commission discusses 

below, it is designed to be minimally 

burdensome, secure, and to offer clear 

guidance to SECCs. The template will 

standardize monitoring and other 

common elements of EAS State Plans, 

while offering sufficient flexibility to 

avoid SECCs’ concerns that a ‘‘one size 

fits all’’ template for State EAS Plans 

would be unworkable. It will address all 

elements of State EAS Plans, including 

a monitoring assignment matrix similar 

to the one used by the Washington State 

SECC and supported by commenters, so 

that SECCs may input monitoring data 

into the ARS in a structured and 

consistent manner. Where feasible, the 

Commission will ensure that this matrix 

and other parts of the template will prepopulate elements of State EAS Plans by 

cross-referencing data already collected 

by the Commission, as recommended by 

CSRIC IV. The Commission directs 

PSHSB to develop and implement the 

template in Appendix D of the Report 

and Order to include these 

functionalities and to minimize 

unnecessary and redundant filing 

burdens on SECCs. 

13. The Commission traditionally has 

provided SECCs with templates 

describing the kinds of information to 

be included in State EAS Plans, and the 

template the Commission adopts today 

is consistent with that practice. To be 

both effective and minimally 

burdensome, the State EAS Plan 

template must address all state plan 

elements. The Commission thus 

disagrees with suggestions that the 

online database and template apply only 

to the monitoring assignment matrix, or 

to what some commenters characterize 

as the ‘‘federal’’ aspects of State EAS 

Plans. State EAS Plans are not limited 

to monitoring assignment data, but 

rather include other elements which, 

taken together, form the EAS activation 

guidelines that EAS stakeholders follow. 

Similarly, the use and testing of the EAS 

at the state and local level provide 

insight into its functionality and 

effectiveness at the federal level. 

14. Finally, the Commission disagrees 

with commenters who suggest that a 

State EAS Plan template is unworkable 

because there is no ‘‘one size fits all’’ 

framework for State EAS Plans. The 

template will afford SECCs flexibility to 

provide information they deem relevant 

to design and maintain their states’ EAS 

distribution architectures and relay 

networks. It will be configured in a 

manner that accommodates variations in 

state alerting architectures, including 

areas where alerts are transmitted across 

state borders. 

15. Access. The Commission agrees 

with commenters that State EAS Plan 

information concerning the placement 

of broadcast towers and other vital alert 

distribution architecture infrastructure 

is sensitive, particularly when 

aggregated with similar information 

from other states. Accordingly, the 

Commission adopts safeguards to ensure 

only authorized entities access this data. 

The Commission requires SECCs to 

provide an SECC ID, an individual user 

ID, and a password to input State EAS 

Plan data into the ARS. Commenters 

generally support limiting access to 

State EAS Plans filed in this manner. 

NSBA observes that the security risks of 

aggregating State EAS Plans online 

justify the use of password or log-in 

protection. Further, the Alaska 

Broadcasters Association, Alaska State 

Emergency Communications 

Committee, and the State of Alaska 

Department of Military and Veterans 

Affairs, the Division of Homeland 

Security and Emergency Management 

(Alaska Commenters) assert that online 

data that includes specific station and 

equipment information (e.g., make, 

model, manufacturer, and firmware 

versions of the encoder, decoder, and 

translator equipment) should be 

considered sensitive and protected from 

disclosure as necessary. To address 

these concerns, the Commission adopts 

CSRIC IV’s recommendation to follow 

the Disaster Information Reporting 

System (DIRS) two-layer access model. 

This model will require a user to input 

both an SECC ID and an individual user 

ID before accessing the database. The 

Commission agrees with the Alaska 

Commenters that, similar to DIRS and 

ETRS, the Commission should handle 

user and account management for this 

system, and the Commission directs 

PSHSB to determine the details of 

designing and setting up ARS account 

management. 

16. Several commenters provide 

useful suggestions about access to State 

EAS Plan data that the Commission 

adopts as elements of ARS access. The 

Commission agrees with Nevada SECC 

Chairwoman Adrienne Abbott, 

commenting in her individual capacity 

(Abbott), that only individuals with 

significant roles in SECCs should have 

access to this data, and, further, that 

such access should be limited to data 

about an SECC’s individual state. The 

Commission disagrees with Monroe 

Electronics, however, that EAS 

equipment manufacturers and planning 

consultants should have access to State 

EAS Plan data to confirm proper 

configuration of system hardware and 

software. As noted above, the ARS will 

contain sensitive data and, for this 

reason, the Commission believes it 

serves the public interest to limit access 

to the ARS. EAS equipment 

manufacturers and other third-party 

vendors may request a particular client’s 

data from that client. 

17. Confidentiality. Finally, the 

Commission affords confidentiality 

protection to State EAS Plan data. Most 

commenters agree that some of the 

information in State EAS Plans, such as 

the call signs and locations of key EAS 

sources, is sensitive or could become 

sensitive if aggregated in a single 

location. The Commission notes that 

details regarding equipment 

configurations, EAS equipment vendor 

market share, and relationships between 

EAS Participants themselves could be 

commercially sensitive. Aggregated 

information in State EAS Plans, such as 

configurations and vulnerabilities as 

demonstrated by tests, could also 

implicate national security. Further, 

nothing in the record indicates a need 

for public access to State EAS Plan 

information. Accordingly, the 

Commission concludes that State EAS 

Plan data and any aggregation of such 

data will have the same level of 

confidentiality as data filed in the ETRS, 

i.e., the Commission will share 

individual and aggregated data on a 

confidential basis with other federal 

agencies and state governmental 

emergency management agencies that 

have confidentiality protection at least 

equal to that provided by the Freedom 

of Information Act (FOIA). The 

Commission notes that some SECCs may 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 37753 

be subject to state-based requirements 

that require disclosure of some or all of 

the same data that it will file in the ARS. 

Although the rules the Commission 

adopts today will prevent unauthorized 

State EAS Plan data disclosure filed by 

an SECC via ARS, the rules will not 

prevent or preclude SECCs from 

independently filing with its state the 

same data that it files with the ARS. 

18. EAS Designations. The 

Commission’s part 11 rules provide 

designations for ‘‘key EAS sources.’’ In 

the document, the Commission 

observed that SECCs have inconsistently 

used these designations. This 

inconsistency inhibits the Commission’s 

ability to determine the quality of the 

state and national level broadcast-based 

EAS, and may inhibit delivery of a 

Presidential Alert. Accordingly, the 

Commission proposed refining its EAS 

designations in a way that would 

accommodate variations in but also 

promote uniformity among State EAS 

Plans. The Commission also sought 

comment on whether additional 

designations may be necessary. 

19. The Commission amends section 

11.18 to define all its current EAS 

designations. Although SECCs’ use of 

EAS designations may vary, 

commenters support retaining the 

current designations to support the 

SECCs’ abilities to assign roles and 

responsibilities. Accordingly, the 

Commission keeps these designations as 

tools to help SECCs describe their states’ 

EAS alert distribution hierarchies in 

their State EAS Plans ‘‘using common 

language.’’ These universal designations 

also will allow the Commission to create 

an EAS Mapbook as contemplated by 

the EAS rules. The Mapbook will 

provide an accurate and dynamic 

nationwide propagation map for the 

Presidential Alert, as well as state, 

county, and local propagation maps. 

The Commission agrees with Abbott 

that it would be difficult to implement 

standardized terminology if its 

definitions did not provide sufficient 

flexibility to accommodate states’ 

varying approaches to establishing EAS 

monitoring assignments. However, the 

EAS designation definitions the 

Commission adopts today are designed 

to provide a level of uniformity that will 

allow SECCs to establish EAS 

monitoring assignments that 

accommodate their unique situations. 

Accordingly, the Commission will 

define the EAS designations as follows. 

20. Primary Entry Point (PEP): A 

private or commercial radio broadcast 

station that cooperatively participates 

with FEMA to provide EAS alerts to the 

public. PEPs are the primary source of 

initial broadcast for a Presidential Alert. 

A PEP is equipped with back-up 

communications equipment and power 

generators designed to enable it to 

continue broadcasting information to 

the public during and after disasters of 

national significance. The PEP System is 

a nationwide network of such broadcast 

stations used to distribute EAS alerts 

formatted in the EAS Protocol. FEMA is 

responsible for designating broadcast 

stations as PEPs. 

21. National Primary (NP): An entity 

tasked with the primary responsibility 

of receiving the Presidential Alert from 

a PEP and delivering it to an individual 

state or portion of a state. In states 

without a PEP, the NP is responsible for 

receiving the Presidential Alert from an 

out-of-state PEP and transmitting it to 

the public and other EAS Participants in 

the state. Multiple entities may be 

charged with primary responsibility for 

delivering the Presidential Alert. 

22. PEP and NP are the only 

designations that are solely relevant to 

the transmission of the Presidential 

Alert. 

23. State Primary (SP): An entity 

tasked with initiating the delivery of 

EAS alerts other than the Presidential 

Alert. 

24. SPs may, for example, be 

designated by SECCs to initially 

transmit AMBER alerts or alerts related 

to incidents of severe weather to the 

public and to other EAS Participants 

that voluntarily monitor for and 

retransmit such alerts. 

25. Local Primary (LP): An entity that 

serves as a monitoring assignment for 

other EAS Participants within the state. 

LP sources may be assigned numbers 

(e.g., LP–1, LP–2) and are relied on as 

monitoring sources by other EAS 

Participants in the local area. An LP 

may monitor any other station, 

including another LP, so long as doing 

so avoids creating a single point of 

failure in the alert distribution 

hierarchy. 

26. Participating National (PN): An 

EAS Participant that transmits national, 

state, or local area EAS messages, and is 

not otherwise designated within the 

State EAS Plan. 

27. State Relay (SR): An entity not 

otherwise designated that is charged 

with retransmitting EAS alerts for the 

purpose of being monitored by an LP or 

PN. 

28. Commenters assert that SR 

properly describes the relay function 

and is used extensively in some State 

EAS Plans. While the Commission 

anticipates that the EAS alert 

distribution hierarchy described above 

will be sufficient to define the roles and 

responsibilities for all EAS Participants 

in many states, in some states, SRs may 

be necessary to ensure that EAS alerts 

are available to everyone in the state. In 

these instances, especially when SRs are 

used as alternative monitoring 

assignments, the Commission 

recognizes that it may be appropriate to 

use special designations for entities 

responsible for relaying alerts from a 

PEP, NP, or SP to an LP or PN. 

29. State Relay Network (SRN): A 

network composed of State Relay (SR) 

sources, leased common carrier 

communications facilities or any other 

available communication facilities. The 

network distributes State EAS messages 

originated by the Governor or 

designated official. In addition to EAS 

monitoring, satellites, microwave, FM 

subcarrier or any other communications 

technology may be used to distribute 

State emergency messages. 

30. The Commission understands that 

in some states, such as Washington, the 

SRN serves as an alternative, redundant 

system for ensuring the successful 

delivery of EAS alerts. The Commission 

also understands that some State EAS 

Plans, such as Nevada’s, do not rely on 

SRNs because ‘‘[s]mall and rural 

broadcasters cannot afford the monthly 

cost of these services.’’ To the extent 

that SRNs enhance system reliability 

and resiliency, the Commission finds 

them to be desirable, and encourage 

SECCs to specify in their state plans the 

extent to which they rely on SRNs as a 

secondary alert distribution mechanism. 

The Commission does not require any 

state to utilize a SRN, because it 

recognizes the maintenance burdens 

that SRNs may pose for small entities. 

31. The Commission agrees with 

commenters that additional EAS 

designations are unnecessary and 

therefore declinesto adopt the 

additional designations or subdesignations proposed in the document 

based on the entities responsible for 

particular types of alerts (e.g., State 

AMBER Alert Primary) or based on the 

type of transmission facility used (e.g., 

State Satellite Primary). The 

Commission will continue to monitor 

whether establishing additional roles 

and responsibilities within State EAS 

Plans may be necessary in the future to 

improve emergency preparedness. 

32. State EAS Plan Contents. EAS 

Participants must conduct EAS 

operations as specified in State EAS 

Plans to ensure effective delivery of the 

Presidential Alert, yet EAS Participants 

lack consistent knowledge of their roles 

under State EAS Plans, and State EAS 

Plans lack the uniformity essential for 

dependable dissemination of a 

Presidential Alert. The EAS Deployment 

Report and Order communicated 

expectations for the structure and 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
37754 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

administration of State EAS Plans and 

SECCs, but current State EAS Plan rules 

do not consistently address SECCs’ 

administration and governance 

practices. Some states’ SECCs and State 

EAS Plans have not met the 

Commission’s expectations for several 

reasons, including the failure of some 

states to file or update State EAS Plans. 

Moreover, since the adoption of State 

EAS Plan rules in 1994, the alerting 

landscape has changed dramatically. 

Local alerts now originate from a wider 

array of sources and continue to 

increase in frequency. Many EAS 

Participants use alternative distribution 

systems such as satellite-based systems 

to supplement or replace the traditional 

‘‘daisy chain’’ alert distribution 

architecture. 

33. In the EAS Nationwide Test 

Report, PSHSB observed a lack of clarity 

in State EAS Plans that precluded endto-end analysis and review of the EAS 

system. First, it noted that the 

Commission’s rules do not require EAS 

Participants to provide monitoring 

assignment data below the LP level. 

Second, it observed that many State 

EAS Plans did not identify the 

alternative monitoring sources that EAS 

Participants relied upon to receive the 

EAN during the first nationwide EAS 

test. Additionally, PSHSB observed that 

many EAS Participants used the 

satellite-based National Public Radio 

(NPR) News Advisory Channel (Squawk 

Channel) to receive the EAN, as 

opposed to their ‘‘daisy chain’’ 

monitoring assignments. Based on these 

findings, PSHSB recommended review 

of the State EAS Plan rules. CSRIC IV 

recommended that ‘‘SECCs must be free 

to design and maintain their respective 

state’s own robust and redundant EAS 

relay networks in the best and most 

practical ways possible.’’ 

34. To address these concerns, in the 

document, the Commission proposed 

that each State EAS Plan include: (1) A 

list of header codes and messages to be 

transmitted by key EAS sources; (2) a 

description of all of the state’s 

procedures for transmitting emergency 

information to the public, including by 

EAS, WEA, social media, highway signs, 

and other alerting procedures; (3) the 

extent to which the state’s 

dissemination strategy for state and 

local alerts differs from its strategy for 

disseminating the Presidential Alert; (4) 

a list of all entities authorized to 

activate EAS for state and local 

emergencies; (5) monitoring 

assignments for key alerting sources; (6) 

EAS testing procedures; (7) the extent to 

which alert originators coordinate alerts 

with ‘‘many-to-one’’ feedback 

mechanisms, such as 911; (8) 

procedures for authenticating state EAS 

messages formatted in CAP and signed 

with digital signatures; and (9) a 

description of the SECC governance 

structure used by the state, including 

the duties, membership selection 

process, and administrative structure of 

the SECC. 

35. The Commission amends the 

Commission’s rules to specify and 

standardize the organizational and 

operational aspects of State EAS Plans 

to provide State EAS Plans with the 

level of order and consistency necessary 

for efficient and reliable distribution of 

emergency information to the public. 

36. Uniform Designations. The 

Commission requires that SECCs input 

State EAS Plan monitoring assignment 

data into the ARS using the uniform 

designations for key EAS sources. As 

explained in the Nationwide EAS Test 

Report, and as supported by the record, 

the use of consistent terminology in 

State EAS Plans will assist the 

Commission in reviewing plans; 

understanding EAS architecture on a 

nationwide, statewide, and local basis; 

and determining how the states’ 

distribution systems can be aggregated 

into a single, comprehensive 

distribution mechanism for the 

Presidential Alert. 

37. List of Entities Authorized to 

Activate EAS. The Commission allows, 

but does not require, that State EAS 

Plans include a list of all entities 

authorized to activate the EAS for state 

and local emergency messages (e.g., 

PSAPs) whose transmissions might be 

interrupted by a Presidential Alert. 

Commission rules already require State 

EAS Plans to have a list of authorized 

entities participating in the state or local 

EAS. Thus, State EAS Plans already may 

include, as a component of that list, all 

entities authorized to activate the EAS 

for state and local emergency messages. 

The Commission will prepopulate the 

online State EAS Plan template with 

FEMA-approved alert originators, but 

SECCs may add any state-based alert 

originators not listed by FEMA as 

authorized to initiate an IPAWS alert. 

38. A Description of SECC 

Governance Structure. To ensure the 

efficient and effective delivery of a 

Presidential Alert, the Commission 

requires SECCs to specify in the State 

EAS Plans their governance structure, 

including the duties, membership 

selection process, and administrative 

structure of the SECC. Most commenters 

support the Commission providing 

additional guidance to SECCs, but few 

commenters provide suggestions on 

SECC governance, and very few address 

whether basic data regarding SECC 

governance should be included in State 

EAS Plans. Because State EAS Plans 

detail the distribution architecture for 

delivery of a Presidential Alert, SECCs 

should have a governance and oversight 

structure to support this function. The 

Commission requires this baseline 

information about SECCs to verify that 

State EAS Plans provide the framework 

for effective transmission of the 

Presidential Alert. The Commission 

agrees with commenters that the 

Commission should continue to provide 

the guidance it historically has supplied 

to SECCs. Obtaining initial information 

on an SECC’s structure and functions is 

an essential part of that process. 

Accordingly, SECCs must, at a 

minimum, specify their contact points, 

and whether they represent all alert 

originators, and their decision-making 

structures. This baseline information 

will help us contact relevant staff, 

identify SECCs that are less active or 

have fewer resources, and formulate 

strategies for addressing all SECCs’ 

needs. The Commission does not 

require, however, that SECCs adopt a 

particular governance structure. For 

these reasons, the Commission disagrees 

with commenters that oppose these 

requirements as unnecessary or beyond 

the scope of many SECCs. 

39. LECCs and Local Area EAS Plans. 

The Commission maintains the existing 

language of section 11.21(b), which 

provides for the development of a Local 

Area Plan containing procedures for 

local emergencies. CSRIC IV observed 

that the EAS depends on local 

distribution and recommended 

developing policies to ‘‘encourage local 

communications distribution systems to 

participate in the emergency warning 

process.’’ Timm comments that LECCs 

have ‘‘local expertise to best manage 

EAS alerting in a given area, and Local 

Area EAS Plans are still viable for 

addressing EAS procedures at a local 

level of detail beyond that possible to 

devote room to in the full State EAS 

Plan.’’ Abbott asserts that LECCs and 

local plans are a necessary component 

of EAS Plans in large states where no 

one single broadcast station covers an 

entire state and no end-to-end ‘‘daisy 

chains’’ connect operational areas in the 

state. The Commission concludes that 

Local Area Plans are still useful in some 

states and that SECCs should have the 

option of including them in their State 

EAS Plans. 

40. The EAS’s primary purpose is 

transmitting a message from the 

President to the public during a national 

emergency. To do so, EAS information 

must be properly coordinated and 

understood by relevant stakeholders. 

Accordingly, the Commission requires 

State EAS Plans to include transmission 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 37755 

procedures for an EAS alert and 

accurate, up-to-date monitoring 

assignments for each key EAS source to 

reflect how they receive alerts. 

41. Emergency Alerting Procedures. 

The Commission concludes that State 

EAS Plans should contain an accurate 

and comprehensive listing of 

procedures used for transmitting 

information to the public via the EAS. 

This listing should include the 

monitoring obligations already required 

under the rules to transmit the 

Presidential alert. Non-Presidential use 

of the ‘‘daisy chain’’ distribution 

structure facilitates equipment readiness 

and maintains user proficiency in the 

system. Accordingly, the Commission 

requires that SECCs disclose in their 

State EAS Plan the extent to which the 

state’s dissemination strategy for state 

and local alerts differs (if at all) from its 

strategy for disseminating the 

Presidential Alert. Consistent with 

CSRIC IV’s recommendations, this 

information will help the Commission 

and SECCs obtain a baseline of 

information upon which to create a plan 

for more effective use and development 

of the EAS in each state. The 

Commission provides flexibility to 

SECCs regarding how this information is 

provided in State EAS Plans, as well as 

the frequency with which it is updated. 

42. Satellite-based Sources of EAS 

Messages. The Commission requires that 

State EAS Plans specify satellite-based 

communications resources that are used 

as alternate monitoring assignments and 

present a reliable source of EANs and 

other EAS messages. Many EAS 

Participants currently use satellite-based 

communications technologies as 

monitoring sources because of 

incomplete PEP coverage, broadcast 

monitoring source difficulties, or other 

reasons. Most commenters support 

requiring the inclusion of this 

information in State EAS Plans and note 

that satellite-based resources may be 

fast, secure, and reliable. 

43. Some commenters recommend 

that the Commission remain 

technologically neutral in light of the 

availability of alternative dissemination 

technologies for EAS alerts. The 

Commission’s satellite-based sources 

requirement does not mandate any 

particular technology, but rather 

requires that State EAS Plans reflect the 

monitoring sources used. Thus, its rules 

maintain technological neutrality while 

ensuring that State EAS Plans accurately 

identify each state’s entire EAS 

distribution system. As Abbott suggests, 

states will determine independently 

whether they will use satellite-based 

resources. The Commission notes that 

many state plans include satellite 

monitoring information. Requiring its 

inclusion in all State EAS Plans benefits 

the industry by bringing consistency to 

the process. To the extent that some 

State EAS Plans will supply it for the 

first time, the Commission expects the 

incremental cost to be minimal. 

44. Monitoring Assignments. The 

Commission requires State EAS Plans to 

include ‘‘[m]onitoring assignments to 

receive the Presidential Alert, and the 

primary and back-up paths for the 

dissemination of the Presidential Alert 

to all key EAS sources organized by 

operational areas within the state.’’ The 

Commission finds that State EAS Plans 

should continue to divide their 

respective states into geographically 

based operational areas, specifying 

primary and backup monitoring 

assignments in each operational area. 

CSRIC IV noted a lack of uniformity 

among State EAS Plan definitions of 

‘‘operational areas’’ and recommended 

that, where possible, such service areas 

should be uniformly identified. Most 

commenters, however, oppose a 

standardized definition of ‘‘operational 

areas.’’ These commenters note that the 

definition of ‘‘operational areas’’ must 

be flexible to accommodate the different 

reasons for their existence, and that 

such areas are best defined by the local 

or state entities most familiar with them. 

To facilitate this flexibility, the 

Commission will include a drop-down 

menu in ARS that contains the most 

common ways SECCs have described 

their operational areas in previouslyapproved State EAS Plans as well as an 

opportunity for SECCs to describe 

operational areas that do not comport 

with the drop-down menu choices. 

45. The Commission also removes the 

current restriction that State EAS Plans 

include monitoring assignments for 

Presidential Alerts formatted only in the 

EAS Protocol. Several commenters 

support removing this restriction. The 

Commission finds that doing so will 

permit states to provide additional 

information in their plans. Technologies 

are evolving, and a Presidential Alert 

may not necessarily be issued using the 

EAS Protocol; for example, a new 

generation of Presidential Alert may be 

introduced using the CAP standard 

only. The Commission believes that 

removing this restriction will ensure 

that state plans remain flexible and 

responsive to both changes in 

technology and changes FEMA may 

make in the future to the format of 

Presidential Alerts. The Commission 

disagrees with Timm, who asserts that 

the Commission should not remove the 

restriction yet because doing so could 

‘‘lead to imperiling’’ the EAS Protocol 

distribution system and diminish the 

redundancy of having EAS Participants 

monitor multiple sources of the 

Presidential Alert. The Commission 

continues to require State EAS Plans to 

contain the EAS Header Code and other 

EAS Protocol distribution information 

required under the part 11 rules. The 

Commission also concludes that it also 

should allow State EAS Plans to include 

additional non-EAS Protocol (e.g., CAP) 

distribution information. 

46. Organization of section 11.21. To 

address all State EAS Plan monitoring 

requirements in the same section of part 

11, the Commission merges sections 

11.52 (‘‘EAS code and Attention Signal 

Monitoring requirements’’) and 11.55 

(‘‘EAS operation during a State or Local 

Area emergency’’) into section 11.21 by: 

(1) Amending section 11.21 to state that 

EAS Participant monitoring assignments 

and EAS operations must be 

implemented in a manner consistent 

with guidelines established in the 

applicable State EAS Plan submitted to 

the Commission, and (2) removing that 

language from sections 11.52 and 11.55. 

All three of these sections address State 

EAS Plan content. The Commission 

agrees with Abbott that these changes 

will help SECCs apply the State EAS 

Plan rules. The Commission also agrees, 

however, with commenters who assert 

that removing all state plan terminology 

from sections 11.52 and 11.55 could 

make the rules unclear; therefore, the 

Commission does not adopt that 

proposal. 

47. The Commission finds that this 

change is supported by CSRIC IV’s 

recommendation that the Commission 

amend section 11.21 to provide that 

‘‘[s]tates that want to use the EAS shall 

submit a State EAS Plan.’’ The 

Commission also agrees with several 

commenters who suggest that it would 

be helpful to specify in section 11.21 

that SECCs develop and maintain state 

plans, and the Commission adds this 

language to the rule. Finally, the 

Commission agrees with Timm that the 

language in section 11.21(c) should refer 

to the state monitoring assignment 

matrix rather than the state ‘‘data table’’ 

and revise section 11.21(c) accordingly. 

48. Testing/Outreach Elements. The 

Commission allows State EAS Plans to 

include procedures for live code tests 

and Required Weekly Tests (RWTs). 

Commenters generally agree that State 

EAS Plans should include information 

on EAS testing. Some commenters assert 

that requiring this information would be 

impractical or overly burdensome, but 

other commenters note that this 

information would help organize test 

scheduling and prevent confusion. The 

Commission believes that including 

information on state testing programs 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
37756 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

can help ensure that the EAS functions 

effectively and efficiently. The 

Commission also notes that State EAS 

Plans already must include information 

on Required Monthly Tests (RMTs) and 

special tests. To the extent it is useful 

to include and memorialize all test 

procedures, including procedures for 

live code tests or RWTs, in a 

consolidated manner, SECCs may use 

State EAS Plans and ARS as a vehicle 

for doing so. The Commission notes that 

SECCs and EAS Participants will benefit 

from SECCs voluntarily providing this 

information in the ARS, as EAS 

Participants will be able to readily 

review plan information relevant to 

them. 

49. Other Proposed Contents. The 

Commission declines to adopt the 

proposals in the document that State 

EAS Plans include a description of the 

procedures for transmitting emergency 

information to the public via WEA, 

social media, highway signs, and other 

alerting procedures, as well as a 

description of the extent to which alert 

originators coordinate alerts with 

‘‘many-to-one’’ community feedback 

mechanisms, such as 911. Although 

several commenters support the 

inclusion of some of these capabilities 

in alerts, commenters generally oppose 

the incorporation of these elements into 

State EAS Plans. The Commission 

agrees with the majority of commenters 

that this information is unnecessary at 

this time to ensure the effective delivery 

of the EAN, and that its inclusion would 

be unduly burdensome. The 

Commission also shares commenters’ 

concern that these requirements may 

cause confusion or conflict with 

community warning plans, and that 

they may require the provision of 

information outside of the SECCs’ 

purview. 

50. The National Advisory Committee 

and Additional Guidance for SECCs. 

CSRIC IV recommended that the 

Commission reestablish the National 

Advisory Committee (NAC). The NAC 

was the federal advisory committee 

responsible for assisting the 

Commission with administrating the 

EAS, promoting stakeholder and 

Commission interaction with SECCs, 

and providing information for the 

development and maintenance of State 

and Local EAS Plans. The document 

sought comment on CSRIC IV’s 

recommendation to reinstate the NAC as 

well as whether there is a need for a 

consistent, uniform governance 

structure for SECCs nationwide to 

ensure effective functioning of the EAS. 

Noting that CSRIC IV discouraged a 

‘‘one size fits all’’ approach to SECC 

governance, the Commission asked 

whether it could issue guidance or work 

with SECCs to clarify the roles and 

responsibilities of SECCs in a manner 

that would be useful in each state. The 

Commission also sought comment on 

whether information on SECC 

governance in State EAS Plans could 

help develop best practices or other 

guidance for SECCs. 

51. Based on the record, the 

Commission believes it would serve the 

public interest to provide SECCs with 

further guidance on their roles and 

responsibilities. The record 

demonstrates support for reinstating the 

NAC, and commenters generally 

support the Commission adopting rules 

or providing guidance or best practices 

on SECC governance. The Commission 

notes, however, that under the IPAWS 

Modernization Act of 2015, FEMA 

recently established the IPAWS 

Subcommittee to its National Advisory 

Council, which will consider changes to 

improve the IPAWS and develop 

technologies that may be beneficial to 

the public alert and warning system. 

NSBA observes that ‘‘it would not be 

unreasonable’’ for the IPAWS 

Subcommittee to address issues raised 

in the document. Thus, rather than 

establishing a separate advisory 

committee, the Commission concludes 

that the IPAWS Subcommittee is best 

positioned to efficiently and effectively 

address issues related to SECC 

governance and best practices. 

Accordingly, the Commission will 

coordinate with FEMA to ensure that 

SECC administration and governance 

are addressed within the scope of the 

IPAWS Subcommittee, which transmits 

its recommendations to FEMA’s 

National Advisory Council for review. 

The Commission believes that working 

through these existing mechanisms will 

be the most efficient way to generate 

recommendations that the Commission 

may evaluate in formulating its own 

guidance to improve communication 

among the Commission, SECCs, FEMA, 

NWS, and other EAS stakeholders. 

52. Although a few commenters 

suggest amending part 11 to regulate 

SECCs, the Commission declines to 

adopt any rules regulating SECCs. 

Rather, by way of guidance, the 

Commission provides the SECCs with 

an online filing template for State EAS 

Plans and specify the required contents 

of those plans. 

53. Compliance Timeframes. To 

conform to section 18.17 of the rules of 

the Administrative Committee of the 

Federal Register, 1 CFR 18.17, the above 

Dates field and this summary, at 

paragraphs 54–55 and 72–73 below, 

describe the compliance timeframes for 

the new and revised rules. In the Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking, the 

Commission proposed requiring 

compliance with the amended rules on 

information collection requirements 

(i.e., the State EAS Plan rules) within six 

months from the release of a Public 

Notice announcing Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval of related information 

collection requirements or within 60 

days of a Public Notice announcing the 

availability of the Commission’s 

relevant database to receive such 

information, whichever is later. The 

Commission also noted that its 

proposed EAS designation rules did not 

constitute a collection and required no 

action by EAS Participants and 

accordingly proposed that those rules 

would become effective 30 days from 

the date of their publication in the 

Federal Register. 

54. State EAS Plans. The Commission 

requires compliance with its rules 

regarding State EAS Plan content and 

electronic submission within one year 

of publication in the Federal Register of 

a Public Notice announcing: (i) OMB 

approval of ARS information collection 

requirements or (ii) the availability of 

the ARS to receive such information, 

whichever is later. The Commission 

acknowledges commenters’ concerns 

that the proposed 6-month deadline 

imposed a significant burden on SECCs’ 

and LECCs’ limited resources. 

Accordingly, the Commission extends 

its proposed 6-month compliance 

timeframe to a one-year compliance 

timeframe. The Commission believes 

the one-year compliance timeframe that 

is supported by the majority of 

commenters will afford SECCs sufficient 

time to implement its State EAS Plan 

requirements effectively and conduct 

any necessary outreach, training, and 

planning. The Commission further 

requires that State EAS Plans will 

continue to be updated on a yearly 

basis, but note that SECCs may satisfy 

this requirement by simply indicating 

on the form each year that the plan is 

up-to-date. 

55. EAS Designations. The 

Commission agrees with Timm that the 

new designations should become 

effective at the same time as the State 

EAS Plan rule changes because 

designation changes likely would need 

to be reflected in most state plans. 

SECCs may need to engage with key 

EAS sources in their states to apply its 

designations. The Commission 

concludes that aligning the 

implementation timeframes of the state 

plan and designation changes will 

promote efficiency and avoid burdening 

SECCs with the need to draft multiple 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 37757 

versions of their State EAS Plans to 

comply with the new requirements. 

56. Legal Authority. The 

Communications Act gives the President 

authority to broadcast alerts during 

times of national emergency and 

prohibits broadcasters from issuing false 

alerts. Congress has also directed that 

cable systems afford their viewers the 

same opportunities to receive 

emergency alerts ‘‘as is afforded by’’ 

broadcasters ‘‘pursuant to Commission 

regulations.’’ The Act further requires 

the Commission to ‘‘investigate and 

study’’ how to ‘‘obtain[] maximum 

effectiveness from the use of radio and 

wire communications in connection 

with safety of life and property.’’ The 

Act empowers us to ‘‘make such rules 

and regulations’’ as necessary to carry 

out all of these statutory requirements. 

Together, these provisions have allowed 

the Commission to oversee the EAS. 

Although the Commission only requires 

use of EAS for Presidential Alerts, state 

and local authorities may use EAS to 

disseminate information to the public 

regarding more localized emergencies. 

57. In the document, the Commission 

sought comment on its sources of legal 

authority over the EAS, including those 

provisions that the Commission 

highlights above, and noted that its 

proposals are ‘‘primarily intended to 

prepare the nation’s alerting 

infrastructure for successful 

transmission of a Presidential Alert.’’ To 

enable the President to reliably execute 

this authority in the public interest, the 

Commission has long considered it 

necessary to ensure that the national 

alerting architecture is ready to transmit 

a Presidential Alert in an appropriate 

situation. The rules the Commission 

adopts here provide more consistent 

and reliable access to state plans so that 

the Commission and EAS participants 

will be better prepared to ensure the 

successful transmission of a Presidential 

Alert. No commenters opposed the 

Commission’s authority to adopt any of 

the proposals contained in the 

document. 

58. The Commission notes that the 

overall goal of the EAS system is to 

serve as an effective integral part of a 

‘‘comprehensive system to alert and 

warn the American people.’’ Today’s 

actions contribute to that goal by 

‘‘adopt[ing] rules to ensure that 

communications systems have the 

capacity to transmit alerts and warnings 

to the public as part of the public alert 

and warning system.’’ 

59. Cost-Benefit Analysis. In this 

section, the Commission finds that its 

rules generally reduce recurring burdens 

on SECCs. The Commission estimates 

that they impose a one-time collective 

transitional cost on all SECCs totaling 

approximately $236,000. The 

Commission shows that its rules present 

sufficient benefits to justify these costs. 

60. Costs. The cost estimates the 

Commission discusses below are 

associated with the decisions adopted in 

this Report and Order, as opposed to the 

more expansive proposals in the 

document. The Commission estimates 

the reasonable one-time cost burden 

these rules could present to EAS 

Participants is approximately $236,000. 

Specifically, SECCs collectively will 

incur one-time approximate costs of a 

$235,000 recordkeeping cost for 

producing State EAS Plans consistent 

with its updated State EAS Plan 

requirements and EAS designations and 

a $1,000 reporting cost for electronically 

filing those plans. The Commission 

notes that this is a significantly smaller 

estimated total burden than that 

described in the document, which 

estimated a one-time $5.3 million and 

an annual cost of $596,560. The 

Commission also notes that the 

Commission sought comment on the 

specific costs of compliance with the 

proposed rules, but received no dollar 

figure estimates in response. 

Accordingly, the following estimate 

leverages publicly available data on the 

financial burdens associated with its 

requirements. 

61. The Commission concludes that 

producing State EAS Plans consistent 

with its rules will result in 

approximately $235,000 as a one-time 

recordkeeping cost. In the document, 

the Commission estimated that 

implementing these changes would 

result in a one-time cost of 

approximately $25,000 and that it 

would take each SECC approximately 20 

hours to comply with the new State EAS 

Plan requirements. Commenters observe 

that this cost assessment, as well as the 

Commission’s assessment of the total 

hourly burden required to update State 

EAS Plans, was too low. In response to 

these concerns, the Commission is not 

requiring SECCs to include certain 

proposed elements in State EAS Plans, 

which the Commission concludes will 

reduce the amount of time required to 

revise their plans. Notwithstanding this 

revision, the Commission uses a 

quantification of commenters’ 

assessment of the time that it would 

take SECCs to write their plans from 

scratch (100 hours) as a reasonable 

ceiling for the time needed to update 

those plans consistent with its rules. 

Based on submissions of State EAS 

Plans to date, the Commission expects 

that 54 entities will file such plans. The 

record shows that the individuals most 

likely to update those plans are 

broadcast engineers. Crowdsourced 

employee compensation data indicates 

that the median hourly compensation 

for a broadcast engineer is 

approximately $29. According to the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, employee 

overhead benefits (including paid leave, 

supplementary pay, insurance, 

retirement and savings, and legally 

required benefits) add 50 percent to an 

employer’s cost of labor. Thus, the 

Commission quantifies the value of an 

hour spent updating a State EAS Plan as 

approximately $43.50. The Commission 

concludes that the reasonable estimated 

cost of updating a single State EAS Plan 

consistent with this Report and Order 

would be approximately $4,350 and the 

estimated total cost of compliance with 

its State EAS Plan rules would be 

approximately $235,000. 

62. Additionally, the Commission 

anticipates that SECC representatives 

also will incur a one-time estimated 

$1,000 reporting cost to file their revised 

State EAS Plans in the ARS. The 

Commission concludes that the time 

burden of filing State EAS Plans in the 

ARS will be one hour, the same burden 

that OMB approved for filing data in 

ETRS. Both filing systems present filers 

with the same user interface, and while 

State EAS Plans may include more data 

points than ETRS filings, entering state 

plan data in the ARS will be simpler 

because SECCs already have the 

relevant information on-hand from the 

process of creating a State EAS Plan. 

The Commission values the cost of an 

SECC representative’s time spent on this 

task as approximately $19, the median 

hourly salary of a clerical employee plus 

benefits. Thus, filing state plan data in 

the ARS will cost approximately $1,000. 

63. Therefore, based on the foregoing 

analysis, the Commission finds it 

reasonable to conclude that the benefits 

of the rules the Commission adopts 

today will exceed the costs of their 

implementation. The Commission’s rule 

changes will improve alerting 

organization, support greater testing and 

awareness of the EAS, and promote the 

security of the EAS. The Commission 

believes these benefits easily outweigh 

the one-time $236,000 total compliance 

cost. The Commission also find that 

these rules likely will continue to 

accrue value to the public while 

reducing recurring costs. 

64. Benefits. The rules the 

Commission adopts today will improve 

the nation’s alert and warning capability 

by modernizing alerting recordkeeping 

and reducing recurring filing burdens 

on SECCs. For over two decades, the 

EAS has proven to be an effective 

method of alerting the public and saving 

lives and property. It continues to stand 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
37758 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

ready to serve its primary purpose of 

allowing the President to contact the 

public across the nation quickly and 

reliably, while at the same time 

providing the vital service of alerting 

the public about weather and other 

emergencies. A majority of the public 

continues to rely on the EAS to receive 

emergency information. 

65. However, there remain 

weaknesses in conveying this critical 

information to the public via the EAS. 

Recent nationwide testing of the EAS 

has shown ‘‘shortfalls in some state EAS 

plans,’’ including confusion and 

difficulties in understanding and 

implementing monitoring assignments. 

The current paper-based State EAS Plan 

filing system, EAS designations, and 

State EAS Plan contents collectively 

make it difficult for the Commission and 

other EAS stakeholders to detect 

problems or map the propagation of 

EAS alerts. This inability to detect and 

resolve problems, in turn, makes it more 

likely that some members of the public 

may not receive emergency alerts. The 

Commission’s new requirements 

address this difficulty by creating a 

uniform online filing system that will 

utilize specific State EAS Plan contents 

and uniform EAS designations. These 

improvements will allow the 

Commission, FEMA, and localities to 

more easily review and identify gaps in 

the EAS architectures, detect problems, 

and take measures to address these 

shortcomings. In doing so, and by 

helping to facilitate measures to 

improve the reach of EAS messages, the 

Commission improves the likelihood 

that a greater segment of the public will 

receive emergency alerts on a timely 

basis and take emergency preparedness 

measures, thereby providing benefits 

that include potentially reducing the 

incidence of injuries and preserving 

property. 

66. The improvements to the EAS that 

the Commission adopts today will 

contribute to its ability to prevent 

injuries. The Commission notes that in 

2016, there were 1,276 injuries resulting 

from weather events in the United 

States. If the improvements to the EAS 

the Commission adopts today prevent 

just 15 injuries, they will produce a 

public value of at least $400,000. This 

analysis illustrates that injury 

prevention alone, which will continue 

in years to come, is likely to produce 

benefits that outweigh those one-time 

costs. 

67. Additionally, the Commission 

anticipates that, after the initial onetime cost of compliance with its rules, 

EAS Participants, SECCs, and state 

emergency alerting authorities will 

realize long-term cost savings. In the 

Second Report and Order, the 

Commission required ‘‘state and local 

entities to annually confirm their 

plans.’’ Prior to the current Report and 

Order, when an SECC updated its plan, 

it would refile its entire plan. The ARS 

will reduce this filing burden by 

allowing filers to instantaneously 

update elements of their plans, by 

saving previously entered data, and by 

obviating the need to re-file an entire 

plan every time a change is made. 

Converting the State EAS Plan filing 

system to an online filing system will 

streamline the state plan approval 

process and reduce the recurring costs 

of revising, updating, and resubmitting 

state plans (e.g., printing and mailing 

costs). 

III. Procedural Matters 

68. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. 

As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, the Commission 

has prepared a Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the 

significant economic impact on small 

entities of the policies and rules 

adopted in this document. The FRFA is 

set forth in Appendix B of the Report 

and Order. 

69. Paperwork Reduction Analysis. 

The Report and Order contains 

modified information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public 

Law 104–13. It will be submitted to the 

OMB for review under section 3507(d) 

of the PRA. OMB, the general public, 

and other federal agencies will be 

invited to comment on the new 

information collection requirements 

contained in this proceeding. The 

Commission notes that pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–198, the 

Commission previously sought specific 

comment on how the Commission might 

‘‘further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’ In addition, the 

Commission has described impacts that 

might affect small businesses, which 

includes most businesses with fewer 

than 25 employees, in the FRFA in 

Appendix B of the Report and Order. 

70. Congressional Review Act. The 

Commission will send a copy of this 

Report & Order in a report to be sent to 

Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A). 

IV. Ordering Clauses 

71. Accordingly, it is ordered, 

pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(o), 301, 

303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 335, 403, 

624(g), 706, and 713of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 

154(o), 301, 303(r), 303(v), 307, 309, 

335, 403, 544(g), 606, and 613, as well 

as the Twenty-First Century 

Communications and Video 

Accessibility Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111– 

260 and Pub. L. 111–265, that the 

Report and Order in PS Docket No. 15– 

94 is hereby adopted. 

72. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s rules are hereby amended 

as set forth in Appendix A of the Report 

and Order. 

73. It is further ordered that the rules 

adopted herein will become effective on 

the dates set forth in paragraphs 54–55 

above. 

74. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, SHALL SEND a 

copy of this Report and Order, 

including the Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

This part contains rules and 

regulations providing for an Emergency 

Alert System (EAS). The EAS provides 

the President with the capability to 

provide immediate communications and 

information to the general public at the 

National, State and Local Area levels 

during periods of national emergency. 

The rules in this part describe the 

required technical standards and 

operational procedures of the EAS for 

analog AM, FM, and TV broadcast 

stations, digital broadcast stations, 

analog cable systems, digital cable 

systems, wireline video systems, 

wireless cable systems, Direct Broadcast 

Satellite (DBS) services, Satellite Digital 

Audio Radio Service (SDARS), and 

other participating entities. The EAS 

may be used to provide the heads of 

State and local government, or their 

designated representatives, with a 

means of emergency communication 

with the public in their State or Local 

Area. [72 FR 62132, Nov. 2, 2007] 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 11 

Radio, Television. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Final Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 11 as 

follows: 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 37759 

PART 11—EMERGENCY ALERT 

SYSTEM (EAS) 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 11 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: . 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (o), 

303(r), 544(g) and 606. 

§ 11.2 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 11.2 by removing 

paragraphs (b), (c), (f), (g) and (h), and 

redesignating paragraphs (d), (e), and (i) 

as paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) 

respectively. 

■ 3. Revise § 11.18 to read as follows: 

§ 11.18 EAS Designations. 

(a) A Primary Entry Point (PEP) is a 

private or commercial radio broadcast 

station that cooperatively participates 

with FEMA to provide EAS alerts to the 

public. PEPs are the primary source of 

initial broadcast for a Presidential Alert. 

A PEP is equipped with back-up 

communications equipment and power 

generators designed to enable it to 

continue broadcasting information to 

the public during and after disasters of 

national significance. The Primary Entry 

Point System is a nationwide network of 

such broadcast stations used to 

distribute EAS alerts formatted in the 

EAS Protocol. FEMA is responsible for 

designating broadcast stations as PEPs. 

(b) A National Primary (NP) is an 

entity tasked with the primary 

responsibility of receiving the 

Presidential Alert from a PEP and 

delivering it to an individual state or 

portion of a state. In states without a 

PEP, the NP is responsible for receiving 

the Presidential Alert from an out-ofstate PEP and transmitting it to the 

public and other EAS Participants in the 

state. Multiple entities may be charged 

with primary responsibility for 

delivering the Presidential Alert. 

(c) A State Primary (SP) is an entity 

tasked with initiating the delivery of 

EAS alerts other than the Presidential 

Alert. 

(d) A State Relay (SR) is an entity not 

otherwise designated that is charged 

with retransmitting EAS alerts for the 

purpose of being monitored by a Local 

Primary or Participating National. 

(e) State Relay Network (SRN) is a 

network composed of State Relay (SR) 

sources, leased common carrier 

communications facilities or any other 

available communication facilities. The 

network distributes State EAS messages 

originated by the Governor or 

designated official. In addition to EAS 

monitoring, satellites, microwave, FM 

subcarrier or any other communications 

technology may be used to distribute 

State emergency messages. 

(f) A Local Primary (LP) is an entity 

that serves as a monitoring assignment 

for other EAS Participants within the 

state. LP sources may be assigned 

numbers (e.g., LP–1, 2, 3) are relied on 

as monitoring sources by other EAS 

Participants in the Local Area. An LP 

may monitor any other station, 

including another LP, so long as doing 

so avoids creating a single point of 

failure in the alert distribution 

hierarchy. 

(g) A Participating National (PN) is an 

EAS Participant that transmits national, 

state, or Local Area EAS messages, and 

is not otherwise designated within the 

State EAS Plan. 

§ 11.20 [Removed] 

■ 4. Remove § 11.20. 

■ 5. Amend § 11.21 by revising 

paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows: 

§ 11.21 State and Local Area Plans and 

FCC Mapbook. 

* * * * * 

(a) State EAS Plans contain guidelines 

that must be followed by EAS 

Participants’ personnel, emergency 

officials, and National Weather Service 

(NWS) personnel to activate the EAS. 

The Plans include information on 

actions taken by EAS Participants, in 

coordination with state and local 

governments, to ensure timely access to 

EAS alert content by non-English 

speaking populations. State EAS Plans 

must be updated on an annual basis. 

The plans must be reviewed and 

approved by the Chief, Public Safety 

and Homeland Security Bureau, prior to 

implementation to ensure that they are 

consistent with national plans, FCC 

regulations, and EAS operation. State 

EAS Plans must include the following 

elements: 

(1) A list of the EAS header codes and 

messages that will be transmitted by key 

EAS sources (NP, LP, SP, and SR); 

(2) Procedures for state emergency 

management officials, the National 

Weather Service, and EAS Participant 

personnel to transmit emergency 

information to the public during an 

emergency via the EAS, including the 

extent to which the state’s 

dissemination strategy for state and 

local emergency alerts differs from its 

Presidential Alerting strategy; 

(3) Procedures for state and local 

activations of the EAS, including a list 

of all authorized entities participating in 

the State or Local Area EAS; 

(4) A monitoring assignment matrix, 

in computer readable form, clearly 

showing monitoring assignments and 

the specific primary and backup path 

for emergency action notification 

(EAN)/Presidential Alert messages from 

the PEP to all key EAS sources (using 

the uniform designations specified in 

§ 11.18) and to each station in the plan, 

organized by operational areas within 

the state. If a state’s emergency alert 

system is capable of initiating EAS 

messages formatted in the Common 

Alerting Protocol (CAP), its EAS State 

Plan must include specific and detailed 

information describing how such 

messages will be aggregated and 

distributed to EAS Participants within 

the state, including the monitoring 

requirements associated with 

distributing such messages; 

(5) State procedures for conducting 

special EAS tests and Required Monthly 

Tests (RMTs); 

(6) A list of satellite-based 

communications resources that are used 

as alternate monitoring assignments and 

present a reliable source of EAS 

messages; and 

(7) The SECC governance structure 

utilized by the state in order to organize 

state and local resources to ensure the 

efficient and effective delivery of a 

Presidential Alert, including the duties 

of the SECC, the membership selection 

process utilized by the SECC, and the 

administrative structure of the SECC. 

* * * * * 

(c) The FCC Mapbook is based on the 

consolidation of the monitoring 

assignment matrices required in each 

State EAS Plan with the identifying data 

contained in the ETRS. The Mapbook 

organizes all EAS Participants according 

to their State, EAS Local Area, and EAS 

designation. EAS Participant monitoring 

assignments and EAS operations must 

be implemented in a manner consistent 

with guidelines established in a State 

EAS Plan submitted to the Commission 

in order for the Mapbook to accurately 

reflect actual alert distribution. 

* * * * * 

§ 11.52 [Amended] 

■ 6. Amend § 11.52 by removing 

paragraph (d)(3), and redesignating 

paragraphs (d)(4) and (5) as paragraphs 

(d)(3) and (4), respectively. 

■ 7. Amend § 11.55 by revising 

paragraphs (b), (c) introductory text, and 

(c)(1) through (3) to read as follows: 

§ 11.55 EAS operation during a State or 

Local Area emergency. 

* * * * * 

(b) EAS operations must be conducted 

as specified in State and Local Area EAS 

Plans. 

(c) Immediately upon receipt of a 

State or Local Area EAS message that 

has been formatted in the EAS Protocol 

or the Common Alerting Protocol, EAS 

Participants participating in the State or 

Local Area EAS must do the following: 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
37760 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

1The Commission retains in any event its general 

station inspection authority under the 

Communications Act of 1934, as amended. See 47 

U.S.C. 303(n). 

(1) State Relays (SR) monitor or 

deliver EAS alerts as required by the 

State EAS Plan. 

(2) Local Primary (LP) entities 

monitor SPs, SRs, or other sources as set 

forth in the State EAS Plan. 

(3) Participating National (PN) sources 

monitor LPs or other sources as set forth 

in the State EAS Plan. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2018–15818 Filed 8–1–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 22 

[WT Docket Nos. 12–40, 16–138; RM–11510, 

RM–11660; FCC 18–92] 

Cellular Service, Including Changes in 

Licensing of Unserved Area 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) adopts revised rules 

governing the 800 MHz Cellular 

Radiotelephone (Cellular) Service and 

other commercial mobile radio services 

(CMRS) governed by Part 22 of the 

Commission’s rules. These steps to 

remove unnecessary regulatory burdens 

for Cellular Service and other Part 22 

licensees will free up more resources for 

investment in new technologies and 

greater spectrum efficiency to meet 

increasing consumer demand for 

advanced wireless services. Specifically, 

the Commission modernizes its rules by 

eliminating several Part 22 

recordkeeping and reporting obligations 

that were adopted more than two 

decades ago—obligations for which 

there is no longer a benefit to outweigh 

the compliance costs and burdens 

imposed on licensees. It also eliminates 

certain Cellular Service-specific rules 

that are no longer necessary. These 

reforms will provide Cellular Service 

and other Part 22 licensees with 

enhanced flexibility and advance the 

goal of ensuring more consistency in 

licensing across commercial wireless 

services, while taking into account 

unique features of each service. With 

this document, the Commission 

terminates the Cellular Reform 

proceeding in WT Docket No. 12–40, 

including RM Nos. 11510 and 11660. 

DATES: Effective September 4, 2018, 

except for the amendment to 47 CFR 

22.303, which contains modified 

information collection requirements that 

have not yet been approved by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act. The Commission will publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

announcing the effective date of that 

amendment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nina Shafran, (202) 418–2781, in the 

Mobility Division, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau. She may 

also be contacted at (202) 418–7233 

(TTY). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Third 

Report and Order in the Cellular Reform 

proceeding (Cellular Third R&O), WT 

Docket No. 12–40, RM Nos. 11510 and 

11660, FCC 18–92 adopted July 12, 2018 

and released July 13, 2018. The full text 

of the Cellular Third R&O, including all 

Appendices, is available for inspection 

and copying during normal business 

hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 

12th Street SW, Room CY–A157, 

Washington, DC 20554, or by 

downloading the text from the 

Commission’s website at https://

docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC18-92A1.pdf. Alternative formats are 

available for people with disabilities 

(Braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), by sending an email to 

FCC504@fcc.gov or calling the 

Consumer and Government Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 

418–0432 (TTY). 

Synopsis 

I. Background 

1. In a Second Report and Order 

released March 24, 2017, in the Cellular 

Reform proceeding (Second R&O), the 

Commission modernized numerous 

Cellular technical rules, including 

outdated radiated power and related 

rules, to permit power measurement 

using power spectral density. These 

changes facilitate the use of Cellular 

spectrum to provide advanced mobile 

broadband services, such as 4G long 

term evolution (LTE), while protecting 

public safety communications from 

increased potential for unacceptable 

interference. The Second R&O also 

revised rules to further eliminate 

unnecessary filings and other regulatory 

burdens for Cellular licensees. The 

Commission’s reforms resulted in 

Cellular Service rules more akin to the 

flexible licensing schemes found in 

other similar mobile services, such as 

the Broadband Personal 

Communications Service (PCS), the 

commercial service in the 700 MHz 

band, the 600 MHz Service, and the 

Advanced Wireless Services (AWS), to 

help ensure that carriers are treated 

similarly regardless of technology 

choice. 

2. To build on the adopted reforms 

and to respond to certain submissions 

by commenters in the Commission’s 

2016 Biennial Review of 

Telecommunications Regulations 

proceeding (WT Biennial Review 

proceeding), the Commission also 

released a companion Second Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second 

Further Notice) in the Cellular Reform 

proceeding on March 24, 2017. In the 

Second Further Notice, the Commission 

proposed and sought comment on 

additional reforms of its Part 22 rules 

governing the Cellular Service and other 

Part 22 Public Mobile Services (PMS). 

The Commission also invited comment 

on whether other measures could be 

taken to allow Part 22 licensees to 

benefit from the same level of flexibility 

available to other commercial wireless 

licensees. In that context, the 

Commission raised the possibility of 

relocating—to Part 27 of the 

Commission’s rules—certain Part 22 

rules, as well as the Part 24 PCS rules 

and other rules governing 

geographically licensed wireless 

services. 

3. In response to the Second Further 

Notice, interested parties submitted 

comments, reply comments, and ex 

parte letters. The specific reforms 

adopted by the Commission in the Third 

R&O are described below. 

II. Elimination of Unnecessary Rules 

A. Deletion of 47 CFR 22.301 and 22.303 

Concerning Station Inspection, 

Retention of Station Authorizations 

4. Commission Rules 22.301 and 

22.303 collectively require that hard 

copies of license authorizations and 

other records be maintained by all Part 

22 licensees for each station and that 

such records and the station itself be 

made available for inspection upon 

request. The Commission finds that both 

rules have outlived the usefulness they 

may have had in the past and now 

impose administrative burdens without 

any corresponding public benefit.1

Because the Commission no longer 

routinely mails printed authorizations, 

licensees cannot comply with the hardcopy requirement unless they 

themselves print, or request that the 

Commission’s Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau print and 

mail, an authorization every time an 

application is granted. Such a 

requirement does not serve the public 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES