[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 149 (Thursday, August 2, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37750-37760]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15818]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#65241016110c0b4b37040b01041f1f0a250306064b020a13"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6a2b1f191e030444380b040e0b1010052a0c0909440d051c">[email protected]</span></a>. For 
additional information concerning the information collection 
requirements contained in this document, send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b9e9ebf8f9dfdada97ded6cf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e9b9bba8a98f8a8ac78e869f">[email protected]</span></a> 
or contact Nicole Ongele, Office of Managing Director, Performance 
Evaluation and Records Management, 202-418-2991, or by email to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c494968584a2a7a7eaa3abb2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="22727063624441410c454d54">[email protected]</span></a>.

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/fcc-make-emergency-alert-system-more-effective.

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

[[Page 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 weather-
related 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 well-implemented 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

[[Page 37752]]

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 pre-populate 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

[[Page 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 sub-designations 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

[[Page 37754]]

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 end-to-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

[[Page 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 previously-approved 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

[[Page 37756]]

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

[[Page 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

[[Page 37758]]

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 one-time 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:

[[Page 37759]]

PART 11--EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM (EAS)

0
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.


Sec.  11.2   [Amended]

0
2. Amend Sec.  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.

0
3. Revise Sec.  11.18 to read as follows:


Sec.  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-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.
    (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.


Sec.  11.20  [Removed]

0
4. Remove Sec.  11.20.

0
5. Amend Sec.  11.21 by revising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  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 Sec.  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.
* * * * *


Sec.  11.52  [Amended]

0
6. Amend Sec.  11.52 by removing paragraph (d)(3), and redesignating 
paragraphs (d)(4) and (5) as paragraphs (d)(3) and (4), respectively.

0
7. Amend Sec.  11.55 by revising paragraphs (b), (c) introductory text, 
and (c)(1) through (3) to read as follows:


Sec.  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:

[[Page 37760]]

    (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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>