39648 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

11See 81 FR 94058 at 94099. 

In light of the district court’s decision 

to vacate the use of statewide average 

premium in the risk adjustment 

methodology on the ground that HHS 

did not adequately explain its decision 

to adopt that aspect of the methodology, 

we offer an additional explanation in 

this rule and are proposing to maintain 

the use of statewide average premium in 

the applicable state market risk pool for 

the payment transfer formula under the 

HHS-operated risk adjustment 

methodology for the 2018 benefit year. 

Therefore, HHS proposes to adopt the 

methodology previously established for 

the 2018 benefit year in the Federal 

Register publications cited above that 

applies to the calculation, collection 

and payment of risk adjustment 

transfers under the HHS-operated 

methodology for the 2018 benefit year. 

This includes the adjustment to the 

statewide average premium, reducing it 

by 14 percent, to account for an 

estimated proportion of administrative 

costs that do not vary with claims.11 We 

seek comment on the proposal to use 

the statewide average premium. 

However, in order to protect the settled 

expectations of issuers that structured 

their pricing and offering decisions in 

reliance on the previously promulgated 

2018 benefit year methodology, all other 

aspects of the risk adjustment 

methodology are outside of the scope of 

this rulemaking, and HHS does not seek 

comment on those finalized aspects. 

III. Collection of Information 

Requirements 

This document does not impose 

information collection requirements, 

that is, reporting, recordkeeping, or 

third-party disclosure requirements. 

Consequently, there is no need for 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget under the authority of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501, et seq.). 

IV. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

A. Statement of Need 

This rule proposes to maintain 

statewide average premium as the costscaling factor in the HHS-operated risk 

adjustment methodology and continue 

the operation of the program in a budget 

neutral manner for the 2018 benefit year 

to protect consumers from the effects of 

adverse selection and premium 

increases due to issuer uncertainty. The 

Premium Stabilization Rule, previous 

Payment Notices, and other rulemakings 

noted above provided detail on the 

implementation of the risk adjustment 

program, including the specific 

parameters applicable for the 2018 

benefit year. 

B. Overall Impact 

We have examined the impact of this 

rule as required by Executive Order 

12866 on Regulatory Planning and 

Review (September 30, 1993), Executive 

Order 13563 on Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review (January 18, 

2011), the Regulatory 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), the Congressional 

Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)), and 

Executive Order 13771 on Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs. 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 rules 

with economically significant effects 

($100 million or more in any one year). 

OMB has determined that this 

proposed rule is ‘‘economically 

significant’’ within the meaning of 

section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, 

because it is likely to have an annual 

effect of $100 million in any 1 year. In 

addition, for the reasons noted above, 

OMB has determined that this is a major 

rule under the Congressional Review 

Act. 

This proposed rule offers further 

explanation of budget neutrality and the 

use of statewide average premium in the 

risk adjustment payment transfer 

formula when HHS is operating the 

permanent risk adjustment program 

established in section 1343 of the 

PPACA on behalf of a state for the 2018 

benefit year. We note that we previously 

estimated transfers associated with the 

risk adjustment program in the Premium 

Stabilization Rule and the 2018 

Payment Notice, and that the provisions 

of this proposed rule do not change the 

risk adjustment transfers previously 

estimated under the HHS-operated risk 

adjustment methodology established in 

those final rules. The approximate 

estimated risk adjustment transfers for 

the 2018 benefit year are $4.8 billion. As 

such, we also incorporate into this 

proposed rule the RIA in the 2018 

Payment Notice proposed and final 

rules. 

V. Response to Comments 

Because of the large number of public 

comments we normally receive on 

Federal Register documents, we are not 

able to acknowledge or respond to them 

individually. We will consider all 

comments we receive by the date and 

time specified in the DATES section of 

this proposed rule, and, when we 

proceed with a subsequent document, 

we will respond to the comments in the 

preamble to that document. 

Dated: July 30, 2018. 

Seema Verma, 

Administrator, Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services. 

Dated: August 2, 2018. 

Alex M. Azar II, 

Secretary, Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17142 Filed 8–8–18; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 11 

[PS Docket Nos. 15–94, 15–91; FCC 18– 

94] 

Emergency Alert System; Wireless 

Emergency Alerts 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Further motice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC or 

Commission) seeks comment on 

whether additional alert reporting 

measures are needed; whether State 

EAS Plans should be required to include 

procedures to help prevent false alerts, 

or to swiftly mitigate their consequences 

should a false alert occur; and on factors 

that might delay or prevent delivery of 

Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) to 

members of the public and measures the 

Commission could take to address 

inconsistent WEA delivery. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

September 10, 2018 and reply 

comments are due on or before October 

9, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by PS Docket Nos. 15–94, 15– 

91 by any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Website: http://

www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 39649 

• Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail 

(although the Commission continues to 

experience delays in receiving U.S. 

Postal Service mail). All filings must be 

addressed to the Commission’s 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 

Federal Communications Commission. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

Commission to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory Cooke, Deputy Chief, Policy 

and Licensing Division, Public Safety 

and Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 

418–7452, or by email at 

Gregory.Cooke@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(FNPRM) in PS Docket Nos. 15–94 and 

15–91, FCC 18–94, adopted on July 12, 

2018, and released on July 13, 2018. The 

full text of this document is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center (Room CY–A257), 445 12th 

Street SW, Washington, DC 20554. The 

full text may also be downloaded at: 

www.fcc.gov. 

Synopsis of the FNPRM 

1. In the FNPRM, to further enhance 

the efficacy and utility of the EAS and 

WEA, the Commission seeks comment 

on whether to adopt false alert reporting 

measures; proposals to require that State 

EAS Plans include procedures to help 

prevent and mitigate the consequences 

of false alerts; factors that might delay 

or prevent delivery of WEA alerts to the 

public; and measures the Commission 

could take to address inconsistent WEA 

delivery. 

I. Background 

2. The EAS is a national public 

warning system through which EAS 

Participants deliver alerts to the public 

to warn them of impending 

emergencies. The primary purpose of 

the EAS is to provide the President of 

the United States (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.’’ State and local 

authorities also use this common 

distribution architecture of the EAS to 

distribute voluntary weather-related and 

other emergency alerts. Further, testing 

of the system at the state and local level 

increases the proficiency of local 

emergency personnel, provides insight 

into the system’s functionality and 

effectiveness at the federal level, and 

enhances the public’s ability to respond 

to EAS alerts when they occur. The 

integrity of the EAS is maintained 

through the Commission’s EAS rules, 

which set forth the parameters and 

frequency with which EAS Participants 

must test the system, prohibit the 

unauthorized use of the EAS Attention 

Signal and codes, and require EAS 

Participants to keep their EAS 

equipment in good working order. 

II. Discussion 

A. False Alert Reporting 

3. In the FNPRM, the Commission 

seeks further comment on whether there 

is a need for additional false alert and 

lockout reporting beyond the reporting 

rule adopted in the companion Report 

and Order in PS Docket Nos. 15–94 and 

15–91, FCC 18–94, adopted on July 12, 

2018, and released on July 13, 2018. 

Should there be a dedicated mechanism 

by which EAS Participants, 

Participating CMS Providers, other 

stakeholders and the public can report 

false alerts? What form should such a 

reporting mechanism take? Should it be 

integrated into the Alert Reporting 

System (ARS)? Should it be mandatory 

for EAS Participants and Participating 

CMS Providers? If such reporting were 

mandatory, what time frame, if any, 

should be established for the false alert 

report to be made (e.g., should such 

reports be required within five minutes 

of discovery)? 

4. Alternatively, the Commission 

seeks comment on whether, in lieu of 

adopting a dedicated reporting 

mechanism for false EAS or WEA alerts 

or EAS lockouts, it should instead 

implement a process by which EAS 

Participants, Participating CMS 

Providers, emergency managers, and 

members of the public could inform the 

Commission about false alerts through 

currently available means other than 

that adopted in the companion Report 

and Order (also in PS Docket Nos. 15– 

94 and 15–91, FCC 18–94, adopted on 

July 12, 2018, and released on July 13, 

2018). Regardless of what type of system 

might be used to facilitate false alert 

reporting, could and should the 

Commission incorporate reporting 

parameters to minimize reports 

concerning the same EAS or WEA false 

alert, or are there benefits from receiving 

different descriptions, times, locations 

and reporting identities covering the 

same false alert? 

5. The Commission seeks comment on 

the costs and benefits of this proposal. 

What burdens, if any, would a dedicated 

false alert reporting system impose on 

anyone who might want to make such 

a report? Would incorporating some 

kind of feedback mechanism into the 

false alert reporting system on false 

alerts already reported be helpful to 

reduce burdens on other entities that 

might otherwise make identical reports 

covering the same false alert? What 

quantifiable benefits might be expected 

to result from implementation of such 

reporting? To the extent offering a 

standard way to report on false alerts 

could speed corrective action, would 

the benefits of such an outcome 

outweigh whatever burdens might be 

associated with making the false alert 

report? 

B. State EAS Plan Revisions 

6. Section 11.21 of the Commission’s 

EAS rules specifies that State EAS Plans 

include ‘‘procedures for State 

emergency management and other State 

officials, the NWS, and EAS 

Participants’ personnel to transmit 

emergency information to the public 

during a State emergency using the 

EAS.’’ Section 11.21, however, does not 

specify that these procedures include 

those to prevent and correct false alerts. 

7. In the Public Safety & Homeland 

Security Bureau’s (Bureau) report 

released in April 2018 concerning the 

false ballistic missile alert issued in 

Hawaii on January 13, 2018 (Report on 

Hawaii False Alert), the Bureau made 

several recommendations to state, local, 

Tribal, and territorial emergency alert 

originators and managers to help 

prevent the recurrence of a false alert 

and to improve preparedness for 

responding to any false alert that may 

occur. To the extent the Commission 

can aid states and localities in effecting 

mechanisms to prevent and correct false 

alerts over EAS and WEA, and promote 

regular communication with the SECCs 

to further that end, such endeavor 

fulfills the Commission’s statutory goal 

promoting of safety of life and property 

through the regulation of wire and radio 

communications networks. 

8. In light of the foregoing, the 

Commission proposes ways it can aid 

states and localities in implementing the 

Bureau’s recommendations in the 

Report on Hawaii False Alert. In 

particular, the Commission proposes to 

revise Section 11.21 to require State 

EAS Plans to include procedures to help 

prevent false alerts, or to swiftly 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
39650 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

mitigate their consequences should a 

false alert occur. Such information 

could be supplied by state and local 

emergency management authorities, at 

their discretion, to SECCs for inclusion 

in the State EAS Plans they administer, 

and would then be available to other 

emergency management authorities 

within the state for quick and easy 

reference. The Commission further 

proposes that the State EAS Plan 

template recently adopted by the 

Commission should be revised to 

require SECCs to identify their states’ 

procedures for the reporting and 

mitigation of false alerts, (or, where the 

state and local emergency management 

authorities either do not have or will not 

share such information with the SECC, 

to specifically note that in the EAS 

Plan). With regard to this proposal, 

should any listing of such procedures 

contain any or all of the following: 

• The standard operating procedures 

that state and local alert initiators follow 

to prepare for ‘‘live code’’ and other 

public facing EAS tests and alerts. 

• The standard operating procedures 

that state and local alert initiators have 

developed for the reporting and 

correction of false alerts, including how 

the alert initiator would issue any 

corrections to false alerts over the same 

systems used to issue the false alert, 

including the EAS and WEA. 

• The procedures agreed upon by the 

SECC and state emergency management 

agency or other State-authorized alert 

initiator by which they plan to consult 

with each other on a regular basis—at 

least annually—to ensure that EAS 

procedures, including initiation and 

cancellation of actual alerts and tests, 

are mutually understood, agreed upon, 

and documented in the State EAS Plan. 

• The procedures ensuring redundant 

and effective lines of communication 

between the SECC and key stakeholders 

during emergencies. 

• Other information that could 

prevent or mitigate the issuance of false 

alerts. 

Would inclusion of this information 

in State EAS Plans be beneficial to alert 

originators and state and local 

emergency management authorities in 

preventing and correcting false alerts, 

and conducting tests of the EAS? Would 

this action spur greater communication 

between alert originators and state and 

local emergency management 

authorities and their respective SECCs? 

Would its inclusion provide a single 

source of information to which state, 

local, Tribal and territorial emergency 

alert originators and managers might 

refer if the need arose? Alternatively, are 

there reasons why such information 

should not be included in State EAS 

Plans? The Commission seeks comment 

on these proposals. As to the 

development of the false alert 

procedures themselves, the FNPRM asks 

which agency or agencies are best 

situated to require their creation or 

otherwise have oversight over these 

processes. Is the FCC best positioned to 

take action with respect to helping 

prevent the transmission of false alerts, 

or is this better left to other agencies, 

such as DHS/FEMA or local alert 

originators? 

9. The Commission seeks comment on 

the costs and benefits of this proposal. 

What costs or burdens, if any, would fall 

on SECCs or state, local, Tribal and 

territorial emergency alert originators 

and managers, by the inclusion of the 

state and local alerting procedures in 

State EAS Plans, as described above? 

What quantifiable benefits might be 

expected to result from such action? To 

the extent including state and local 

alerting procedures in State EAS Plans 

might prevent false alerts from 

occurring, and speed corrective action 

with respect to any false alerts that 

might issue, would the potential 

benefits of such outcomes, such as 

minimizing public confusion and 

disruptions caused by false alerts, 

outweigh whatever burdens might be 

associated with that process? Would the 

inclusion of this information in State 

EAS Plans more generally enhance the 

efficacy of state and local alerting? 

C. Delivery of WEA to Subscriber 

Handsets 

10. In the Report on Hawaii False 

Alert, the Bureau indicated that some 

wireless subscribers did not receive 

either the false alert or the subsequent 

correction over WEA. Further, news 

reports in connection with the recent 

National Capital Region end-to-end 

WEA test, the recent Vail Colorado test 

and Ellicott City floods indicate that 

some subscribers did not receive timely 

WEA tests or alerts. Wireless providers 

have identified possible reasons that 

members of the public, who have not 

opted out of receipt of WEA alerts on 

their mobile devices, may not receive a 

particular WEA message, including: (1) 

Whether a mobile device can receive 

WEA messages; (2) whether the mobile 

device falls within the radio coverage of 

a cell site transmitting a WEA message 

and is not impacted with adverse radio 

frequency conditions such as 

interference, building or natural 

obstructions, etc.; (3) whether a handset 

is being served by a 3G cell site during 

a voice call or data session (in which 

case a WEA message would not be 

received until the voice or data session 

is ended); and (4) whether the device 

remains connected to the provider’s 

network. Are there other reasons why a 

WEA may not be received by a member 

of the public? Are WEA alert messages 

broadcast from all cell sites inside the 

alert’s geo-targeted area? What about an 

instance where the consumer inside the 

geo-targeted area may be served by a 

tower outside the geo-targeted area? 

Will the manner of delivering a WEA 

message to a mobile device within a 

geo-targeted area change after the 

Commission’s new geolocation rules go 

into effect in November of 2019, and if 

so, how? Is it possible that due to 

certain network conditions, such as 

congestion, certain cell sites within the 

alert’s geo-target area may not transmit 

a particular alert message? Are there any 

network conditions or resource 

scheduler-related issues that may cause 

the Participating CMS Provider’s 

network to delay or fail to transmit WEA 

alert messages that it has received from 

IPAWS? The Commission also invites 

commenters to address what, if any, role 

that handsets and handset 

manufacturers play in ensuring WEA 

capable devices can receive WEA alerts. 

11. How should WEA performance be 

measured and reported? The 

Commission seeks comment regarding 

WEA delivery issues that stakeholders 

have encountered or are aware of, either 

in connection with a live alert or with 

a regional end-to-end test. 

12. The Commission also seeks 

comment on how stakeholders could 

report WEA performance. Commenters 

should discuss the technical feasibility, 

usefulness, and desirability of this 

option. Are there other technical ways 

to get feedback automatically from a 

WEA recipient? What might the 

appropriate data points look like? Who 

should receive such data, and how 

would it be protected? Should the 

Commission develop a testing template 

for state and local governments that 

want to test the effectiveness of WEA 

alerts, including how precisely WEA 

alerts geotarget the desired area for 

various carriers? 

13. The Commission also seeks 

comment on whether and if so, how, it 

should take measures to address 

inconsistent WEA delivery. For 

example, should the Commission adopt 

technical standards (or benchmarks) for 

WEA performance and delivery? What 

form should these take? Should these be 

focused on internal network 

performance or mobile device 

performance, or both? Is there any 

practical way to ameliorate the impact 

of external factors (such as interference, 

building or natural obstructions, etc.) on 

WEA delivery? Should the Commission 

adopt rules related to WEA performance 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 39651 

(and if so, what form should those take), 

or would best practices be sufficient? 

What are the costs and benefits of the 

various options available to address 

inconsistent WEA delivery? 

III. Procedural Matters 

A. Ex Parte Rules 

14. The proceeding this FNPRM 

initiates shall be treated as ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceedings in accordance 

with the Commission’s ex parte rules. 

Persons making ex parte presentations 

must file a copy of any written 

presentation or a memorandum 

summarizing any oral presentation 

within two business days after the 

presentation (unless a different deadline 

applicable to the Sunshine period 

applies). Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must: (1) List all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made; and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda, or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with rule 

1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

rule 1.49(f) or for which the 

Commission has made available a 

method of electronic filing, written ex 

parte presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

B. Comment Filing Procedures 

15. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 

1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. Comments may 

be filed using the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121 (1998). 

D Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 

D Paper Filers: Parties that choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. If more than one 

docket or rulemaking number appears in 

the caption of this proceeding, filers 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. 

Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

D All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St. SW, Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes and boxes must be disposed 

of before entering the building. 

D Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. 

D U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

C. Accessible Formats 

16. To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(Braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), send an email to fcc504@

fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202– 

418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (tty). 

D. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

17. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared 

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities by 

the policies and rules proposed in the 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(FNPRM). Written public comments are 

requested on this IRFA. Comments must 

be identified as responses to the IRFA 

and must be filed by the deadlines for 

comments on the FNPRM. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 

FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). In 

addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

1. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

18. In the FNPRM, the Commission 

proposes actions to prevent and correct 

false alerts and to otherwise improve the 

effectiveness of the EAS and WEA. First, 

the Commission seeks comment on 

whether to adopt a dedicated reporting 

system, or use currently available 

means, such as the Commission’s 

Operations Center or Public Safety 

Support Center, so that EAS 

Participants, Participating CMS 

Providers, emergency managers, and 

members of the public can inform the 

Commission about false alerts. Second, 

the Commission proposes to revise its 

rules governing State EAS Plans to 

require the inclusion of standard 

operating procedures implemented 

within states to prevent and correct false 

alerts, where such information has been 

provided by state and local emergency 

management authorities. Finally, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

to adopt technical benchmarks or best 

practices to help ensure effective 

delivery of WEA alerts to the public. 

These proposed and contemplated 

actions and rule revisions potentially 

would enhance the Commission’s 

awareness of false alerts issued over the 

EAS and WEA, and provide state, local, 

Tribal and territorial emergency alert 

originators and managers with a 

common source to find standard 

operating procedure applicable within 

their jurisdictions to conduct EAS tests 

and correct false alerts. To the extent 

these proposed and contemplated 

actions may prevent the transmittal of 

false alerts and hasten corrective action 

of any false alerts issued, they would 

benefit the public by minimizing 

confusion and disruption caused by 

false alerts. 

2. Legal Basis 

19. The proposed action is taken 

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

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

624(g),706, and 715 of 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 615, as well 

as by sections 602(a), (b), (c), (f), 603, 

604 and 606 of the WARN Act, 47 

U.S.C. 1202(a), (b), (c), (f), 1203, 1204 

and 1206. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
39652 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

3. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which 

Rules Will Apply 

20. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of, the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the proposed actions, if adopted. The 

RFA generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small 

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’ 

under the Small Business Act. A ‘‘small 

business concern’’ is one which: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the SBA. 

21. Small Businesses, Small 

Organizations, and Small Governmental 

Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time, 

affect small entities that are not easily 

categorized at present. The Commission 

therefore describes here, at the outset, 

three broad groups of small entities that 

could be directly affected herein. First, 

while there are industry specific size 

standards for small businesses that are 

used in the regulatory flexibility 

analysis, according to data from the 

SBA’s Office of Advocacy, in general a 

small business is an independent 

business having fewer than 500 

employees. These types of small 

businesses represent 99.9% of all 

businesses in the United States which 

translates to 28.8 million businesses. 

22. Next, the type of small entity 

described as a ‘‘small organization’’ is 

generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise 

which is independently owned and 

operated and is not dominant in its 

field.’’ Nationwide, as of August 2016, 

there were approximately 356,494 small 

organizations based on registration and 

tax data filed by nonprofits with the 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS). 

23. Finally, the small entity described 

as a ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction’’ 

is defined generally as ‘‘governments of 

cities, counties, towns, townships, 

villages, school districts, or special 

districts, with a population of less than 

fifty thousand.’’ U.S. Census Bureau 

data from the 2012 Census of 

Governments indicate that there were 

90,056 local governmental jurisdictions 

consisting of general purpose 

governments and special purpose 

governments in the United States. Of 

this number there were 37,132 General 

purpose governments (county, 

municipal and town or township) with 

populations of less than 50,000 and 

12,184 Special purpose governments 

(independent school districts and 

special districts) with populations of 

less than 50,000. The 2012 U.S. Census 

Bureau data for most types of 

governments in the local government 

category show that the majority of these 

governments have populations of less 

than 50,000. Based on this data the 

Commission estimates that at least 

49,316 local government jurisdictions 

fall in the category of ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdictions.’’ 

24. Radio Stations. This Economic 

Census category comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

broadcasting aural programs by radio to 

the public. Programming may originate 

in their own studio, from an affiliated 

network, or from external sources.’’ The 

SBA has established a small business 

size standard for this category as firms 

having $38.5 million or less in annual 

receipts. Economic Census data for 2012 

show that 2,849 radio station firms 

operated during that year. Of that 

number, 2,806 firms operated with 

annual receipts of less than $25 million 

per year, 17 with annual receipts 

between $25 million and $49,999,999 

million and 26 with annual receipts of 

$50 million or more. Therefore, based 

on the SBA’s size standard the majority 

of such entities are small entities. 

25. According to Commission staff 

review of the BIA/Kelsey, LLC’s Media 

Access Pro Radio Database as of January 

2018, about 11,261 (or about 99.9 

percent) of 11,383 commercial radio 

stations had revenues of $38.5 million 

or less and thus qualify as small entities 

under the SBA definition. The 

Commission has estimated the number 

of licensed commercial AM radio 

stations to be 4,639 stations and the 

number of commercial FM radio 

stations to be 6,744, for a total number 

of 11,383. The Commission notes that 

the Commission has also estimated the 

number of licensed noncommercial 

(NCE) FM radio stations to be 4,120. 

Nevertheless, the Commission does not 

compile and otherwise does not have 

access to information on the revenue of 

NCE stations that would permit it to 

determine how many such stations 

would qualify as small entities. 

26. The Commission also notes, that 

in assessing whether a business entity 

qualifies as small under the above 

definition, business control affiliations 

must be included. The Commission’s 

estimate therefore likely overstates the 

number of small entities that might be 

affected by its action, because the 

revenue figure on which it is based does 

not include or aggregate revenues from 

affiliated companies. In addition, to be 

determined a ‘‘small business,’’ an 

entity may not be dominant in its field 

of operation. The Commission further 

notes that it is difficult at times to assess 

these criteria in the context of media 

entities, and the estimate of small 

businesses to which these rules may 

apply does not exclude any radio station 

from the definition of a small business 

on these basis, thus our estimate of 

small businesses may therefore be overinclusive. Also, as noted above, an 

additional element of the definition of 

‘‘small business’’ is that the entity must 

be independently owned and operated. 

The Commission notes that it is difficult 

at times to assess these criteria in the 

context of media entities and the 

estimates of small businesses to which 

they apply may be over-inclusive to this 

extent. 

27. FM Translator Stations and LowPower FM Stations. FM translators and 

Low Power FM Stations are classified in 

the category of Radio Stations and are 

assigned the same NAICs Code as 

licensees of radio stations. This U.S. 

industry, Radio Stations, comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

broadcasting aural programs by radio to 

the public. Programming may originate 

in their own studio, from an affiliated 

network, or from external sources. The 

SBA has established a small business 

size standard which consists of all radio 

stations whose annual receipts are $38.5 

million dollars or less. U.S. Census 

Bureau data for 2012 indicate that 2,849 

radio station firms operated during that 

year. Of that number, 2,806 operated 

with annual receipts of less than $25 

million per year, 17 with annual 

receipts between $25 million and 

$49,999,999 million and 26 with annual 

receipts of $50 million or more. 

Therefore, based on the SBA’s size 

standard the Commission concludes 

that the majority of FM Translator 

Stations and Low Power FM Stations are 

small. 

28. Television Broadcasting. This 

Economic Census category ‘‘comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

broadcasting images together with 

sound.’’ These establishments operate 

television broadcast studios and 

facilities for the programming and 

transmission of programs to the public. 

These establishments also produce or 

transmit visual programming to 

affiliated broadcast television stations, 

which in turn broadcast the programs to 

the public on a predetermined schedule. 

Programming may originate in their own 

studio, from an affiliated network, or 

from external sources. The SBA has 

created the following small business 

size standard for such businesses: Those 

having $38.5 million or less in annual 

receipts. The 2012 Economic Census 

reports that 751 firms in this category 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 39653 

operated in that year. Of that number, 

656 had annual receipts of $25,000,000 

or less, 25 had annual receipts between 

$25,000,000 and $49,999,999 and 70 

had annual receipts of $50,000,000 or 

more. Based on this data the 

Commission therefore estimates that the 

majority of commercial television 

broadcasters are small entities under the 

applicable SBA size standard. 

29. The Commission has estimated 

the number of licensed commercial 

television stations to be 1,378. Of this 

total, 1,258 stations (or about 91 

percent) had revenues of $38.5 million 

or less, according to Commission staff 

review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media 

Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on 

November 16, 2017, and therefore these 

licensees qualify as small entities under 

the SBA definition. In addition, the 

Commission has estimated the number 

of licensed noncommercial educational 

television stations to be 395. 

Notwithstanding, the Commission does 

not compile and otherwise does not 

have access to information on the 

revenue of NCE stations that would 

permit it to determine how many such 

stations would qualify as small entities. 

There are also 2,367 low power 

television stations, including Class A 

stations (LPTV) and 3,750 TV translator 

stations. Given the nature of these 

services, the Commission will presume 

that all of these entities qualify as small 

entities under the above SBA small 

business size standard. 

30. The Commission notes, however, 

that in assessing whether a business 

concern qualifies as ‘‘small’’ under the 

above definition, business (control) 

affiliations must be included. Our 

estimate, therefore likely overstates the 

number of small entities that might be 

affected by our action, because the 

revenue figure on which it is based does 

not include or aggregate revenues from 

affiliated companies. In addition, 

another element of the definition of 

‘‘small business’’ requires that an entity 

not be dominant in its field of operation. 

The Commission is unable at this time 

to define or quantify the criteria that 

would establish whether a specific 

television broadcast station is dominant 

in its field of operation. Accordingly, 

the estimate of small businesses to 

which rules may apply does not exclude 

any television station from the 

definition of a small business on this 

basis and is therefore possibly overinclusive. Also, as noted above, an 

additional element of the definition of 

‘‘small business’’ is that the entity must 

be independently owned and operated. 

The Commission notes that it is difficult 

at times to assess these criteria in the 

context of media entities and its 

estimates of small businesses to which 

they apply may be over-inclusive to this 

extent. 

31. Cable and Other Subscription 

Programming. This industry comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

operating studios and facilities for the 

broadcasting of programs on a 

subscription or fee basis. The broadcast 

programming is typically narrowcast in 

nature (e.g., limited format, such as 

news, sports, education, or youthoriented). These establishments produce 

programming in their own facilities or 

acquire programming from external 

sources. The programming material is 

usually delivered to a third party, such 

as cable systems or direct-to-home 

satellite systems, for transmission to 

viewers. The SBA size standard for this 

industry establishes as small, any 

company in this category which 

receives annual receipts of $38.5 million 

or less. According to 2012 U.S. Census 

Bureau data, 367 firms operated for the 

entire year. Of that number, 319 

operated with annual receipts of less 

than $25 million a year and 48 firms 

operated with annual receipts of $25 

million or more. Based on this data, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of firms operating in this industry are 

small. 

32. Cable System Operators (Rate 

Regulation Standard). The Commission 

has developed its own small business 

size standards for the purpose of cable 

rate regulation. Under the Commission’s 

rules, a ‘‘small cable company’’ is one 

serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers 

nationwide. Industry data indicate that 

there are currently 4,600 active cable 

systems in the United States. Of this 

total, all but nine cable operators 

nationwide are small under the 400,000- 

subscriber size standard. In addition, 

under the Commission’s rate regulation 

rules, a ‘‘small system’’ is a cable system 

serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. 

Current Commission records show 4,600 

cable systems nationwide. Of this total, 

3,900 cable systems have fewer than 

15,000 subscribers, and 700 systems 

have 15,000 or more subscribers, based 

on the same records. Thus, under this 

standard as well, the Commission 

estimates that most cable systems are 

small entities. 

33. Cable System Operators (Telecom 

Act Standard). The Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, also contains 

a size standard for small cable system 

operators, which is ‘‘a cable operator 

that, directly or through an affiliate, 

serves in the aggregate fewer than one 

percent of all subscribers in the United 

States and is not affiliated with any 

entity or entities whose gross annual 

revenues in the aggregate exceed 

$250,000,000.’’ There are approximately 

52,403,705 cable video subscribers in 

the United States today. Accordingly, an 

operator serving fewer than 524,037 

subscribers shall be deemed a small 

operator if its annual revenues, when 

combined with the total annual 

revenues of all its affiliates, do not 

exceed $250 million in the aggregate. 

Based on available data, the 

Commission finds that all but nine 

incumbent cable operators are small 

entities under this size standard. The 

Commission notes that the Commission 

neither requests nor collects information 

on whether cable system operators are 

affiliated with entities whose gross 

annual revenues exceed $250 million. 

Although it seems certain that some of 

these cable system operators are 

affiliated with entities whose gross 

annual revenues exceed $250 million, 

the Commission is unable at this time to 

estimate with greater precision the 

number of cable system operators that 

would qualify as small cable operators 

under the definition in the 

Communications Act. 

34. Satellite Telecommunications. 

This category comprises firms 

‘‘primarily engaged in providing 

telecommunications services to other 

establishments in the 

telecommunications and broadcasting 

industries by forwarding and receiving 

communications signals via a system of 

satellites or reselling satellite 

telecommunications.’’ Satellite 

telecommunications service providers 

include satellite and earth station 

operators. The category has a small 

business size standard of $32.5 million 

or less in average annual receipts, under 

SBA rules. For this category, U.S. 

Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 

there were a total of 333 firms that 

operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 299 firms had annual receipts of 

less than $25 million. Consequently, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of satellite telecommunications 

providers are small entities. 

35. All Other Telecommunications. 

The ‘‘All Other Telecommunications’’ 

category is comprised of establishments 

that are primarily engaged in providing 

specialized telecommunications 

services, such as satellite tracking, 

communications telemetry, and radar 

station operation. This industry also 

includes establishments primarily 

engaged in providing satellite terminal 

stations and associated facilities 

connected with one or more terrestrial 

systems and capable of transmitting 

telecommunications to, and receiving 

telecommunications from, satellite 

systems. Establishments providing 

internet services or voice over internet 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
39654 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

protocol (VoIP) services via clientsupplied telecommunications 

connections are also included in this 

industry. The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for ‘‘All 

Other Telecommunications,’’ which 

consists of all such firms with gross 

annual receipts of $32.5 million or less. 

For this category, U.S. Census data for 

2012 show that there were 1,442 firms 

that operated for the entire year. Of 

these firms, a total of 1,400 had gross 

annual receipts of less than $25 million. 

Thus, the Commission estimates that the 

majority of ‘‘All Other 

Telecommunications’’ firms potentially 

affected by our action can be considered 

small. 

36. Broadband Radio Service and 

Educational Broadband Service. 

Broadband Radio Service systems, 

previously referred to as Multipoint 

Distribution Service (MDS) and 

Multichannel Multipoint Distribution 

Service (MMDS) systems, and ‘‘wireless 

cable,’’ transmit video programming to 

subscribers and provide two-way high 

speed data operations using the 

microwave frequencies of the 

Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and 

Educational Broadband Service (EBS) 

(previously referred to as the 

Instructional Television Fixed Service 

(ITFS)). 

37. BRS—In connection with the 1996 

BRS auction, the Commission 

established a small business size 

standard as an entity that had annual 

average gross revenues of no more than 

$40 million in the previous three 

calendar years. The BRS auctions 

resulted in 67 successful bidders 

obtaining licensing opportunities for 

493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 

67 auction winners, 61 met the 

definition of a small business. BRS also 

includes licensees of stations authorized 

prior to the auction. At this time, the 

Commission estimates that of the 61 

small business BRS auction winners, 48 

remain small business licensees. In 

addition to the 48 small businesses that 

hold BTA authorizations, there are 

approximately 86 incumbent BRS 

licensees that are considered small 

entities (18 incumbent BRS licensees do 

not meet the small business size 

standard). After adding the number of 

small business auction licensees to the 

number of incumbent licensees not 

already counted, there are currently 

approximately 133 BRS licensees that 

are defined as small businesses under 

either the SBA or the Commission’s 

rules. 

38. In 2009, the Commission 

conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78 

licenses in the BRS areas. The 

Commission offered three levels of 

bidding credits: (i) A bidder with 

attributed average annual gross revenues 

that exceed $15 million and do not 

exceed $40 million for the preceding 

three years (small business) received a 

15 percent discount on its winning bid; 

(ii) a bidder with attributed average 

annual gross revenues that exceed $3 

million and do not exceed $15 million 

for the preceding three years (very small 

business) received a 25 percent discount 

on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder 

with attributed average annual gross 

revenues that do not exceed $3 million 

for the preceding three years 

(entrepreneur) received a 35 percent 

discount on its winning bid. Auction 86 

concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 

licenses. Of the ten winning bidders, 

two bidders that claimed small business 

status won 4 licenses; one bidder that 

claimed very small business status won 

three licenses; and two bidders that 

claimed entrepreneur status won six 

licenses. 

39. EBS—Educational Broadband 

Service has been included within the 

broad economic census category and 

SBA size standard for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers since 

2007. Wired Telecommunications 

Carriers are comprised of establishments 

primarily engaged in operating and/or 

providing access to transmission 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

own and/or lease for the transmission of 

voice, data, text, sound, and video using 

wired telecommunications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 

technologies. The SBA’s small business 

size standard for this category is all such 

firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. 

U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show 

that there were 3,117 firms that operated 

that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated 

with fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, 

under this size standard, the majority of 

firms in this industry can be considered 

small. In addition to Census data, the 

Commission’s Universal Licensing 

System indicates that as of October 

2014, there are 2,206 active EBS 

licenses. The Commission estimates that 

of these 2,206 licenses, the majority are 

held by non-profit educational 

institutions and school districts, which 

are by statute defined as small 

businesses. 

40. Direct Broadcast Satellite (‘‘DBS’’) 

Service. DBS service is a nationally 

distributed subscription service that 

delivers video and audio programming 

via satellite to a small parabolic ‘‘dish’’ 

antenna at the subscriber’s location. 

DBS is included in SBA’s economic 

census category ‘‘Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers.’’ The 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers 

industry comprises establishments 

primarily engaged in operating and/or 

providing access to transmission 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

own and/or lease for the transmission of 

voice, data, text, sound, and video using 

wired telecommunications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or combination of 

technologies. Establishments in this 

industry use the wired 

telecommunications network facilities 

that they operate to provide a variety of 

services, such as wired telephony 

services, including VoIP services, wired 

(cable) audio and video programming 

distribution; and wired broadband 

internet services. By exception, 

establishments providing satellite 

television distribution services using 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

operate are included in this industry. 

The SBA determines that a wireline 

business is small if it has fewer than 

1,500 employees. U.S. Census Bureau 

data for 2012 indicates that 3,117 

wireline companies were operational 

during that year. Of that number, 3,083 

operated with fewer than 1,000 

employees. Based on that data, the 

Commission concludes that the majority 

of wireline firms are small under the 

applicable SBA standard. Currently, 

however, only two entities provide DBS 

service, which requires a great deal of 

capital for operation: DIRECTV (owned 

by AT&T) and DISH Network. DIRECTV 

and DISH Network each report annual 

revenues that are in excess of the 

threshold for a small business. 

Accordingly, the Commission must 

conclude that internally developed FCC 

data are persuasive that, in general, DBS 

service is provided only by large firms. 

4. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

41. The Commission expects the 

actions proposed in the FNPRM, if 

adopted, will impose additional 

reporting, recordkeeping and/or other 

compliance obligations on small as well 

as other entities who inform the 

Commission about false alerts, and who 

submit additional information in State 

EAS Plans about the procedures they are 

using to prevent and correct false alerts. 

More specifically, the FNPRM seeks 

comment on implementing a 

mechanized process, or utilizing 

currently available means, such as the 

Public Safety Support Center reporting 

portal, to enable EAS Participants, 

Participating CMS Providers, emergency 

managers, and members of the public to 

inform the Commission about false 

alerts. Additionally, the FNPRM seeks 

comment on whether the Commission 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 39655 

should adopt additional requirements 

regarding false alert reporting in light of 

the Hawaii false alert and the 

recommendations in the Report on 

Hawaii False Alert, which has the 

potential to impact reporting 

requirements. For example, the 

Commission seeks comment on whether 

requiring false alert reporting, or 

specifying the false alert information 

required in a false alert report, would 

encourage implementation of standard 

operating procedures for reporting and 

responding to false alerts by alert 

originators. 

42. The FNPRM also proposes to 

amend its rules governing State EAS 

Plans to allow them to include 

procedures implemented by alert 

originators within states to prevent and 

correct false alerts. This information 

includes standard operating procedures 

that alert initiators follow to prepare for 

‘‘live code’’ and other public facing EAS 

tests and alerts; standard operating 

procedures that alert initiators have 

developed for the reporting and 

correction of false alerts; procedures 

agreed upon by the SECC and state 

emergency management agency or other 

State-authorized alert initiator by which 

they plan to consult with each other on 

a regular basis; and the procedures 

ensuring redundant and effective lines 

of communication between the SECC 

and key stakeholders during 

emergencies. 

43. Finally, the FNPRM seeks 

comment on whether to adopt technical 

benchmarks or best practices to help 

ensure effective delivery of WEA alerts 

to the public. 

5. Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

44. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant, specifically 

small business alternatives that it has 

considered in reaching its proposed 

approach, which may include the 

following four alternatives (among 

others): ‘‘(1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) and exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities.’’ 

45. The Commission does not expect 

the actions in the FNPRM to have a 

significant economic impact on small 

entities. Although the Commission 

seeks further comment on additional 

requirements regarding false alert 

reporting in light of the Hawaii false 

alert and the recommendations in the 

Report on Hawaii False Alert, the 

comments are designed to be minimally 

burdensome to all affected entities, 

including small businesses. A potential 

burden associated filing a false alert 

report would likely be limited to the 

time expended to make such report— 

which would entail entering false alert 

information into an online filing portal. 

Given the relatively rare occurrence of 

false alerts, however, the number of 

individuals or entities that might 

ultimately use the online filing portal is 

likely to be extremely small. 

46. The proposed changes to the State 

EAS Plan requirements will enable state 

and local alert originators to include 

procedures implemented by alert 

originators within states to prevent and 

correct false alerts, standard operating 

procedures that alert initiators follow to 

prepare for ‘‘live code’’ and other public 

facing EAS tests and alerts; standard 

operating procedures that alert initiators 

have developed for the reporting and 

correction of false alerts. To the extent 

that there are costs associated with 

submitting this information to SECCs, 

and to the Commission, these costs are 

expected to be de minimis. With respect 

to the Commission’s request for 

comment on whether and how to 

address inconsistent WEA delivery, 

there is a range of measures that could 

ultimately be adopted. The Commission 

has requested comment on the relative 

costs and benefits of these various 

approaches to ensure it has input from 

small entities and others to minimize 

the economic impacts of whatever 

actions it might take. Nevertheless, in 

addition to the steps taken by the 

Commission discussed herein, 

commenters are invited to propose steps 

that the Commission may take to further 

minimize any economic impact on 

small entities. When considering 

proposals made by other parties, 

commenters are also invited to propose 

alternatives that serve the goals of these 

proposals. 

6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

47. None. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Analysis 

48. 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 have described impacts 

that might affect small businesses, 

which includes most businesses with 

fewer than 25 employees, in the IRFA, 

supra. 

49. The FNPRM in this document 

contains proposed new and modified 

information collection requirements. 

The Commission, as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

burdens, invites the general public and 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) to comment on the information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, as required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA). Public and agency comments are 

due 60 days after publication of this 

document in the Federal Register. In 

addition, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks 

specific comment on how it might 

‘‘further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’ The Commission will 

submit the FNPRM to the Office of 

Management and Budget for review 

under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. 

50. The Commission specifically seek 

comment on the time and cost burdens 

associated with the voluntary false alert 

and lockout, and State EAS Plan 

reporting proposals contained in the 

FNPRM and whether there are ways of 

minimizing the costs burdens associated 

therewith. 

F. Ordering Clauses 

51. 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 713 of 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 by sections 602(a), (b), (c), (f), 603, 

604 and 606 of the WARN Act, 47 

U.S.C. 1202(a), (b), (c), (f), 1203, 1204 

and 1206, and the Twenty-First Century 

Communications and Video 

Accessibility Act of 2010, Public Law 

111–260 and Public Law 111–265, that 

this Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking is adopted. 

52. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

including the Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
39656 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

53. It is further ordered that pursuant 

to applicable procedures set forth in 

sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments on this Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking on or before 

September 10, 2018, and interested 

parties may file reply comments on or 

before October 9, 2018. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 11 

Radio, Television. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 11 as follows: 

PART 11—EMERGENCY ALERT 

SYSTEM (EAS) 

■ 1. The authority citation for 47 CFR 

part 11 continues to read as follows: 

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

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

■ 2. Amend § 11.21 by adding paragraph 

(g) to read as follows: 

§ 11.21 State and Local Area plans and 

FCC Mapbook. 

* * * * * 

(g) The State EAS Plan must contain 

procedures implemented within the 

state to prevent and correct false alerts 

initiated over the EAS and Wireless 

Emergency Alert systems, including: 

(1) The standard operating procedures 

that state and local alert initiators follow 

to prepare for ‘‘live code’’ and other 

public facing EAS tests and alerts. 

(2) The standard operating procedures 

that state and local alert initiators have 

developed for the reporting and 

correction of false alerts, including how 

the alert initiator would issue any 

corrections to false alerts over the same 

systems used to issue the false alert, 

including the EAS and WEA. 

(3) The procedures agreed upon by 

the SECC and state emergency 

management agency or other Stateauthorized alert initiator by which they 

plan to consult with each other on a 

regular basis to ensure that EAS 

procedures, including initiation and 

cancellation of actual alerts and tests, 

are mutually understood, agreed upon, 

and documented in the State EAS Plan. 

(4) The procedures ensuring 

redundant and effective lines of 

communication between the SECC and 

key stakeholders during emergencies. 

(5) Other information that could 

prevent or mitigate the issuance of false 

alerts. 

Where the state and local emergency 

management authorities either do not 

have or will not share the foregoing 

information with the SECC, the SECC 

must specifically note that in the EAS 

Plan. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2018–17097 Filed 8–9–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS