Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2557 

(2) If no fee payment is submitted, the 

request should be filed electronically 

through the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System or with the 

Commission’s Secretary. 

* * * * * 

PART 51—INTERCONNECTION 

■ 13. The authority citation for part 51 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151–55, 201–05, 207– 

09, 218, 220, 225–27, 251–54, 256, 271, 

303(r), 332, 1302. 

■ 14. Amend § 51.329 by revising 

paragraph (c)(2) as follows: 

§ 51.329 Notice of network changes: 

Methods for providing notice. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) The incumbent LEC’s public 

notice and any associated certifications 

shall be filed through the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS), using the ‘‘Submit a NonDocketed Filing’’ module. All 

subsequent filings responsive to a notice 

may be filed using the Commission’s 

ECFS under the docket number set forth 

in the Commission’s public notice for 

the proceeding. If necessary, subsequent 

filings responsive to a notice also may 

be filed by sending one paper copy of 

the filing to ‘‘Secretary, Federal 

Communications Commission, 

Washington, DC 20554’’ and one paper 

copy of the filing to ‘‘Federal 

Communications Commission, Wireline 

Competition Bureau, Competition 

Policy Division, Washington, DC 

20554.’’ For notices filed using the 

Commission’s ECFS, the date on which 

the filing is received by that system will 

be considered the official filing date. For 

notices filed via paper copy, the date on 

which the filing is received by the 

Secretary or the FCC Mailroom is 

considered the official filing date. All 

subsequent filings responsive to a notice 

shall refer to the ECFS docket number 

assigned to the notice. 

PART 61—TARIFFS 

■ 15. The authority citation for part 61 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: Secs. 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201–205 and 

403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201– 

205 and 403, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 16. Revise § 61.13 to read as follows: 

§ 61.13 Scope. 

(a) All issuing carriers that file tariffs 

are required to file tariff publications 

electronically, if practicable. 

(b) All tariff publications shall be filed 

in a manner that is compatible and 

consistent with the technical 

requirements of the Electronic Tariff 

Filing System. 

(c) Tariff publications which must be 

filed in hard copy format should be 

submitted according to the procedures 

set forth on the web page of the FCC’s 

Office of the Secretary, https://

www.fcc.gov/secretary. 

■ 17. Amend § 61.14 by revising 

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

§ 61.14 Method of filing publications. 

(a) Publications filed electronically 

must be captioned to ‘‘Secretary, 

Federal Communications Commission, 

Washington, DC 20554.’’ The Electronic 

Tariff Filing System will accept filings 

24 hours a day, seven days a week. The 

official filing date of a publication 

received by the Electronic Tariff Filing 

System will be determined by the date 

and time the transmission ends. If the 

transmission ends after the close of a 

business day, as that term is defined in 

§ 1.4(e)(2) of this chapter, the filing will 

be date and time stamped as of the 

opening of the next business day. 

(b) Carriers are strongly encouraged to 

submit publications electronically if 

practicable. Carriers need only transmit 

one set of files to the Commission. No 

other copies to any other party are 

required. Publications which must be 

filed in hard copy format should be 

submitted according to the procedures 

set forth on the web page of the FCC’s 

Office of the Secretary, https://

www.fcc.gov/secretary. 

* * * * * 

■ 18. Amend § 61.17 by revising 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 61.17 Applications for special 

permission. 

* * * * * 

(d) In addition, for special permission 

applications requiring fees as set forth 

in part 1, subpart G of this chapter, 

carriers shall submit the appropriate fee 

and associated payment form 

electronically through the process set 

forth in § 1.1105 of this chapter and, if 

practicable, the application and 

associated documents electronically in 

accordance with the procedures set 

forth on the Commission’s website, 

www.fcc.gov/licensing-databases/fees. 

Applications which must be filed in 

hard copy format should be submitted 

according to the procedures set forth on 

the web page of the FCC’s Office of the 

Secretary, https://www.fcc.gov/ 

secretary. 

* * * * * 

■ 19. Amend § 61.20 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 61.20 Method of filing publications. 

* * * * * 

(b) In addition, all tariff publications 

requiring fees as set forth in part 1, 

subpart G of this chapter, shall be 

submitted electronically if practicable in 

accordance with § 1.1105 of this chapter 

along with the electronic submission of 

the payment online form. Petitions 

which must be filed in hard copy format 

should be submitted according to the 

procedures set forth on the web page of 

the FCC’s Office of the Secretary, 

https://www.fcc.gov/secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00596 Filed 1–17–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 11 

[PS Docket No. 15–94; FCC–17–170] 

Blue Alert EAS Event Code 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC or 

Commission) amends its regulations 

governing the Emergency Alert System 

(EAS) and Wireless Emergency Alerts 

(WEA) to add a new event code, B–L– 

U, to allow alert originators to issue an 

alert whenever a law enforcement 

officer is injured or killed, missing in 

connection with his or her official 

duties, or there is an imminent and 

credible threat to cause death or serious 

injury to law enforcement officers. 

DATES: This rule is effective January 18, 

2018. Delivery of Blue Alerts over EAS 

will be implemented January 18, 2019. 

Delivery of Blue Alerts over WEA will 

be implemented July 18, 2019. This 

docket will remain open for comments 

until March 19, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory Cooke, Deputy Division Chief, 

Policy and Licensing Division, Public 

Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, 

at (202) 418–2351, or by email at 

Gregory.Cooke@fcc.gov; or Linda Pintro, 

Attorney Advisor, Policy and Licensing 

Division, Public Safety and Homeland 

Security Bureau, at (202) 418–7490, or 

by email at Linda.Pintro@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Order in 

PS Docket No. 15–94, FCC 17–170, 

adopted and released on December 14, 

2017. The full text of this document is 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

FCC Reference Center (Room CY–1257), 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
2558 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 

20554, or online at: https://www.fcc.gov/ 

document/fcc-adds-blue-alerts-nationsemergency-alert-systems-0. 

Synopsis 

1. The Order adds to Part 11 EAS 

rules a new dedicated EAS event code, 

to advance the important public policy 

of protecting our nation’s law 

enforcement officials and the 

communities they serve. This Order 

adopts the three-character B–L–U to 

enable the delivery of Blue Alerts over 

the EAS and WEA. This will promote 

the development of compatible and 

integrated Blue Alert plans throughout 

the United States, consistent with the 

Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu National 

Blue Alert Act of 2015 (Blue Alert Act), 

and support the need for a dedicated 

EAS event code for Blue Alerts 

identified by the Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services (COPS 

Office) of the United States Department 

of Justice (DOJ). 

I. Background 

2. The EAS is a national public 

warning system through which 

broadcasters, cable systems, and other 

service providers (EAS Participants) 

deliver alerts to the public to warn them 

of impending emergencies and dangers 

to life and property. Although the 

primary purpose of the EAS is to equip 

the President with the ability to provide 

immediate information to the public 

during periods of national emergency, 

the EAS is also used by the National 

Weather Service (NWS) and state and 

local governments to distribute 

voluntary alerts such as weather-related 

and child abduction (AMBER) alerts. 

EAS uses three-character event codes to 

identify the various elements, so that 

each can deliver accurate, secure, and 

geographically-targeted messages to the 

public, in text crawls and in the audio 

portion of EAS alerts (e.g., TOR for 

Tornado). 

3. In 2015, Congress enacted the Blue 

Alert Act to ‘‘encourage, enhance, and 

integrate Blue Alert plans throughout 

the United States,’’ thus facilitating the 

dissemination of information in a 

consistent manner nationwide when a 

law enforcement officer is seriously 

injured, killed or missing in the line of 

duty. The Blue Alert Act directs the 

Attorney General to establish a national 

Blue Alert communications network 

within DOJ to issue Blue Alerts, using 

plans that would be adopted in 

coordination with ‘‘States, units of local 

government, law enforcement agencies, 

and other appropriate entities.’’ In 

September 2016, the Attorney General 

assigned the COPS Office within DOJ to 

be the National Blue Alert Coordinator. 

4. The COPS Office filed two reports 

with Congress to demonstrate how it 

was implementing the Blue Alert Act’s 

mandate. In its 2016 Report to Congress, 

the COPS Office identified ‘‘the need to 

promote formal communication 

mechanisms between law enforcement 

agencies for Blue Alert information, the 

need for a dedicated Emergency Alert 

System (EAS) event code, and the need 

to increase public and law enforcement 

awareness of the Blue Alert Act.’’ In its 

2017 Report to Congress, the COPS 

Office noted that it had commenced 

outreach efforts with the FCC to pursue 

a dedicated Blue Alert EAS event code, 

and asked the FCC to consider 

conducting an expedited rulemaking to 

the extent feasible. 

5. The COPS Office established 

voluntary guidelines for the issuance of 

Blue Alerts based on the criteria 

contained in the Blue Alert Act (Blue 

Alert Guidelines). The Blue Alert 

Guidelines identify who may request the 

issuance of a Blue Alert, when a Blue 

Alert may be issued, and the requisite 

content thereof. Specifically, a Blue 

Alert may be issued only when a request 

is made by a law enforcement agency 

having primary jurisdiction over the 

incident, and one the following three 

threshold criteria has been met: (1) 

Death or serious injury of a law 

enforcement officer in the line of duty; 

(2) threat to cause death or serious 

injury to a law enforcement officer; or 

(3) a law enforcement officer is missing 

in connection with official duties. If a 

Blue Alert is based upon the first of the 

criteria, the law enforcement agency 

must confirm that a law enforcement 

officer has been killed, seriously 

injured, or attacked, and there are 

indications of death or serious injury. If 

a Blue Alert is based upon the second 

of the criteria, the law enforcement 

agency must confirm that the threat is 

‘‘imminent and credible,’’ and at the 

time of receipt of the threat, any suspect 

involved is wanted by a law 

enforcement agency. Finally, if a Blue 

Alert is based upon the third criteria, 

the agency must have concluded that 

there is indication of serious injury to, 

or death of the missing law enforcement 

officer. In all cases, the agency must 

confirm that any suspect involved has 

not been apprehended and there is 

sufficient descriptive information of the 

suspect, including any relevant vehicle 

and license tag information. The COPS 

Office also recommends that Blue Alerts 

be focused on the geographic areas most 

likely to facilitate the apprehension of 

the suspect, and the message include 

the suspect’s last known location, 

direction of travel, and possible 

destination. 

6. On June 22, 2017, the FCC released 

the Blue Alert NPRM, proposing to 

revise the EAS rules to adopt BLU to 

allow the transmission of Blue Alerts to 

the public over the EAS, satisfying the 

need articulated by the COPS Office for 

a dedicated EAS event code to facilitate 

broader dissemination of the requisite 

information. 

II. Discussion 

7. The EAS is an Effective Mechanism 

to Deliver Blue Alerts. The Order finds— 

as supported by most commenters—that 

the EAS is an effective mechanism for 

the delivery of Blue Alerts. The City of 

New York (NYC) and the National 

Association of Broadcasters (NAB) 

observe that issuing a Blue Alert via the 

EAS will provide the public with the 

opportunity to protect themselves and 

their families and to report relevant 

information to law enforcement, thus 

facilitating the apprehension of suspects 

who are alleged to pose an imminent 

threat to law enforcement officers. 

NCTA—The internet & Television 

Association (NCTA) and the American 

Cable Association (ACA) agree that 

adding Blue Alerts to EAS will advance 

the important public policy of 

protecting our nation’s law enforcement 

officials, as does the National Public 

Safety Telecommunications Council 

(NPSTC), which states that both the EAS 

and WEA should be available tools to 

help provide Blue Alerts to the public. 

8. The Order also finds that it is 

technically feasible to send Blue Alerts 

using the EAS. As NYC and broadcaster 

engineer Sean Donelan (Donelan) 

observe, the information required by the 

Blue Alert Guidelines can be 

successfully communicated within the 

two-minute period to which EAS alerts 

are limited. Similarly, the Commission 

agrees with the Association of PublicSafety Communications OfficialsInternational, Inc. (APCO) and NYC that 

EAS Blue Alerts should be focused to an 

appropriately narrow geographic area, 

and find that the transmission of EAS 

alerts satisfies the requirement that a 

Blue Alert be ‘‘limited to the geographic 

areas most likely to facilitate the 

apprehension of the suspect involved or 

which the suspect could reasonably 

reach’’ and ‘‘[is] not . . . limited to state 

lines.’’ The Order disagrees with the 

assertion of McCarthy Radio 

Enterprises, Inc. to the contrary. EAS 

alerts are issued using county-based 

Federal Information Processing 

Standards (FIPS) codes, and may be 

issued to include multiple counties 

within a state or across state borders, 

depending on the geographic scope of 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2559 

the emergency prompting the alert. The 

Commission believes that this level of 

geographic targeting is consistent with 

effective delivery of Blue Alerts, given 

the type of potentially mobile suspect 

that would be the subject of many Blue 

Alerts. The Order agrees with Donelan 

that a suspect’s movements in the 

circumstances that would give rise to a 

Blue Alert likely would be similar to 

that of a suspect in AMBER Alert 

circumstances, where suspects may 

travel hundreds of miles within a few 

hours. 

9. The Order also agrees with 

commenters such as NYC that EAS Blue 

Alerts sent via the Integrated Public 

Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) can 

support transmission of the detailed 

information required by the Blue Alert 

Guidelines. As the Commission 

acknowledged in the Blue Alerts NPRM, 

EAS alerts delivered over IPAWS use 

the IP-based Common Alerting Protocol 

(CAP) to deliver alerts with detailed text 

files, non-English alerts, or other 

content-rich data that would not be 

available to EAS alerts delivered via the 

broadcast-based daisy chain. As NYC 

and NPSTC note, EAS-based Blue Alerts 

that provide such detailed information 

will greatly improve the ability of the 

public to recognize and avoid an unsafe 

situation. The Order accordingly urges 

alert originators to initiate Blue Alerts 

via IPAWS and recommends that alert 

originators include detailed information 

as part of each Blue Alert for which it 

is available. The Order notes that EAS 

Participants are required to create video 

crawls based upon the enhanced text 

contained within the CAP message. The 

Order agrees with the COPS Office’s 

recommendation that the last known 

location, direction of travel, and 

possible destinations of the suspect be 

included as part of the alert message. 

The Commission believes that these 

steps, in combination with training, will 

allow Blue Alert originators to address 

the concerns raised by the Boulder 

Regional Emergency Telephone Service 

Authority (BRETSA) and other 

commenters that frequent, repeated, 

misused, or overly long alerts can result 

in recipients ‘‘tuning out’’ alerts and 

even disabling alerts on their devices. 

10. The Commission believes that 

Blue Alerts delivered via the broadcast 

EAS continues to be an effective 

mechanism for the delivery of Blue 

Alerts. Concerns about the relative value 

of IPAWS-based, as opposed to daisy 

chain-based, EAS alerts are not unique 

to Blue Alerts. For example, AMBER 

Alerts are subject to the same technical 

limitations, potentially providing the 

public with an alert from the daisy 

chain that lacks the descriptive 

information about the victim that an 

IPAWS-based alert would provide. The 

Order agrees with commenters that 

concerns that arise from these technical 

limitations are mitigated because the 

public is likely to learn adequate 

information about an emergency and, as 

needed, check other media for 

additional information after receiving an 

alert. Further, EAS messages delivered 

via the broadcast daisy chain can supply 

life-saving information and may act as a 

source of redundancy for portions of the 

EAS that draw on the advanced 

capability of CAP. Accordingly, the 

Order concludes that the mere fact of 

any discrepancy between the 

information provided by an IPAWSbased EAS Blue Alert and a broadcastbased EAS Blue Alert is not sufficient 

reason to deny potentially life-saving 

information to all members of the 

public. 

11. Nonetheless, the Order encourages 

EAS manufacturers and EAS 

Participants to take technical steps to 

facilitate the delivery of IPAWS-based 

EAS Blue Alerts to the public where an 

alert is first delivered to an EAS 

Participant via broadcast. The Order 

notes that Monroe Electronics, Inc. 

(Monroe) and other commenters 

propose that the Commission permit 

‘‘triggered CAP polling,’’ by which the 

EAS device would automatically poll 

IPAWS upon receipt of a broadcast EAS 

message to verify whether a 

corresponding CAP message exists, and 

if it does, use the CAP message instead 

of the broadcast EAS message. The part 

11 EAS rules do not bar EAS 

Participants from triggered CAP 

polling.1 Because triggered CAP polling 

is estimated to require a ‘‘few seconds’’ 

to complete, the Order finds that its use 

in these instances is consistent with 

Section 11.51(n) of the EAS rules, which 

allows EAS Participants to employ a 

delay of up to 15 minutes before 

interrupting their programming and 

retransmitting EAS voluntary event 

codes. 

12. A Dedicated Blue Alert EAS Event 

Code is in the Public Interest. The 

Commission determined that it would 

serve the public interest and promote 

the purpose of the Blue Alert Act to 

adopt a dedicated EAS event code for 

Blue Alerts. Accordingly, the Order 

amends Section 11.31(e) of the EAS 

rules to create and add the dedicated 

BLU event code to the EAS Protocol for 

Blue Alerts. The Commission agrees 

with the COPS Office that a dedicated 

EAS event code would ‘‘convey the 

appropriate sense of urgency’’ and 

‘‘galvanize the public awareness 

necessary to protect law enforcement 

officers and the public from extremely 

dangerous offenders.’’ The Commission 

also agrees with the COPS Office that no 

existing EAS event code is adequate or 

acceptable to accomplish the objectives 

of the Blue Alert Act. 

13. The conclusion in the Order is 

supported by the NPSTC and others that 

agree that a dedicated BLU event code 

is well suited to serve as the central 

organizing element for Blue Alert plans 

nationally. As APCO notes, a dedicated 

code would facilitate consistent 

operations and terminology within the 

National Blue Alert Network, as called 

for by the Blue Alert Act. Similarly, 

NYC and NAB agree that establishing 

this dedicated EAS event code to deliver 

Blue Alerts would help facilitate the 

delivery of Blue Alerts to the public in 

a uniform and consistent manner. The 

Commission also agrees with NYC that 

a dedicated code would lead state and 

local alert originators to engage relevant 

stakeholders to operationalize the steps 

necessary to issue a Blue Alert. 

14. Further, the Commission is 

persuaded by the COPS Office that an 

EAS event code solely dedicated to Blue 

Alerts would ‘‘facilitate and streamline 

the adoption of new Blue Alert plans 

throughout the nation and would help 

to integrate existing plans into a 

coordinated national framework.’’ The 

recommendation by the COPS Office is 

supported by its extensive outreach to 

U.S. States and territories. According to 

the COPS Office, twenty-eight states 

operate Blue Alert systems, and twentyeight states and territories do not. In its 

2017 Report to Congress, the COPS 

Office noted the inconsistency of plans 

from state to state and the negative 

consequences that have arisen as a 

result. Specifically, according to the 

2017 Report to Congress, ‘‘the lack of 

such a resource [i.e., a dedicated EAS 

event code] affected jurisdictions’ 

ability to communicate within states 

and across the country. Even in states 

with established Blue Alert plans, it was 

often difficult to identify important 

points of contact necessary for alert 

activation or interstate coordination.’’ 

The Commission thus agrees with the 

COPS Office that implementation of a 

dedicated Blue Alert EAS code could 

ease the burden of designing a 

consistent model for Blue Alert plans, 

and thus encourage states that do not 

have Blue Alert plans to establish one. 

15. The Order also concludes that the 

three-character BLU EAS event code, 

rather than a currently existing EAS 

code, would help ensure that both Blue 

Alerts and related outreach and training 

are undertaken in a consistent manner 

nationally. The Commission agrees with 

NYC that using the BLU code would 

allow for pre-scripted, standardized onVerDate Sep<11>2014 15:51 Jan 17, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\18JAR1.SGM 18JAR1

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
2560 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

screen text that is more descriptive than 

the existing categories, and would serve 

to socialize the Blue Alert concept with 

the public, much like the AMBER Alerts 

have done for years. The Commission is 

also persuaded that a dedicated event 

code with consistent national standards 

would allow Federal, state, and local 

authorities to create consistent training 

programs for alert originators, as well as 

public service announcements, ad 

campaigns, and informational material 

that would serve to educate the public 

ahead of time. 

16. The Order disagrees with 

commenters that Blue Alerts should 

extend beyond law enforcement officers 

to include all uniformed first 

responders, including firefighters and 

paramedics. The stated purpose of the 

Blue Alert Act is to ‘‘encourage, 

enhance, and integrate Blue Alert plans 

throughout the United States to 

disseminate information when a law 

enforcement officer is seriously injured 

or killed in the line of duty, is missing 

in connection with the officer’s official 

duties, or an imminent and credible 

threat that an individual intends to 

cause the serious injury or death of a 

law enforcement officer is received.’’ 

The Commission agrees with the COPS 

Office that Commission action should 

not extend beyond the Congressional 

mandate by including parties other than 

law enforcement officers. Such action 

would fall outside the scope of the Blue 

Alert Act, which limits Blue Alerts to a 

‘‘law enforcement officer.’’ 

17. Similarly, the Order finds that 

existing EAS codes LEW (Law 

Enforcement Warning), LAE (Local Area 

Emergency), and CEM (Civil Emergency 

Message) would not be as effective as a 

BLU event code. The Commission 

agrees with the COPS Office that the 

absence of a dedicated BLU event code 

requires states and local law 

enforcement agencies to use one of the 

existing generic event codes in an ad 

hoc manner and that existing event 

codes such as LEW are inadequate. NAB 

also notes that there is confusion about 

the true nature or severity of an 

emergency when LEW is used. The 

record supports the conclusion by the 

COPS Office that there is a lack of 

urgency associated with the existing 

LEW, LAE and CEM event codes 

because they are sometimes used for 

matters that do not suggest the need for 

immediate action. For example, the 

COPS Office observes that LEW alerts 

address a broad array of matters 

including police activity, weatherrelated incidents, road hazards, missing 

persons, and other miscellaneous alerts. 

Similarly, LAE and CEM alerts are more 

varied than LEW, as they additionally 

include alerts addressing utility issues 

and fire hazards. The Order does not 

address the efficacy of such multiple 

uses for LEW, LAE, and CEM, but do 

agree with the COPS Office that the 

broad use of these event codes make 

them inappropriate for use as the Blue 

Alert event code. The Commission 

agrees with the COPS Office that using 

LEW, LAE, or CEM for Blue Alerts 

would create confusion, as instructions 

for different situations can be 

contradictory and the public would not 

know what kind of action to take based 

on the event code alone. As the 

Commission found in the NWS Report 

and Order proceeding, the public 

interest is not served by relying on 

inadequate warnings that might provide 

incorrect or even opposite remedial 

advice to the public. The Order finds 

that Blue Alerts have a purpose that is 

sufficiently unique and well defined (as 

compared to the circumstances that 

have prompted the use of other codes) 

to warrant a unique dedicated BLU 

event code, which could serve as a vital 

tool’’ for ‘‘protect[ing] law enforcement 

officers and the communities they 

serve.’’ 

18. WEA Delivery of Blue Alerts. 

Although the COPS Office limited its 

request to an EAS event code for Blue 

Alerts, Blue Alerts are also capable of 

delivery over WEA as that system is 

currently configured. Moreover, 

incidents that qualify for the initiation 

of a Blue Alert under the Blue Alert 

Guidelines would also satisfy the 

minimum requirements for initiation of 

an ‘‘Imminent Threat’’ Alert via WEA. 

Accordingly, the Order permits Blue 

Alerts to be deployed via WEA using 

existing alerting methodologies and 

consistent with our WEA rules. 

19. NYC suggests that Blue Alerts use 

the Imminent Threat Alert classification 

only as a temporary measure until such 

time that a dedicated WEA message 

classification for Blue Alerts can be 

developed and deployed. NYC is 

concerned that the existing pre-scripted 

text for Imminent Threat Alert is 

‘‘overly vague,’’ lacks capabilities for 

‘‘alert originators entering free form 

text’’ or ‘‘Blue Alert-specific prescripted text,’’ and ‘‘can lead to public 

confusion and/or panic.’’ Although 

NYC’s concerns are somewhat mitigated 

by the evidence in the record that alert 

originators can use message ‘‘templates’’ 

that could be used for different Blue 

Alert scenarios, the Commission 

believes the issue merits further study. 

The Commission sought comment in the 

Blue Alert NPRM on the extent to which 

additional guidance or direction would 

be helpful regarding how Blue Alerts 

should be classified for purposes of 

WEA. Although the Commission 

declines to adopt a separate 

classification for WEA Blue Alerts at 

this time, the Order leaves this aspect of 

the issue teed up in the Blue Alert 

NPRM pending, and keeps the abovecaptioned docket open, to help gather 

additional information on this issue 

beyond what the record currently 

contains, including further comment 

from those interested on potential 

implementation steps, time frame, and 

costs, until sixty days after the date of 

publication of this Order in the Federal 

Register. In the meantime, the Order 

finds that issuance of Blue Alerts using 

WEA’s existing standards and structures 

at least as a temporary measure will be 

effective, will reduce the necessary time 

for Blue Alerts to become available on 

WEA, and will reduce the costs to WEA 

stakeholders. 

20. Implementation Schedule. In the 

Blue Alert NPRM, the Commission 

sought comment on the proposal that 

EAS equipment manufacturers should 

integrate the Blue Alert event code into 

equipment yet to be manufactured or 

sold, and make necessary software 

upgrades available to EAS Participants, 

no later than six months from the 

effective date of the final rule. This 

proposal was based on the 

Commission’s experience with the NWS 

Report and Order proceeding, in which 

the Commission required a similar 

schedule for implementation of severe 

weather-related EAS event codes. In the 

Blue Alert NPRM, the Commission 

likewise noted that adding a BLU EAS 

event code would trigger technical and 

public safety requirements regarding 

equipment readiness that were similar 

to those discussed in the NWS Report 

and Order proceeding. 

21. The Order encourages 

stakeholders to work together 

voluntarily to implement Blue Alerts as 

swiftly as possible in light of the 

important public safety objectives 

involved. The Commission recognizes, 

however, the record reflects that some 

time is necessary for equipment 

manufacturers and Participating 

Commercial Mobile Service (CMS) 

Providers to prepare their equipment 

and networks to be able to process any 

Blue Alerts that are sent over EAS and 

WEA, as well as for alert originators, 

EAS Participants, and other 

stakeholders to have the necessary 

training and resources to deliver Blue 

Alerts to the public if they choose to do 

so. Accordingly, the Order allows a 

period of 12 months from the effective 

date of this rule to enable the delivery 

of Blue Alerts over EAS, and a period 

of 18 months from the effective date of 

this rule to enable the delivery of Blue 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2561 

Alerts over WEA. This implementation 

schedule will ensure all stakeholders 

have sufficient time to address any 

technical, resource, and training needs 

they may require to ensure the 

successful delivery of Blue Alerts. 

22. Although NYC states that six 

months is sufficient time for EAS 

equipment manufacturers to release the 

necessary software upgrades for a 

dedicated Blue Alert event code, other 

commenters suggest more time is 

warranted for implementation of Blue 

Alerts for both EAS and WEA. NCTA 

states that the Commission should work 

with EAS manufacturers to determine 

the adequacy of the time allocated for 

software upgrades to equipment. EAS 

equipment manufacturers Monroe and 

Sage Alerting Systems (Sage) state that 

12 months is sufficient to allow for the 

new event code to be deployed within 

a scheduled in-version equipment 

software update, resulting in no 

incremental cost to EAS Participants, 

rather than as a scheduled major version 

upgrade that would have to be 

separately purchased. Broadcaster 

Adrienne Abbott (Abbott) states that 

EAS stakeholders have additional needs 

that must be met to ensure the 

successful delivery of Blue Alerts (e.g., 

the updating of EAS Plans to 

accommodate the use of the new code, 

time for Councils of Governments 

(COGs) to add the Blue Alert Event Code 

to their list of approved codes, and 

public awareness campaigns to be 

conducted to raise awareness and 

understanding of Blue Alerts). The 

record, however, does not support 

Abbott’s contention that this entire 

process will require two years to 

complete. For the reasons described in 

this Order and the earlier NWS Report 

and Order, the Commission’s 

experience tells us that this process can 

occur in parallel with the development 

and deployment of EAS equipment 

software updates and can be 

accommodated within a 12-month 

period. Participating CMS Providers 

have requested 18 months to complete 

the incorporation of pending standards 

into their networks and devices that will 

enable the delivery of Blue Alerts as 

Imminent Threats over WEA, such as 

modification of the ‘‘C-interface,’’ the 

secure interface that exists between 

IPAWS and commercial mobile service 

provider gateways. In connection, NYC 

acknowledges that ‘‘a longer 

implementation timeframe is likely 

necessary for the wireless industry.’’ 

Based on the record, the Commission 

believes that a 12-month 

implementation period for EAS and an 

18-month implementation period for 

WEA will provide all stakeholders 

adequate time to ensure that the 

necessary equipment upgrades, software 

updates, development, and testing are 

completed to enable the delivery of Blue 

Alerts over EAS and WEA as 

contemplated by this Order. 

23. The Blue Alert NPRM proposed to 

allow EAS Participants to upgrade their 

equipment to add a designated Blue 

Alert event code on a voluntary basis 

until their equipment is replaced, which 

is the same approach the Commission 

has taken when it has adopted other 

new EAS event codes in the past. The 

Order adopts a modified version of this 

proposal and permit EAS Participants to 

update their software to add the BLU 

event code on a voluntary basis. All 

EAS Participants should be able to add 

the BLU event code using a software 

upgrade because, as of July 30, 2016, all 

EAS Participants should have 

equipment in place that is capable, at 

the minimum, of being upgraded by 

software to accommodate EAS 

modifications, and thus, the need to 

upgrade existing equipment no longer 

appears to be necessary. The Order also 

agrees with NCTA that permitting 

software upgrades on a voluntary basis 

is a ‘‘sensible and effective’’ approach to 

adopting a new event code, and with 

ACA, which notes that this approach 

‘‘appropriately balances the public’s 

interest in the safety and well-being of 

law enforcement officials against the 

costs of implementing new EAS codes.’’ 

The Order disagrees with the NYC 

argument that allowing EAS 

Participants to upgrade their software 

on a voluntary basis undermines the 

creation of a cohesive national Blue 

Alert system. As the Commission 

observed in the NWS Report and Order, 

the use by EAS Participants of these 

codes is and has always been voluntary, 

and ‘‘it would be contrary to the 

voluntary nature of state and local EAS 

to mandate upgrades to existing EAS 

equipment to incorporate new optional 

event codes.’’ As the Order discusses 

below, the Commission also finds that 

this approach will significantly reduce 

the costs to EAS Participants. 

24. Cost and Benefit Analysis. The 

Order concludes that the benefits of 

implementing BLU outweigh its cost. 

The Commission acknowledges as it did 

in the Blue Alert NPRM, the COPS 

Office’s guidance and expertise 

regarding the potential benefits of Blue 

Alerts. The Order also draws on the 

Commission’s experience with the 

implementation of new EAS codes. The 

Order finds that most of the potential 

costs of implementation arise from 

software updates made outside of the 

normal course of planned upgrades. The 

Order allows sufficient time and 

flexibility to allow manufacturers and 

EAS Participants make upgrades, and to 

conduct associated testing in tandem 

with general software upgrades installed 

during the regular course of business, 

thus minimizing costs. The rule adopted 

in the Order presents many potential 

benefits by keeping the public informed, 

out of harm’s way, and enlisting their 

aid to more quickly apprehend 

dangerous suspects as well as reducing 

the cost for 911 call centers and 

emergency responders. 

25. Costs. The Order finds, as 

suggested in the Blue Alert NPRM, that 

the main cost to EAS Participants that 

elect to install BLU will be the cost 

involved in downloading the software 

updates into their devices, and 

conducting associated testing. The Blue 

Alert NPRM found that adopting a Blue 

Alert EAS event code presents similar 

technical issues to those raised in the 

NWS Report and Order, and, 

accordingly, tentatively concluded that 

the costs for adding a dedicated Blue 

Alert EAS event code would not exceed 

a one-time $3.5 million implementation 

ceiling. In the NWS Report and Order 

proceeding, Monroe Electronics 

indicated that the new event codes 

could be implemented through a 

software update downloaded from its 

website, while Sage Alerting Systems 

indicated that end users could 

implement event codes in 10 minutes or 

less, at no cost other than labor. The 

NWS Report and Order used a worstcase cost figure of $125.00 per device, 

allowing five hours of labor to be spent 

by each of the 28,058 broadcasters and 

cable companies, resulting in a cost 

ceiling of $3.5 million. The Order 

adopts the Commission’s tentative 

conclusion in the Blue Alert NPRM, and 

find that a dedicated Blue Alert EAS 

event code would not exceed a one-time 

$3.5 million implementation cost. The 

Order notes that EAS Participants can 

avoid most incremental implementation 

costs by downloading the new Blue 

Alert code in conjunction with a 

scheduled software update. Although 

the Order recognizes that EAS 

equipment manufacturers will incur 

some costs in making the new event 

code available to all EAS Participants, 

the Commission believes that 12 months 

will provide sufficient time to dovetail 

the BLU upgrade with other scheduled 

upgrades, posing minimal expense to 

equipment manufacturers. The 

Commission believes that the costs for 

implementation of WEA will be 

similarly low, because Blue Alerts will 

be delivered over the existing Imminent 

Threat WEA classification, using WEA 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
2562 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

in its current configuration. As such, the 

Commission believes there will be no 

incremental costs associated with the 

delivery of Blue Alerts over WEA, and 

that the 18 months granted in the Order 

to Participating CMS Providers is 

sufficient to allow providers to 

minimize the costs of deployment. 

26. Benefits. The Order anticipate that 

establishing the BLU event code will 

improve emergency alerting during 

events described in the Blue Alert 

Guidelines, thereby helping to keep 

people safe from harm. The Order agrees 

with the COPS Office that existing 

codes, such as LEW, cannot effectively 

identify Blue Alerts to the public. While 

precise numerical estimation is not 

possible, the Commission expects that 

the BLU event code will improve public 

safety by saving lives and preventing 

injuries. One way of measuring the 

value of lives saved is the value of a 

statistical life (VSL), currently estimated 

at $9.6 million. Accordingly, if the BLU 

code is expected to save at least one life, 

its value would be at least $9.6 million, 

which far exceeds the one-time $3.5 

million implementation cost ceiling. 

This expected benefit is consistent with 

statistics from the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting 

Program, which state that 66 officers 

were killed in the line of duty in 2016. 

The Commission believes that at least 

some portion of these crimes would 

have qualified for a Blue Alert and 

could have led to lives saved, quicker 

apprehension of the suspect, or both. 

The Order notes the success of AMBER 

Alerts, where 43 out of the 179 abducted 

children reported in 2017 were saved as 

a direct result of AMBER Alerts. It is 

reasonable to expect that the life of at 

least one police officer or other member 

of the public will be saved due to the 

issuance of an EAS Blue Alert that uses 

the BLU event code. Injury prevention 

is another benefit of the BLU event 

code. The value of injury prevention 

provides an independent, quantitative 

metric to express the minimum benefit 

our rules could produce. Like fatalities, 

it is difficult to predict the specific 

number of injuries that the BLU event 

code will prevent. However, according 

to the Department of Transportation, 

nonfatal injuries are far more common 

than fatalities, and vary widely in 

severity, as well as probability. 

Accordingly, the Commission reasons 

that the public benefit of the rule 

adopted in this Order is heightened by 

its role in preventing injuries. 

27. The establishment of a dedicated 

Blue Alert code will also provide the 

benefit of generating assistance from the 

public and cost savings for emergency 

responders. According to NYC, threats 

and/or violent crimes, including those 

covered by Blue Alerts, have an 

economic impact on jurisdictions that 

should be counted among the benefits of 

Blue Alerts. Blue Alerts can provide an 

immediate warning to the public in an 

area where an extremely dangerous 

suspect is thought to be. As the 

Commission noted in the WEA Report 

and Order and FNPRM, when people 

can avert situations where they need 

emergency assistance and therefore do 

not need to call 911, Public Safety 

Answering Points are able to avert the 

cost of resource deployment. NYC also 

argues that Blue Alerts will help major 

visitor destinations like NYC provide 

information to and elicit support from 

non-residents. The Commission agrees 

with the COPS Office, that the public 

has repeatedly played a critical role in 

assisting law enforcement in 

maintaining safety; but to assist and 

avoid danger, the public must be 

informed. According to the COPS 

Office, there are clear and significant 

differences between states’ handling of 

Blue Alerts, which could limit or 

complicate coordination efforts when a 

suspect flees, or is thought to have fled, 

to another jurisdiction. The Commission 

agrees with the COPS Office that 

widespread, uniform adoption of the 

BLU event code, would arm law 

enforcement officers with the 

information necessary to rapidly 

apprehend those who remain a threat to 

law enforcement and our communities. 

The Commission concludes that the 

minor burdens associated with adopting 

the BLU code will be more than offset 

by its benefits. 

III. Procedural Matters 

A. Accessible Formats 

28. 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). 

B. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Analysis 

29. Pursuant to the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), see 5 U.S.C. 603, an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

was included in the NPRM in PS Docket 

No. 15–94. The Commission sought 

written comment on the proposals in 

this docket, including comment on the 

IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis conforms to the RFA. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Analysis 

30. This document does not contain 

proposed information collection(s) 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. 

Therefore, it also does not contain any 

new or modified information collection 

burden for small business concerns with 

fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to 

the Small Business Paperwork Relief 

Act of 2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 

U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). 

D. Congressional Review Act 

31. The Commission will send a copy 

of this 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 

32. Accordingly, it is ordered that 

pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(o), 303(r), 

624(g), and 706 of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 

154(i), 154(o), 303(r), 544(g), 606, as 

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

603, 604 and 606 of the Warning, Alert 

and Response Network Act, 47 U.S.C. 

1202(a),(b),(c), (f), 1203, 1204 and 1206, 

that this Order is adopted. 

33. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s rules are hereby amended 

as set forth in Appendix A of the full 

Order. 

34. It is further ordered that the rules 

and requirements adopted herein, 

including at Appendix A of the full 

Order, to enable the delivery of Blue 

Alerts over EAS will be implemented 

January 18, 2019. 

35. It is further ordered that the rules 

and requirements adopted herein, 

including at Appendix A of the full 

Order, to enable the delivery of Blue 

Alerts over WEA will be implemented 

July 18, 2019. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 11 

Radio, Television. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

Final Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 11 as 

follows: 

PART 11—EMERGENCY ALERT 

SYSTEM (EAS) 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 11 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 12 / Thursday, January 18, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 2563 

■ 2. Amend § 11.31 by: 

■ a. In the table in paragraph (e), adding 

an entry under ‘‘State and Local Codes 

(Optional)’’ for ‘‘Blue Alert’’, and 

■ b. Removing the first paragraph (f). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 11.31 EAS protocol. 

* * * * * 

(e) The following Event (EEE) codes 

are presently authorized: 

Nature of activation Event 

codes 

* * * * * 

State and Local Codes (Optional): ..................................... ..................

* * * * * 

Blue Alert .................................... BLU. 

* * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2018–00595 Filed 1–17–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 63 

[GN Docket No. 13–5, RM–11358; WC 

Docket No. 13–3; FCC 16–90] 

Technology Transitions, USTelecom 

Petition for Declaratory Ruling That 

Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers 

Are Non-Dominant in the Provision of 

Switched Access Services, Policies 

and Rules Governing Retirement of 

Copper Loops by Incumbent Local 

Exchange Carriers and Special Access 

for Price Cap Local Exchange Carriers 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission announces that the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) has 

approved, for a period of three years, the 

information collection associated with 

the Commission’s discontinuance rules. 

This document is consistent with the 

Technology Transitions Declaratory 

Ruling, Second Report and Order, and 

Order on Reconsideration, FCC 16–90, 

which stated that the Commission 

would publish a document in the 

Federal Register announcing the 

effective date of those rules. 

DATES: The amendments to 47 CFR 

63.71(a) introductory text, (b), (g), and 

(i) published at 81 FR 62632, September 

12, 2016, are effective on January 18, 

2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michele Levy Berlove, Attorney 

Advisor, Wireline Competition Bureau, 

at (202) 418–1477, or by email at 

Michele.Berlove@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document announces that, on January 5, 

2018, OMB approved, for a period of 

three years, the information collection 

requirements relating to certain of the 

discontinuance rules contained in the 

Commission’s Technology Transitions 

Declaratory Ruling, Second Report and 

Order, and Order on Reconsideration, 

FCC 16–90, published at 81 FR 62632, 

September 12, 2016, as specified above. 

The OMB Control Number is 3060– 

0149. The Commission publishes this 

document as an announcement of the 

effective date of the rules. If you have 

any comments on the burden estimates 

listed below, or how the Commission 

can improve the collections and reduce 

any burdens caused thereby, please 

contact Nicole Ongele, Federal 

Communications Commission, Room A– 

C620, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, 

DC 20554. Please include the OMB 

Control Number, 3060–0149, in your 

correspondence. The Commission will 

also accept your comments via email at 

PRA@fcc.gov. 

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 and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

Synopsis 

As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), 

the FCC is notifying the public that it 

received final OMB approval on January 

5, 2018, for the information collection 

requirements contained in the 

modifications to the Commission’s rules 

in 47 CFR part 63. Under 5 CFR part 

1320, an agency may not conduct or 

sponsor a collection of information 

unless it displays a current, valid OMB 

Control Number. 

No person shall be subject to any 

penalty for failing to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act that does not 

display a current, valid OMB Control 

Number. The OMB Control Number is 

3060–0149. 

The foregoing notice is required by 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13, October 1, 1995, 

and 44 U.S.C. 3507. 

The total annual reporting burdens 

and costs for the respondents are as 

follows: 

OMB Control Number: 3060–0149. 

OMB Approval Date: January 5, 2018. 

OMB Expiration Date: January 31, 

2021. 

Title: Part 63, Application and 

Supplemental Information 

Requirements; Technology Transitions 

et al., GN Docket No. 13–5 et al. 

Form Number: N/A. 

Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities. 

Number of Respondents and 

Responses: 60 respondents; 60 

responses. 

Estimated Time per Response: 6 

hours. 

Frequency of Response: One-time 

reporting requirement and third-party 

disclosure requirements. 

Obligation to Respond: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. Statutory 

authority for this collection of 

information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 

214 and 402 of the Communications Act 

of 1934, as amended. 

Total Annual Burden: 360 hours. 

Total Annual Cost: No cost(s). 

Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: 

The Commission is not requesting that 

the respondents submit confidential 

information to the FCC. Respondents 

may, however, request confidential 

treatment for information they believe to 

be confidential under 47 CFR 0.459 of 

the Commission’s rules. 

Privacy Act: No impact(s). 

Needs and Uses: The Commission is 

seeking Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) approval for a revision to 

a currently approved collection. Section 

214 of the Communications Act of 1934, 

as amended, requires that a carrier first 

obtain FCC authorization either to (1) 

construct, operate, or engage in 

transmission over a line of 

communications, or (2) discontinue, 

reduce or impair service over a line of 

communications. Part 63 of title 47 of 

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

implements Section 214. Part 63 also 

implements provisions of the Cable 

Communications Policy Act of 1984 

pertaining to video which was approved 

under this OMB Control Number 3060– 

0149. In 2009, the Commission modified 

Part 63 to extend to providers of 

interconnected Voice of internet 

Protocol (VoIP) service the 

discontinuance obligations that apply to 

domestic non-dominant 

telecommunications carriers under 

Section 214 of the Communications Act 

of 1934, as amended. In 2014, the 

Commission adopted improved 

administrative filing procedures for 

domestic transfers of control, domestic 

discontinuances and notices of network 

changes, and among other adjustments, 

modified Part 63 to require electronic 

filing for applications for authorization 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES