Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D

4^ Houston OPHS Comments at 3.

5^ Austin HSEM Comments at 3 (stating about flood warnings that “[w]aterways are in low-lying areas and cell towers are typically located at higher elevations,” meaning, alerts may not be issued to the at-risk area).

6^ Dennis Mileti Apr. 7, 2016 Ex Parte at 3.

7^ See supra para. 33 (discussing milling in greater detail in the context of the impact of requiring support for embedded references).

8^ See, e.g., Sprint Reply at 4; NAB and NPR Comments at 2; CTIA Comments at 12.

9^ BRETSA Comments at 11 (“WEA is also of limited utility to local public safety agencies because messages cannot be targeted to affected areas.”); cf. Douglas County EMA Comments at 1; Lexington Division of Emergency Management Comments at 2 (poor geo-targeting discourages emergency managers from using WEA).

1^ See, e.g., Letter from Barb Graff, City of Seattle Office of Emergency Management, to Tom Wheeler, Chairman, FCC, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed Sep. 22, 2016) (“The lack of precise targeting makes WEA useless for Seattle in all but the largest events.”); Letter from James O’Neil, Police Commissioner, City of New York, to Tom Wheeler, Chairman, FCC, PS Docket 15-91, at 1 (filed Sep. 22, 2016) (stating that when New York City used WEA in connection with a recent bombing, they experienced a degree of over-alerting that is concerning because they “they do not want people opting out of the system because they receive messages that are not relevant to them”).

2^ See, e.g., CSRIC V WEA Geo-targeting Report at 30-32 (recommending that the Commission modify its existing county-level geo-targeting requirement to a best approximate standard, and collaborate with WEA stakeholders to “conduct research, develop standards and implement systems that support enhanced geo-targeting and allow device operating systems and device based applications” to take specific steps to improve geo-targeting accuracy, with new handsets deployed within 34 months of the completion of standards Letter from Brian Josef, Assistant Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No 15-91 (filed Sep. 22, 2016) (“In recent days, several parties have requested that device-based geo-targeting be included in the upcoming Report and Order, instead of being addressed in a Further Notice. Consistent with the recent CSRIC V recommendations and the rulemaking record, the Commission should absolutely move forward with a technically feasible and appropriate proposal in a Further Notice, and should make clear that nothing in the upcoming Report and Order will preclude service providers from pursuing technically feasible device-based geo-targeting methods in the interim.”); Letter from Benjamin Krakauer, Director, Watch Command, NYCEM, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed Sep. 22, 2016) (“[T]he public interest would best be served by including this issue in the upcoming Rule and Order as opposed to including it in a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking”); Letter from Bill de Blasio, Mayor, City of New York, to Tom Wheeler, Chairman, FCC, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 2 (filed Sep. 22, 2016) (encouraging the Commission to adopt a geo-targeting recommendation that leverages the intelligence mobile devices in the Report and Order).

1^ See WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13810-11, para. 57.

2^ See Pinellas County EM Comments at 8; Beaufort County Emergency Management, Fire Marshal & Emergency Services Comments at 4; CCOEM Comments at 3; Los Angeles EMD Comments at 1; Jefferson Parish EM Comments at 4.

3^ See, e.g., Hyper-Reach Comments at 5; Chester County EMA Comments; Ventura County Sheriff EMS Comments at 6; Peoria ECC Comments at 1; APCO Comments at 9.

4^ See 5 USC § 552 (2006), amended by OPEN Government Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-175, 121 Stat. 2524 (stating the FOIA confidentiality standard, along with relevant exemptions); see also Review of the Emergency Alert System, EB Docket 04-296, Sixth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 6520, 6533, n. 90 (2015) (Sixth Report and Order) (requiring federal, state and local entities to have confidentiality protections at least as strong as FOIA in order to receive test result data filed in the EAS Test Reporting System). Participating CMS Providers would only be expected to make this information available to an emergency management agency insofar as it pertained to alerts initiated by that emergency management agency.

1^ 47 CFR § 10.320; 47 CFR § 10.410.

2^ 47 CFR § 10.510.

3^ WEA First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 6173, para. 80.

4^ WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13817, para. 77.

1^ See, e.g., The Iowa Flood Center at the University of Iowa Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 2 (Feb. 12, 2016) (Iowa Flood Center Comments); NWS Comments at 2; Los Angeles EMD Comments at 1; NYCEM Comments at 16.

2^ AT&T Comments at 25; CTIA Comments at 14; ATIS Comments at 21; but see Letter from Thomas Goode, ATIS General Counsel, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 16-32, at 2 (filed Jul. 19, 2016) (stating that “it should be technically possible to prioritize [] alerts (similar to the prioritization of Presidential Alerts via WEA)”). This Report and Order requires no change to the manner in which Participating CMS Providers prioritize Alert Messages at the Alert Gateway or in transit, only at the mobile device. Prioritization at the Alert Gateway and in transit are addressed in the Further Notice. See infra Section 122.A.1 (Earthquake Alert Prioritization).

3^ AT&T Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte at 6-7.

4^ Id.; see also NYCEM Comments at 16.

5^ AT&T Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte at 6-7.

6^ Id. at 6; Microsoft Reply at 6 (stating that any other approach to Alert Message prioritization at the mobile device could encourage consumer opt out).

1^ Pursuant to this rule, all WEA-capable mobile devices will be required to present WEA Alert Messages upon receipt. We expect that legacy WEA-capable mobile devices that cannot receive the Alert Message during an active voice or data session because they cannot be simultaneously tuned to the data and control channels will nonetheless present the Alert Message prominently as soon as it is received (upon the conclusion of the active voice or data session).

2^ See AT&T Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte at 6-7; Microsoft Mar. 8, 2016 Ex Parte at 2; see also ATIS/TIA Mobile Device Behavior Specification at 9-10.

3^ The ATIS/TIA Mobile Device Behavior Specification states that “[i]t is desirable to have the CMAS displayable message text prominently presented on the mobile device consistent with user settings for presentation of incoming phone calls and SMS messages.” ATIS/TIA Mobile Device Behavior Specification at 10 (including the illumination of the visual display without user interaction when the Alert Message is received); cf. Microsoft Mar. 9, 2016 Ex Parte at 2 (stating that the relevant standard requires “dominance” of the WEA Alert Message); NYCEM Comments at 16 (stating that it is common practice for mobile devices to process multiple tasks concurrently).

1^ See ATIS/TIA Mobile Device Behavior Specification at 11.

2^ Letter from Thomas Goode, General Counsel, Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 19 (filed Mar.18, 2016) (ATIS Mar. 18, 2016 Ex Parte).

3^ AT&T Mar. 17, 2016 Ex Parte at 7.

1^ See Los Angeles EMD Comments at 1; Iowa Flood Center Comments at 2. Similarly, if someone is sending a text message to 911 when a WEA message is received, the incoming WEA Alert Message must not preempt the ability of the user to complete their action and continue their text exchange.

2^ See Blackberry Mar. 21, 2016 Ex Parte at 2.

3^ See Microsoft Mar. 8, 2016 Ex Parte at 2.

4^ See USGS Comments at 2; NYCEM Comments at 16; Houston OPHS Comments at 4.

5^ See Microsoft Reply at 6; CTIA Comments at 14; Blackberry Mar. 21, 2016 Ex Parte at 2.

1^ 47 CFR § 10.350.

2^ WEA Second Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 10773-74, paras. 21-23.

3^ WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13806-07, para. 47; CSRIC IV WEA Testing Report at 24.

1^ See, e.g., Verizon Comments at 3; T-Mobile Reply at 10; APCO Comments at 8; CTIA Comments at 8; NWS Comments at 2 (stating that the phrase “may support” should be replaced with “shall support” opt-in to State/Local WEA Testing); FEMA May 21, 2015 Ex Parte at 4; NYCEM Comments at 13; but see BRETSA Comments at 19 (stating that, rather than allowing for State/Local WEA Testing, WEA should be connected to other Emergency Notification Services (ENS) though an application programming interface (API)); Sprint Comments at 13 (stating that this could have staffing implications, and that hundreds of tests could overwhelm CMSP resources); APCO Comments at 9 (stating that offline methods of testing alert software present more optimal modes of proficiency training); CTIA Comments at 9 (stating that new rules should limit support for testing to 4G LTE and future networks); DAC Comments at 3-4 (stating that proficiency training opportunities provided by these exercises could “help to ensure that Emergency Man[a]gers have taken the appropriate steps to identify at-risk members of their local communities”).

2^ See, e.g., Ventura County Sheriff EMS Comments at 5 (stating the emergency managers need to constantly test and train on sending emergency messages); Matanuska-Susitna Borough Comments (supporting weekly testing); Kansas City EM Comments at 2 (supporting monthly testing); Henderson OEM Comments at 1 (supporting quarterly testing); Pinellas County EM Comments at 7 (supporting biannual testing); Mason County EM Comments at 1 (stating that testing would be useful even if limited to once per year).

3^ See Indiana DHS Comments at 5; Henderson OEM Comments a 1; NYCEM Comments at 14; Jefferson Parish EM Comments at 3-4; Pinellas County EM Comments at 7; Kansas City EM Comments at 2; but see Douglas County EMA Comments at 1.

4^ See Verizon Comments at 13; CTIA Comments at 9.

5^ See Henderson OEM Comments at 1; San Joaquin County OES Comments at 2; Peoria ECC Comments; NYCEM Comments at 14; CCOEM Comments at 2; cf. APCO Comments at 9; NYCEM Comments at 13; San Joaquin OES Comments at 2.

1^ Our Alert Message Requirements are provided in Subpart D of our Part 10 WEA rules. See 47 CFR §§ 10.400 – 10.480. These requirements address classification, prioritization, message elements, character limit, embedded references, geo-targeting, and roaming.

2^ Notwithstanding Section 10.350(c)(4), for legacy devices no longer supported by software updates, Participating CMS Providers may provide subscribers with the option to receive State/Local WEA Tests, but are not required to do so.

3^ CTIA Comments at 8; accord T-Mobile Reply 10; Chester County EMA Comments at 2; NYCEM Comments at 14; Cochise County OES Comments at 2; Jefferson Parish EM Comments at 3; Kansas City EM at 2.

4^ See Sprint Comments at 12 (stating that support for State/Local WEA Testing will have “significant staffing implications”).

1^ See Chester County EMA Comments at 3 (requesting testing that accurately reflect latencies).

2^ See Indiana DHS Comments at 5; Henderson OEM Comments a 1; NYCEM Comments at 14; Jefferson Parish EM Comments at 3-4; Pinellas County EM Comments at 7; Kansas City EM Comments at 2; Denver OEMHS Comments at 2.

3^ 47 CFR § 10.350(a) (describing RMTs).

4^ See 47 CFR § 10.350(a)(3); CMSAAC Report at 92.

5^ CTIA Comments at 9; accord Sprint Comments at 13; cf. Verizon Comments at 13 (expressing concern that tests may be received during major network upgrades).

1^ See San Joaquin County OES Comments at 2; APCO Comments at 9.

2^ San Joaquin County OES Comments at 2.

3^ APCO Comments at 9.

4^ Id.

1^ See Verizon Comments at 13; ATIS Comments at 20; CTIA Comments at 9.

2^ See, e.g., Calcasieu Parish Police Jury Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness Comments at 1; Clarion County OES Comments at 1; Lexington Division of Emergency Management Comments at 2; FEMA Jun. 18, 2015 Ex Parte Letter at 3.

3^ See Clarion County OES Comments at 1; Lexington Division of Emergency Management Comments at 2.

4^ Calcasieu Parish Police Jury Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness Comments at 1.

5^ See FEMA Jun. 18, 2015 Ex Parte Letter at 3; see also U.S. N.R.C., About NRC, http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc.html (last visited Jul. 15, 2016). The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was created as an independent agency by Congress in 1974 to ensure the safe use of radioactive materials for beneficial civilian purposes while protecting people and the environment. The NRC regulates commercial nuclear power plants and other uses of nuclear materials, such as in nuclear medicine, through licensing, inspection and enforcement of its requirement. Each nuclear power plant operator is required to submit the radiological emergency response plans including scheduled tests and exercises for state and local governments that are within the 10-mile plume exposure pathway “Emergency Planning Zones (EPZ),” as well as the plans of state governments within the 50-mile ingestion pathway EPZs. See 10 CFR §§ 50.33(g); 50.54(s).

6^ See Harris County OSHEM Mar. 7, 2016 Ex Parte at 4.

7^ See id.

8^ See infra Section 75.A.1 (Facilitating WEA PSAs).

1^ WARN Act § 602(c), 47 USC § 1202(c).

2^ 47 CFR § 10.340.

3^ WEA Second Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 1077-71, paras. 15-16.

4^ WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13817, para. 74.

1^ Public Broadcasting Service, Association of Public Television Stations, and Corporation for Public Broadcasting Comments, PS Docket No. 15-91, 2 (Jan. 13, 2016) (PBS, APTS, and CPB Comments).

2^ See Letter from Thomas Rosen, Assistant General Counsel, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, PS Docket No. 15-91, at 1 (filed Mar. 11, 2016) (PBS, APTS, and CPB Mar 11, 2016 Ex Parte). This position represents a revision of their previous analysis, in which they asserted that that imposing any additional WEA testing obligations on NCE public broadcast television stations “remains just as infeasible, costly, and ineffective as it was eight years ago when the Commission last considered this same issue.” PBS, APTS, and CPB Comments at 3.

3^ CSRIC V WEA Security Report at 26.

1^ See id. at 25-28.

2^ Cf. Joint ATIS/TIA CMAS Federal Alert Gateway to CMSP Gateway Interface Specification, J-STD 101, at 18 (2012) (specifying that FEMA will determine the periodicity of C-interface tests in conversation with Participating CMS Providers).

1^ CSRIC V WEA Security Report at 26.

2^ See Letter from Thomas Rosen, Assistant General Counsel, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, at 1 (filed Mar. 11, 2016) (PBS, APTS, and CPB Mar. 11, 2016 Ex Parte). Similarly, this position represents a revision of their previous analysis. See PBS, APTS, and CPB Comments at 3.

3^ PBS, APTS, and CPB Mar. 11, 2016 Ex Parte at 1.

1^ 47 CFR § 11.45; 47 CFR § 10.520(d).

2^ WEA First Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 6168-69, paras. 64, 67.

3^ Amendment of Part 73, Subpart G, of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the Emergency Broadcast System, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FO Docket Nos. 91-301, 91-171, 10 FCC Rcd 1786, 1815, para. 84 (1994) (EAS Deployment Order).

4^ See, e.g., Waiver of Section 11.45 of the Commission’s Rules to Allow Broadcast of Public Service Announcements Produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to Educate the Public on the Wireless Emergency Alert System, PS Docket No. 07-287, Order, DA 15-1326, para. 6 (2015) (granting a limited waiver of Sections 11.45 and 10.520 of the Commission’s rules to allow the broadcast or transmission of the WEA Attention Signal in PSAs produced as part of FEMA’s WEA public education campaign).

5^ WEA NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 13815, para. 70. In the Alerting Paradigm NPRM, we sought comment on this same issue in the EAS context. Alerting Paradigm NPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at, 626-27, paras. 66-68. We resolve this issue here only insofar as it pertains to the broadcast or transmission of the WEA Attention Signal. We will address this issue as it pertains to EAS in the Alerting Paradigm proceeding.

1^ See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 24; USGS Comments at 2; NWS Comments at 4; see also NYCEM Comments at 15-16; DAC Comments at 4.

2^ Dennis Mileti Apr. 7, 2016 Ex Parte at 4-5.

1^ Waiver of Section 11.45 of the Commission’s Rules to Allow Broadcast of Public Service Announcements Produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to Educate the Public on the Wireless Emergency Alert System, PS Docket No. 07-287, Order, DA 15-1326, para. 8 (2015).

1^ See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 24; USGS Comments at 2; NWS Comments at 4; NYCEM Comments at 15-16.

2^ See, e.g., California Governor’s OES Comments at 4; USGS Comments at 2.

3^ See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 24; USGS Comments at 2; NWS Comments at 4; NYCEM Comments at 15-16; Dennis Mileti Apr. 7, 2016 Ex Parte at 4-5.

4^ See, e.g., Public Service Announcements/Short Videos, http://echominnesota.org/topics/psa (last visited Jul. 23, 2016) (Echo is an NGO that works alongside state and local entities, including Twin Cities Public Television (TPT) to deliver effective PSAs to populations with limited English proficiency).

5^ Waiver of Section 11.45 of the Commission’s Rules to Allow Broadcast of Public Service Announcements Produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to Educate the Public on the Wireless Emergency Alert System, PS Docket No. 07-287, Order, DA 15-1326, para. 7 (2015); About the Ready Campaign, https://www.ready.gov/about-us (last visiting Jul. 29, 2016) (“‘Ready’ is a national public service advertising (PSA) campaign designed to educate and empower Americans to prepare for and respond to emergencies including natural and man-made disasters. The goal of the campaign is to get the public involved and ultimately to increase the level of basic preparedness across the nation.”).

Download 1.19 Mb.

Share with your friends: