Commercial Mobile Alert System, 546-607 [E7-24876]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 2 (Thursday, January 3, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 546-607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-24876]



[[Page 545]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Federal Communications Commission





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



47 CFR Chapter I



Commercial Mobile Alert System; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 2 / Thursday, January 3, 2008 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 546]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Chapter I

[PSHSB Docket No. 07-287; FCC 07-214]


Commercial Mobile Alert System

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: By this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Federal 
Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) initiates a comprehensive 
rulemaking to establish a Commercial Mobile Alert System (CMAS). In 
particular, the Commission seeks comment on the recommendations of the 
Commercial Mobile Services Alert Advisory Committee (CMSAAC). These 
recommendations are attached as Appendix A. The Commission convened the 
CMSAAC in compliance with the Warning Alert and Response Network (WARN) 
Act, which requires that the FCC adopt technical standards, protocols, 
procedures, and other technical requirements for the CMAS based on the 
recommendations of the CMSAAC. The purpose of this rulemaking is to 
create a mechanism under which CMS providers may elect to transmit 
emergency alerts to the public. The Commission has initiated this 
proceeding to comply with the Warning Alert and Response Network (WARN) 
Act and to satisfy the Commission's mandate to promote the safety of 
life and property through the use of wire and radio communication.

DATES: Comments are due on or before February 4, 2008, and reply 
comments are due on or before February 19, 2008. Written comments on 
the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirement 
must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 
and other interested parties on or before March 3, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Send comments and reply comments to the Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. You may submit comments, identified 
by PSHSB Docket No. 07-287, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web site: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail; FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    In addition to filing with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on 
the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirement 
contained herein should be submitted to the Federal Communications 
Commission via e-mail to PRA@fcc.gov and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office 
of Management and Budget, via e-mail to Nicholas--A.--
Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via fax at 202-395-5167.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa M. Fowlkes, Deputy Bureau Chief, 
PSHSB, at (202) 418-7450 or Jeffery Goldthorp, Chief, Communications 
Services Analysis Division, PSHSB at (202) 418-1096. For additional 
information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information 
collection requirement contained in this document, send an e-mail to 
PRA@fcc.gov or contact Jerry Cowden at (202) 418-0447.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in PSHSB Docket No. 07-287, FCC 07-214, 
adopted December 14, 2007, and released December 14, 2007. The complete 
text of this document is available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals 
II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This 
document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating 
contractor Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, 
SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 378-3160 or 
(202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via e-mail at 
fcc@bcpiweb.com. It is also available on the Commission's Web site at 
https://www.fcc.gov.
    This document contains a proposed information collection 
requirement. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce 
paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the OMB to comment on 
the proposed information collection requirement contained in this 
document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public 
Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due March 3, 2008.
    Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of 
the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information 
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on the respondents, including the use of automated 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In 
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 
Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment 
on how it might ``further reduce the information collection burden for 
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
    OMB Control Number: None.
    Title: Election Whether To Participate in the Commercial Mobile 
Alert System.
    Form No.: N/A.
    Type of Review: New Collection.
    Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit.
    Number of Respondents: 1,253.
    Time per Response: 6 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: One-time.
    Obligation to Respond: Mandatory.
    Total Annual Burden: 125.3 hours.
    Total Annual Costs: $0.
    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N/A.
    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Not applicable.
    Needs and Uses: Section 602(b)(2)(A) of the WARN Act requires each 
Commercial Mobile Service (CMS) provider to notify the Commission, 
within 30 days of the Commission's release of the order adopting CMAS 
technical requirements and protocols, whether it intends to participate 
in the CMAS. The information collected will be the CMS provider's 
contact information and its election, i.e., a ``yes'' or ``no,'' on 
whether it intends to provide commercial mobile service alerts. The 
Commission will use the information collected to meet its statutory 
requirement under the WARN Act to accept licensees' election filings 
and to establish an effective CMAS that will provide the public with 
effective mobile alerts in a manner that imposes minimal regulatory 
burdens on affected entities.

Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    1. Background. On October 13, 2006, the President signed the 
Security and Accountability For Every Port (SAFE Port) Act into law. 
Title VI of the SAFE Port Act, the WARN Act, establishes a process for 
CMS providers to elect to transmit emergency alerts to their 
subscribers. The WARN Act requires that the Commission engage in a 
series of activities to accomplish that goal. Among these activities 
was the

[[Page 547]]

requirement that by December 12, 2006, the Commission establish an 
advisory committee to recommend system critical protocols and technical 
recommendations for the CMAS, and arrange for the Committee to hold its 
first meeting. The Commission formed the Commercial Mobile Service 
Alert Advisory Committee (CMSAAC), which had its first meeting on this 
date. By October 12, 2007 (one year of enactment), the CMSAAC was 
required to provide system critical recommendations regarding technical 
requirements and protocols for the CMAS to the Commission. The CMSAAC 
submitted its report on this date. Within 180 days of receipt of the 
CMSAAC's recommendations, the Commission must complete a proceeding to 
adopt technical standards, protocols, procedures and technical 
requirements based on recommendations submitted by the CMSAAC. A copy 
of the CMSAAC recommendations is attached to this NPRM.
    2. Introduction. With this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), we 
initiate a comprehensive rulemaking to establish a Commercial Mobile 
Alert System (CMAS), under which Commercial Mobile Service providers 
may elect to transmit emergency alerts to the public. This proceeding 
represents our next step in compliance with the Warning Alert and 
Response Network (WARN) Act requirement that the Commission enable 
commercial mobile service alerting capability for providers that elect 
to transmit emergency alerts. In addition, with this rulemaking we 
continue to address our obligations under the President's ``Public 
Alert and Warning System'' Executive Order that the Commission ``adopt 
rules to ensure that communications systems have the capacity to 
transmit alerts and warnings to the public as part of the public alert 
and warning system.''
    3. Section 602 of the WARN Act requires the Commission to adopt: 
(1) System critical protocols and technical requirements for the CMAS; 
(2) a mechanism under which commercial mobile service providers' (``CMS 
providers'') licensees may elect to participate in the CMAS and 
disclose to their subscribers whether or not they will participate; (3) 
rules under which licensees and permittees of noncommercial educational 
(NCE) broadcast stations or public broadcast stations install necessary 
equipment and technologies on, or as part of, any broadcast television 
digital signal transmitter to enable the distribution of geographically 
targeted alerts by CMS providers that have elected to participate in 
the CMAS; and (4) technical testing requirements for CMS providers that 
elect to transmit emergency alerts and for the devices and equipment 
used by such providers for transmitting such alerts. In this NPRM we 
seek comment on questions pertaining to all of these statutory 
requirements. We also seek comment about how the issues discussed in 
the NPRM relate to the Commission's activities in connection with the 
Emergency Alert System (EAS).
    4. By starting this rulemaking today, we take a significant step 
towards implementing one of our highest priorities--to ensure that all 
Americans have the capability to receive timely and accurate alerts, 
warnings and critical information regarding impending disasters and 
other emergencies irrespective of what communications technologies they 
use. As we have learned from recent disasters such as the Southern 
California fires, the Virginia Tech shootings, and the 2005 hurricanes, 
such a capability is essential to enable Americans to take appropriate 
action to protect their families and themselves from loss of life or 
serious injury. This rulemaking represents our continued commitment to 
satisfy the mandate of the Communications Act that the Commission 
promote the safety of life and property through the use of wire and 
radio communication.
    5. This NPRM is the latest example of our commitment to enhance the 
redundancy, reliability and security of emergency alerts to the public 
by requiring that alerts be distributed over diverse communications 
platforms. Most recently, we expanded the EAS from its legacy in analog 
television and radio to include participation by digital television 
broadcasters, digital cable television providers, digital broadcast 
radio, Digital Audio Radio Service (DARS) and Direct Broadcast 
Satellite (DBS) systems. As we noted in our 2005 EAS Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 70 FR 7102-01, wireless services are becoming 
equal to television and radio as an avenue to reach the American public 
quickly and efficiently. As of June 2007, approximately 243 million 
Americans subscribed to wireless services. Wireless service has 
progressed beyond voice communications and now provides subscribers 
with access to a wide range of information critical to their personal 
and business affairs. In times of emergency, Americans rely on their 
mobile telephony service to receive and retrieve critical, time-
sensitive information. A comprehensive mobile alerting system would 
have the ability to reach people on the go in a short timeframe, even 
where they do not have access to broadcast radio or television or other 
sources of EAS. Providing critical alert information in this respect 
will ultimately help avert danger and save lives.
    6. On October 13, 2006, the President signed the Security and 
Accountability For Every Port (SAFE Port) Act into law. Title VI of the 
SAFE Port Act, the WARN Act, establishes a process for CMS providers to 
elect to transmit emergency alerts to their subscribers. The WARN Act 
requires that we engage in a series of activities to accomplish that 
goal. These requirements are listed below, followed by our activity to 
satisfy that requirement:
     By December 12, 2006 (60 days of enactment), we were 
required to establish an advisory committee to recommend system 
critical protocols and technical recommendations for the CMAS, and 
arrange for the Committee to hold its first meeting. We formed the 
Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee (CMSAAC), which had 
its first meeting on this date.
     By April 13, 2007 (180 days of enactment), we were 
required to determine what constitutes ``remote communities effectively 
unserved by commercial mobile service for the purpose of enabling 
residents of those communities to receive emergency alerts.'' This 
required determination relates to a program under which NOAA may issue 
grants to provide for outdoor alerting technologies. We issued a 
Declaratory Ruling addressing this issue on April 11, 2007.
     By October 12, 2007 (one year of enactment), the CMSAAC 
was required to provide system critical recommendations regarding 
technical requirements and protocols for the CMAS to the Commission. 
The CMSAAC submitted its report on this date. The CMSAAC 
recommendations are attached at Appendix B.
     Within 180 days of receipt of the CMSAAC's 
recommendations, we must complete a proceeding to adopt technical 
standards, protocols, procedures and technical requirements based on 
recommendations submitted by the CMSAAC, necessary to enable commercial 
mobile service alerting capability for commercial mobile service 
providers.
     Within 90 days of our adoption of CMAS technical 
requirements, we must complete a proceeding to require NCE and public 
broadcast station licensees and permittees to install equipment to 
enable the distribution of geographically targeted alerts by CMS 
providers that

[[Page 548]]

have elected to transmit emergency alerts.
     Within 120 days of our adoption of CMAS technical 
requirements, we must complete a proceeding that, among other things, 
establishes the process by which CMS providers would elect to transmit 
emergency alerts to subscribers.
     Within two years after completion of the technical 
rulemaking, we must examine whether CMS providers electing to transmit 
emergency alerts should continue to permit their subscribers the 
capability to block such alerts and must submit a report with its 
recommendations to Congress.

WARN Act Section 602(a)--Technical Requirements

    7. Section 602(a) of the WARN Act requires that the Commission 
adopt technical standards, protocols, procedures, and other technical 
requirements based on the recommendations of the CMSAAC that will 
enable commercial mobile service alerting capability for CMS providers 
that voluntarily elect to transmit emergency alerts. The CMSAAC has 
recently completed its report, and we seek comment generally on all the 
recommendations contained therein. Accordingly, we seek comment on the 
technical standards, protocols, procedures and other requirements that 
should be adopted to facilitate the transmission of emergency alerts by 
CMS providers. We ask whether these recommendations, if adopted, would 
satisfy the requirements of the WARN Act and our goal of ensuring a 
robust, reliable and effective CMAS that could, in conjunction with 
other alerting systems and technologies, be used to transmit emergency 
alerts to all Americans, including those with special needs and those 
who do not speak English. We seek comment on whether the CMSAAC 
recommendations present an effective mechanism for alert originators at 
all levels of government to initiate emergency alerts and whether these 
recommendations could be implemented using a myriad of current and 
future technologies. Commenters should review all of the 
recommendations and comment, where appropriate, on the manner in which 
each of the recommendations contributes to an effective, unified system 
for the delivery of alerts over commercial mobile systems as envisioned 
by the WARN Act. We further seek comment on any alternatives to the 
CMSAAC's recommendations. Comments that suggest alternatives to the 
CMSAAC's recommendations should address with sufficient detail how 
their proposed alternative would promote an effective CMAS as 
envisioned by the WARN Act.
    8. The CMSAAC's recommendations are detailed and highly technical 
in many places. As noted above, we have attached the CMSAAC's 
recommendations at Appendix B to this NPRM. Accordingly, rather than 
summarize each of the recommendations in this document, we provide 
descriptions of the major issues addressed by the CMSAAC's 
recommendations in order to facilitate a focused approach for public 
comment.
    9. Available Transport Technologies. We seek comment on the 
availability of technologies now and in the future for the transmission 
of alerts over the CMAS. For example, to what extent do point-to-point 
and point-to-multipoint technologies provide viable solutions for a 
national CMAS? In this regard, we note that, the CMSAAC raised concerns 
regarding the viability of point-to-point solutions for a national 
alerting system. We seek comment on these concerns. Specifically, can 
current generation point-to-point services such as short message 
service (SMS) be used to efficiently alert large populations of people 
within a short time frame? What impact would wireless 3G networks have 
on the SMS model?
    10. Can point-to-multipoint technologies such as cell broadcast 
provide a viable transport solution for alerts transmitted over the 
CMAS? If current cell broadcasting does not provide a viable solution, 
what further development would be necessary to use cell broadcasting 
for the CMAS? Are there significant differences in how CDMA or GSM 
systems could employ cell broadcasting today and in the future? Are 
current mobile devices capable of receiving cell broadcast alerts?
    11. We also seek comment, particularly from the EAS community, on 
whether a broadcast distribution model similar to that used to 
distribute EAS is consistent with the WARN Act and the CMAS. Could 
radio data systems like the Radio Broadcast Data System (RBDS), which 
do not require significant service provider infrastructure, nonetheless 
meet our goals for efficient delivery of alerts over the CMAS? What 
about emerging wireless broadcast technologies such as MediaFLO and 
DVB-H? Comments should include a discussion concerning the broad range 
of devices intended to utilize the CMAS and potential impact on the 
subscriber service experience.
    12. The CMAS as proposed by the CMSAAC likely will require a higher 
layer protocol that carries meta-data (administrative information) with 
the alert message, and can send authentication and authorization data 
to the alert's originator. We seek comment on whether this higher layer 
protocol is necessary for the CMAS. We also seek comment on how point-
to-point, point-to-multi point and broadcast models could carry this 
information and provide the recommended authentication information. We 
further seek comment on any alternative methods for transmitting this 
data.
    13. Federal Government's Role. What should be the Federal 
Government's role, if any, in managing the CMAS? The CMSAAC recommended 
that a Federal Government entity fulfill the roles of ``Alert 
Aggregator'' (i.e., receive, accumulate and authenticate alerts 
originated by authorized alert initiators using the Common Alert 
Protocol (CAP)) and the ``Alert Gateway'' (i.e., formulate an alert 
based on key fields in the CAP alert sent by the alert initiator and 
transmit the alert to corresponding gateways operated by each CMS 
provider). We seek comment on these recommendations. Is it necessary 
and desirable for a Federal government entity to assume these roles? If 
so, what Federal government entity would be appropriate? Commenters 
suggesting that a Federal government entity other than the Commission 
should fulfill these roles should also address how we could implement 
such a recommendation, taking into account our statutory authority and 
jurisdiction. We also seek comment on whether a private sector entity 
could fulfill these roles either independently or pursuant to delegated 
authority by a Federal government entity (e.g., under a ``Memorandum of 
Understanding'' (MoU) arrangement, similar to the one used by the 
Justice Department regarding Amber Alerts).
    14. The CMSAAC also recommended that all alerts, whether national 
or local, would be funneled through this aggregator. Is a centralized 
system best positioned to accomplish the goals of the CMAS as 
envisioned by the WARN Act? Would this run the risk of creating a 
single point of failure? Further, we seek comment on the government 
alerting system capability to a) support the aggregation of alerts from 
emergency agencies down to county and municipal levels, b) distribute 
alerts to a diverse range of potential alerting systems, and c) 
interact and determine the status of such connected alerting systems. 
What is the role of state emergency agencies in such a scheme? Should 
the aggregator concept be expanded to include state and county 
emergency agencies, such as state and county emergency operations

[[Page 549]]

centers (EOCs)? Could this be done in a manner that could track a 
state's role in any EAS activation? What equipment or security issues 
might be involved in expanding the scope of the system? What criteria 
should be established for determining the appropriateness of connecting 
an agency? What responsibilities should be attendant on connected 
agencies?
    15. Use of the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP). We seek comment on 
the CMSAAC's recommendation that the CMAS use CAP as the basic alerting 
protocol from the alert initiator to the alert gateway. We also seek 
comment about the use of CAP as a general, system-wide CMAS interface. 
Is use of CAP currently practicable in the context of CMAS? If CAP use 
were mandated, how quickly could such use be introduced by all CMAS 
participants? We note that we have specifically mandated use of CAP 
recently in our EAS Second Report and Order, where we concluded that 
use of CAP would provide specific benefits to the evolving EAS. As 
noted above, one of the key benefits of CAP is that it ensures that 
diverse alert systems and technologies can participate within a common, 
transparent framework. Would CAP as utilized in the context of CMAS 
promote similar transparency? To the extent that commenters believe 
that the use of CAP as proposed would not be appropriate, they should 
discuss in detail any alternative protocols.
    16. Alert Formatting, Classes, and Content Issues. We seek comment 
on whether we should adopt a character limit for alerts transmitted 
over the CMAS. We note that the CMSAAC recommended that, at least 
initially, the technical limit of any CMAS alert should be 90 
characters of text. Commenters should provide detailed technical 
explanation in support of their positions and explain the relationship 
between ``payload'' and ``displayable message size'' as referenced in 
the CMSAAC's recommendations.
    17. We also seek comment on whether and to what extent emergency 
alerts should be classified. We specifically seek comment on the 
CMSAAC's recommendation that there be three classes of Commercial 
Mobile Alerts: Presidential-level, Imminent threat to life and 
property; and Child Abduction Emergency or ``AMBER Alert'' Service. For 
example, the CMSAAC recommended that the term ``Imminent threat to life 
and property'' be defined as ``alerts where the CAP severity equals 
Extreme or Severe, CAP urgency is Immediate or Expected, and CAP 
certainty is Observed or Likely.'' Is this proposed definition 
sufficient to set a proper threshold for the class of alerts that 
should be transmitted using the CMAS? We solicit examples of events 
meeting these criteria. Further, we seek comment on whether the choice 
of ``imminent'' represents a correct threshold? Does ``imminent'' apply 
to all types of threats, such as weather for example? Also, we note 
that CMS providers already support the transmission of Amber alerts to 
mobile devices using SMS technology. What is the added value of also 
including Amber Alerts in CMAS? What are the potential negatives if 
``too many'' alerts are generated? What balance of alerts should be 
sought, and what factors should be considered in seeking such a 
balance?
    18. We also seek comment on the content of CMAS alerts, including 
the CMSAAC's recommendation that all service providers support, at 
minimum, a capability for a text based common alerting message format 
support across multiple service platform technologies.
    19. The CMSAAC also recommended that the elements of a Commercial 
Mobile Alert Message (CMAM) should be (1) event type or category, (2) 
area affected, (3) recommended action, (4) expiration time with time 
zone, and (4) sending agency. We seek comment on these choices. Are 
they consistent with accepted industry practices for emergency alerts? 
Are they consistent with the evolving concept of CAP-formatted 
messages? The CMSAAC anticipated that the elements of a CMA would 
evolve as experience is gained by alert initiators. We seek comment on 
this assumption. How might CMAM elements evolve over time?
    20. The CMSAAC also recommended a method for the automatic 
generation of alert text by extracting information from CAP fields, 
SAME codes and free-form text, but proposed that the CMAS allow the 
generation of free text in Amber Alerts and Presidential alerts. We 
seek comment on this recommendation. We also seek comment on whether 
Presidential and Amber alerts can be structured to use automatic text.
    21. We also seek comment on the CMSAAC's recommended set of 
standardized alerting messages. Should the alert message include 
telephone numbers, URLs or other response and contact information in 
certain Commercial mobile alerts? Is there public safety value to the 
inclusion of such information in a Commercial mobile alert? What, if 
any, would be the impact on the network? In prior emergencies, mobile 
traffic increased to the point of network congestion. What would be the 
impact on network congestion if subscribers were directed to a specific 
number (such as a ``311'' number in New York City) or URL?
    22. Geographically Targeted Commercial Mobile Alerts. We seek 
comment on what level of precision we should require for the 
geographical targeting (geo-targeting) of CMAS alerts. In section 5.4 
of its recommendations, the CMSAAC acknowledged ``that it is the goal 
of the CMAS for CMSPs to be able to deliver geo-targeted alerts to the 
area specified by the Alert Initiator.'' However, the CMSAAC 
recommended that, due to current limited capabilities on the part of 
CMS providers, ``an alert that is specified by a geocode, circle or 
polygon . . . will be transmitted to an area not larger than the CMSP's 
approximation of coverage for the county or counties with which that 
geocode, circle or polygon intersects.'' We seek comment on this 
recommendation, including the assertion that technical limitations 
currently preclude dynamic geo-targeting at a level more granular than 
the county.
    23. The CMSAAC recognized that a ``CMS provider may elect to target 
smaller areas'' and recommended ``that certain urban areas with 
populations exceeding 1,000,000 inhabitants or with other specialized 
alerting needs be identified for priority consideration regarding 
implementation of more precise geo-targeting.'' The CMSAAC recommended 
that a process be initiated by the Alert Gateway operator and the CMS 
providers to identify such priority locations by August, 2008, and 
recognized ``the desire to move forward with this process on a small 
number of areas with particularly urgent alerting needs as soon as 
possible.'' We seek comment on these and the other recommendations 
raised in section 5.4 of the CMSAAC's recommendations.
    24. CMAS for Individuals With Disabilities and the Elderly. We seek 
comment on what, if any, technical or accessibility requirements we 
should adopt to ensure that commercial mobile alerts can be received by 
people with disabilities and the elderly. The CMSAAC submitted 
recommendations addressing the needs of users, including individuals 
with disabilities and the elderly, and we seek comment on these 
recommendations. Among the major recommendations by the CMSAAC is a 
proposal that the CMAS support a common audio attention signal and a 
common vibrating cadence to be used solely for CMAS alerts. We seek 
comment on this recommendation. Does the CMAS need to require these 
attention signals for all users? Further, the CMSAAC recommended that 
the alert initiator use clear and simple

[[Page 550]]

language whenever possible, with minimal use of abbreviations and that 
the mobile device be able to provide an easy way to allow the user to 
recall the message for review. We seek comment on these recommendations 
and other issues that parties wish to raise concerning users with 
special needs. The CMSAAC also recommended that legacy mobile devices 
not be required to support CMAS, notwithstanding that much of the 
special needs services will depend on features in the mobile device. We 
seek comment on this recommendation. Is there a way, perhaps through 
software upgrades, for present mobile devices to support CMAS? Could, 
and if so, should upgrades be performed over the air?
    25. Transmission of CMAS Alerts in Languages Other Than English. We 
seek comment on the technical feasibility of providing commercial 
mobile alerts in languages in addition to English. The CMSAAC suggested 
that there may be fundamental technical challenges to implementing 
parallel alerts in languages in addition to English. We seek comment on 
this view. We recognize the significant public safety interest in 
delivering alerts to speakers of languages other than English and 
strongly affirmed this principle in our May 2007 EAS Second Report and 
Order. CMSAAC also asserted that multilingual (and geo-targeted) 
alerting would raise latency (alert delay) concerns. How would 
requirements for multi-language alerts affect the generation and 
distribution of messages on a local, state and national level?

WARN Act Section 602(b)--CMAS Election Rulemaking

    26. Section 602(b) concerns commercial mobile service licensees' 
election to transmit or not transmit emergency alerts to subscribers. 
It requires the Commission to establish procedures by which a CMS 
provider will notify new and existing subscribers of its election and 
inform the Commission of its election and the method of its transmittal 
of alerts, and to establish procedures for a CMS provider to withdraw 
its election and afford existing subscribers to discontinue service 
upon notification of that withdrawal.
    27. Notice at Point of Sale. Under Section 602(b)(1), ``within 120 
days after the date on which [the Commission] adopts relevant technical 
standards and other technical requirements pursuant to subsection (a), 
the Commission shall complete a proceeding to allow any licensee 
providing commercial mobile service to transmit emergency alerts to 
subscribers to, or users of, the commercial mobile service provided by 
such licensee.'' The Commission shall ``require any CMS licensee 
providing commercial mobile service that elects, in whole or in part, 
under paragraph (2) [Election] not to transmit emergency alerts to 
provide clear and conspicuous notice at the point of sale of any 
devices with which its commercial mobile service is included, that it 
will not transmit such alerts via the service it provides for the 
device.''
    28. CMSAAC recommended that CMS providers should have the 
discretion to determine how to provide this notice. Thus, as an initial 
matter, we seek comment on this recommendation. Alternatively, should 
we specify the methods by which a service provider should notify 
prospective and existing subscribers that it has elected not to offer 
emergency alerts? The Commission has established procedures in other 
proceedings concerning the provision of notice to subscribers and the 
display of information in a service provider's places of business. For 
purposes of this proceeding, we also would define any point of sale as 
any means--retail, telephone, or Internet-based--by which a service 
provider facilitates and promotes its services for sale to the public. 
We include third party, separately branded resellers as meeting the 
criteria for a point of sale. We seek comment on this choice. Are there 
others that should be included?
    29. In these commercial environments, what constitutes clear and 
conspicuous notice at the point of sale? Does a general notice in the 
form of a statement attesting to the election not to provide emergency 
alerts satisfy the statutory requirement? Does the language of the 
statute require the posting of a general notice in clear view of 
subscribers in the service provider's stores, kiosks, third party 
reseller locations, Web site (proprietary or third party), and any 
other venue through which the service provider's devices and services 
are marketed or sold? What form would that general notice take; for 
example, should service providers include a placard of a particular 
size at the point of sale? Is notification in the service provider's 
service subscription terms and conditions sufficient notice to 
subscribers? Does the clear and conspicuous standard require that each 
device sold by the service provider include a notice that emergency 
alerts are not included as a feature of the device or the service 
provider's service? Does a service provider meet the condition of clear 
and conspicuous notification if it requires subscribers to read and 
indicate an understanding that the service provider does not offer 
emergency alerts? The CMSAAC has drafted recommended text by which CMS 
providers may indicate that they will not be electing to participate in 
the CMAS. We seek comment on this text. Does it satisfy the statute?
    30. The CMSAAC suggested that, because the WARN Act does not 
require any disclosure for a CMS provider that participates in the 
CMAS, no disclosure is required. We seek comment on this assertion. If 
a CMS provider only offers CMAS within part of its territory or only on 
certain mobile devices, where and how should the disclosure obligations 
apply?
    31. Notifications to Existing Subscribers. With respect to existing 
subscribers, under section 602(b)(1)(C), the Commission shall ``require 
any licensee providing commercial mobile service that elects under 
paragraph (2) not to transmit emergency alerts to notify its existing 
subscribers of its election.'' Should CMS providers be granted the 
discretion to determine how to provide notice of non-election? If not, 
we seek comment on how such notification should be made, including the 
methods and duration of a service provider's notification to existing 
subscribers of its election. Commercial mobile service providers 
regularly communicate service and equipment offers and upgrades to 
existing subscribers through direct mailings and through notification 
on paper bills. Do existing marketing and billing practices allow 
service providers to meet the requirement to notify existing 
subscribers of the service provider's election? Are these types of 
existing communication methods sufficient to reach the service 
provider's entire existing subscriber base? Commenters should take into 
account the fact that some service providers are offering their 
subscribers electronic billing and do not send a paper bill, and some 
service providers have opt-out programs allowing their subscribers to 
decline receiving any direct mailings from the service provider. Should 
service providers be required to notify existing subscribers by sending 
them a separate notice of a change in the terms and conditions of their 
service? How should service providers notify pre-paid customers? Should 
service providers demonstrate to the Commission that they have met this 
requirement and, if so, how should they do so? Should service providers 
be required to maintain a record of subscribers who have acknowledged 
receipt of the service provider's notification?
    32. Related Filings and Other Requirements. Sections 602(b)(2)(A), 
(B), (D) and (E) establish certain

[[Page 551]]

requirements for service providers electing to provide or not to 
provide emergency alerts to subscribers. As specified in the timelines 
of the WARN Act, the election process must be complete in September 
2008. In several instances, the statute requires service providers to 
submit notifications to the Commission indicating its election, non-
election, or its withdrawal from providing emergency alerts. Section 
602(b)(2)(A) requires that, ``within 30 days after the Commission 
issues its order under [section 602(b)], each licensee providing 
commercial mobile service shall file an election with the Commission 
with respect to whether or not it intends to transmit emergency 
alerts.'' Similarly, under section 602(b)(2)(B), a service provider 
that elects to transmit emergency alerts must ``notify the Commission 
of its election'' and ``agree to transmit such alerts in a manner 
consistent with the technical standards, protocols, procedures, and 
other technical requirements implemented by the Commission.'' Further, 
section 602(b)(2)(D) requires the Commission to establish procedures 
relating to withdrawal of an election and the filing of late election 
notices with the Commission. Under section 602(b)(2)(D)(i), ``the 
Commission shall establish a procedure for a commercial mobile service 
licensee that has elected to transmit emergency alerts to withdraw its 
election without regulatory penalty or forfeiture upon advance written 
notification of the withdrawal to its affected subscribers.'' Finally, 
section 602(b)(2)(D)(ii) requires ``the Commission to establish a 
procedure for a commercial mobile service licensee to elect to transmit 
emergency alerts at a date later than provided in subparagraph (A).'' 
The CMSAAC proposed a timeline for election based on its interpretation 
of the WARN Act. We seek comment on this interpretation and timeline. 
Commenters with a different interpretation should provide detailed 
alternatives.
    33. With respect to all these filing requirements, we request 
comment on the most efficient method for accepting, monitoring, and 
maintaining service provider election and withdrawal information. We 
anticipate that this information will be of interest to the public and 
will serve to aid consumers in their decision regarding which service 
provider can best meet their expectations for delivering emergency 
alerts. Should the Commission require electronic filing of the 
submission? With respect to the initial filing by the service provider 
of its intention to provide or not to provide emergency alerts, what 
should the CMS provider provide in its report to the Commission if it 
indicates its intention to provide emergency alerts? For example, we 
seek comment on the CMSAAC's recommendations that, at a minimum, a CMS 
provider explicitly commits to support the development and deployment 
of technology for the following: the ``C'' reference point, the CMS 
provider Gateway, the CMS provider infrastructure, and the mobile 
device with CMAS functionality. The CMSAAC also suggests that the 
required technology may not be in place for some time. Accordingly, 
should electing CMS providers be able to specify when they will be able 
to offer mobile alerting?
    34. With respect to notification that the service provider elects 
to provide emergency alerts, we seek comment on the manner by which 
service providers shall notify the Commission and attest to their 
adoption of the Commission's standards, protocols, procedures and other 
technical requirements. Should the Commission require electronic filing 
of the submission? What should the CMS provider submit in its report to 
the Commission if it indicates its intention to provide emergency 
alerts?
    35. The statute allows service providers to withdraw from their 
election to provide emergency alerts, upon notification to the 
Commission and to subscribers. We seek comment on the proper mechanism 
for service providers to file this withdrawal with the Commission. We 
contemplate two scenarios: first, the service provider has elected to 
provide emergency alerts, but does not build the infrastructure, or 
second, the service provider elects to provide emergency alerts, does 
so to all or some portion of its coverage area, but then chooses to no 
longer provide alerts and elects to discontinue the service. With 
respect to the second scenario, how much advance service provider 
notification to subscribers should the Commission require prior to the 
service provider's withdrawal of the service? What methods should 
service providers use to notify all existing subscribers at the service 
provider's various points of sale? Should the Commission impose the 
same set of requirements considered under section 602(b)(1)(C) 
regarding notification to existing subscribers and potential 
subscribers that a service provider has elected not to provide 
emergency alerts? Were the Commission to allow some cost recovery 
mechanism, what changes in that process should be required when a 
service provider ceases to provide emergency alerts? Should service 
providers be required to demonstrate or certify that they are no longer 
passing through costs to implement emergency alerts to subscribers?
    36. Section 602(b)(2)(D)(iii) requires the Commission to establish 
a procedure ``under which a subscriber may terminate a subscription to 
service provided by a commercial mobile service licensee that withdraws 
its election without penalty or early termination fee.'' We seek 
comment on the procedures necessary to allow a subscriber to terminate 
service upon a service provider's withdrawal of its election to provide 
emergency alerts. In what manner should subscribers and potential 
subscribers be informed of their right to discontinue service? Is 
notification in the terms and conditions of service sufficient to 
apprise subscribers of their right to discontinue service without 
penalty or termination fee? Should the Commission prescribe a specific 
procedure for subscribers or should service providers submit to the 
Commission a description of their procedure for informing subscribers 
of their right to terminate service? What should such procedures be?
    37. Section 602(b)(2)(E) states that ``any commercial mobile 
service licensee electing to transmit emergency alerts may offer 
subscribers the capability of preventing the subscriber's device from 
receiving such alerts, or classes of such alerts, other than an alert 
issued by the President.'' The CMSAAC recommended that the CMS 
providers should offer their subscribers a simple opt-out process. With 
the exception of presidential messages, which are always transmitted, 
the CMSAAC recommended that the process should allow the choice to opt 
out of ``all messages,'' ``all severe messages,'' and AMBER Alerts. The 
CMSAAC suggested that, because of differences in the way CMS providers 
and device manufacturers provision their menus and user interfaces, CMS 
providers and device manufacturers should have flexibility on how to 
present the opt-out choices to subscribers. We seek comment on the 
recommendations of the CMSAAC with respect to three choices of message 
types that a subscriber should be allowed to choose to opt out of 
receiving. We also seek comment on the CMSAAC recommendation that CMS 
providers and device manufacturers should have flexibility on whether 
the Commission should establish baseline criteria for informing 
subscribers of this capability and if any uniform standards for 
conveying that information to subscribers is required. We understand 
that current and future devices have different user interfaces and menu 
structures for enabling and disabling

[[Page 552]]

device features. To what extent is a uniform methodology for disabling 
this feature necessary? Are there more classes of alerts that should be 
considered?
    38. Section 602(b)(2)(E) also provides that the Commission shall, 
within two years of the adoption of the technical requirements, 
``examine the issue of whether a [CMS provider] should continue to be 
permitted to offer its subscribers an opt-out capability.'' We seek 
comment on the appropriate mechanism for doing so. Further, we seek 
comment on whether the Commission can expand the scope of this inquiry 
to other questions concerning the development of the CMAS. We note that 
the CMSAAC recommended this result because the CMAS is a new and 
untested system and will need periodic review as it is deployed. We 
seek comment on this recommendation.
    39. Section 602(b)(2)(C) states ``[a] commercial mobile service 
licensee that elects to transmit emergency alerts may not impose a 
separate or additional charge for such transmission or capability.'' 
Does this provision completely preclude a participating service 
provider's ability to recover costs associated with the provision of 
alerts? What about CMAS-related services and technologies that are not 
used to deliver CMAS? Should the section's reference to ``transmission 
or capability'' be read narrowly? For example, much of the alert 
technology will reside in the subscriber's mobile device. Can the CMS 
providers recover CMAS-related developmental costs from the subscriber 
through mobile device charges based on a determination that mobile 
devices lie outside the ``transmission or capability'' language of the 
section?

WARN Act Section 602(c)--Digital Television Transmission Towers 
Retransmission Capability

    40. Section 602(c) of the WARN Act requires that within 90 days of 
adoption of the technical requirements, we must complete a proceeding 
to require NCE and public broadcast station licensees and permittees to 
install equipment and technologies on, or as part of, any broadcast 
television digital signal transmitter to enable the distribution of 
geographically targeted alerts by CMS providers that have elected to 
transmit emergency alerts. We seek comment on this requirement. 
Specifically, we seek comment on whether the system described in this 
section is identical to the ``Datacasting'' system that the Association 
of Public Television Stations (APTS) and FEMA are deploying as the 
backbone of the Digital Emergency Alert System (DEAS)? If so, would it 
be consistent with the WARN Act simply to implement the DEAS in a 
manner that complies with section 602(c) of the WARN Act?
    41. How will this DTV-based system interface with the CMAS? How 
will this requirement regarding the geo-targeting of CMAMs fit into 
centrally administered CMAS as envisioned by the CMSAAC. How would the 
DTV-based system implement the message formats defined by the ``C'' 
interface? We also seek comment on the scope of this section. Although 
the caption of section 602(c) refers to digital television 
transmissions, it mandates that the Commission impose any equipment 
requirements to licensees and permittees of NCE and public broadcast 
stations as those terms are defined under Section 397(6) of the 
Communications Act. That provision references both radio and television 
broadcast stations. We seek comment on this definition as it relates to 
section 602(c) of the WARN Act. Is it a fair reading of the language to 
conclude that this section applies only to licensees and permittees of 
NCE and public broadcast television stations?

WARN Act Section 602(f)--Testing

    42. Section 602(f) of the WARN Act provides that the Commission 
shall ``require by regulation technical testing for commercial mobile 
service providers that elect to transmit emergency alerts and for the 
devices and equipment used by such providers for transmitting such 
alerts.'' We seek comment on what type of testing regime the Commission 
should require. We note that the CMSAAC proposed that in order to 
ensure the reliability and performance of this new system, certain 
procedures for logging CMAS alerts at the Alert Gateway and for testing 
the system at the Alert Gateway and on an end-to-end basis should be 
implemented. We seek comment on these proposed procedures. Do they 
satisfy the requirements of section 602(f) of the WARN Act? We 
particularly seek comment on whether there should be some form of 
testing of the CMAS that sends test messages to the mobile device and 
the subscriber. Do the EAS testing rules offer a model for such tests? 
In those rules, internal systems test are combined with tests that are 
heard (or in some cases seen) by the public. Should some similar form 
of test that alerts the public be required in the CMAS? Should the 
testing process be invisible to the subscriber or should all 
subscribers participate in certain tests? If testing involves 
subscribers, how should subscribers be made aware of such tests?

Overall Relationship of CMAS to EAS and Development of a National Alert 
System by FEMA

    43. As noted earlier, the Commission originally intended to 
consider in its rulemaking in EB Docket No. 04-296 whether wireless 
mobile service providers should be included in the EAS. Notwithstanding 
various operational differences between the EAS and those requirements 
mandated by the WARN Act (chiefly, the voluntary participation model of 
the latter), both alert systems will provide important emergency 
information to American citizens. As such, both systems would seem to 
qualify for inclusion in the ``national alert system,'' to be developed 
and coordinated by FEMA, as envisaged by President Bush's June 2006 
Executive Order. We seek comment about how the CMSAAC's proposals for a 
CMAS relate to the directives contained in that Executive Order. We 
also seek comment about the overall compatibility of the CMAS with the 
EAS (i.e., in addition to the specific questions that have been raised 
earlier in this NPRM). Should we mandate such compatibility? What steps 
would we need to take to ensure such compatibility? As related above, 
the CMSAAC has proposed use of CAP1.1 as the standard CMAS alert 
interface, and the Commission has mandated that CAP1.1 shall also be 
the standard interface for the evolving EAS (if it is adopted by FEMA). 
Would adoption and incorporation of CAP1.1 per the CMAS in and of 
itself ensure that it's compatible with a CAP-formatted EAS alert 
delivery system? If not, what modifications to the CMSAAC's proposals 
would be necessary to ensure such compatibility with the future 
National Alert System required under EO 13407? Finally, we also seek 
comment on what additional statutory authority, independent of the WARN 
Act, we have to implement a mobile alerting system.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    44. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present 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 this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM). 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 NPRM provided in

[[Page 553]]

Section IV of the item. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, 
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
    45. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules. With the NPRM, 
the Federal Communications Commission (Commission), as required by the 
Warning Alert and Response Network (WARN) Act, initiates a 
comprehensive rulemaking to establish a Commercial Mobile Alert System 
(CMAS), under which Commercial Mobile Service providers (alternatively, 
``CMS providers'') may voluntarily elect to transmit emergency alerts 
to the public. This proceeding represents our next step in compliance 
with the Warning Alert and Response Network (WARN) Act, that the 
Commission enable commercial mobile service alerting capability for CMS 
providers that elect to transmit emergency alerts.
    46. Section 602 of the WARN Act requires the Commission to adopt: 
(1) system critical protocols and technical requirements for the CMAS; 
(2) a mechanism under which CMS providers may elect to participate in 
the CMAS and disclose to their subscribers whether or not they would 
participate; (3) rules under which licensees and permittees of 
noncommercial educational (NCE) broadcast stations or public broadcast 
stations install necessary equipment and technologies on, or as part 
of, any broadcast television digital signal transmitter to enable the 
distribution of geographically targeted alerts by CMS providers that 
have elected to participate in the CMAS; and (4) technical testing 
requirements for CMS providers that elect to transmit emergency alerts 
and for the devices and equipment used by such providers for 
transmitting such alerts. In this NPRM we seek comment on questions 
pertaining to all of these statutory requirements. We also seek comment 
about how the issues discussed in the NPRM relate to the Commission's 
activities in connection with the Emergency Alert System (EAS).
    47. Legal Basis. Authority for the actions proposed in the NPRM may 
be found in sections 1, 4(i) and (o), 201, 303(r), 403, and 706 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (o), 
201, 303(r), 403, and 606, as well as by sections 602(a), (b), (c), 
(f), 603, 604 and 606 of the WARN Act.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which Rules 
Will Apply

    48. 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 rules adopted herein. 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 Small Business 
Administration (SBA).
    49. Small Businesses. Nationwide, there are a total of 
approximately 22.4 million small businesses, according to SBA data.
    50. Small Organizations. Nationwide, there are approximately 1.6 
million small organizations.
    51. Governmental Entities. The term ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined as ``governments of cities, towns, townships, 
villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of 
less than fifty thousand.'' As of 2002, there were approximately 87,525 
governmental jurisdictions in the United States. This number includes 
38,967 county governments, municipalities, and townships, of which 
37,373 (approximately 95.9%) have populations of fewer than 50,000, and 
of which 1,594 have populations of 50,000 or more. Thus, we estimate 
the number of small governmental jurisdictions overall to be 85,931 or 
fewer.
    52. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since 
2007, the SBA has recognized wireless firms within this new, broad, 
economic census category. Prior to that time, the SBA had developed a 
small business size standard for wireless firms within the now-
superseded census categories of ``Paging'' and ``Cellular and Other 
Wireless Telecommunications.'' Under the present and prior categories, 
the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or 
fewer employees. Because Census Bureau data are not yet available for 
the new category, we will estimate small business prevalence using the 
prior categories and associated data. For the first category of Paging, 
data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms that operated for the 
entire year. Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer 
employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. 
For the second category of Cellular and Other Wireless 
Telecommunications, data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment 
of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 
employees or more. Thus, using the prior categories and the available 
data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be considered 
small.
    53. Cellular Service. As noted, the SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for small businesses in the category ``Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite).'' Under that SBA 
category, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Since 
2007, the SBA has recognized wireless firms within this new, broad, 
economic census category. Prior to that time, the SBA had developed a 
small business size standard for wireless firms within the now-
superseded census categories of ``Paging'' and ``Cellular and Other 
Wireless Telecommunications.'' Under the present and prior categories, 
the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or 
fewer employees. Because Census Bureau data are not yet available for 
the new category, we will estimate small business prevalence using the 
prior categories and associated data.
    54. For the first category of Paging, data for 2002 show that there 
were 807 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 804 
firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had 
employment of 1,000 employees or more. For the second category of 
Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, data for 2002 show that 
there were 1,397 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this 
total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 
firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, using the prior 
categories and the available data, we estimate that the majority of 
wireless firms can be considered small.
    55. Auctions. In addition, we note that, as a general matter, the 
number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close 
of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small 
businesses currently in service. Also, the Commission does not 
generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of 
assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated.
    56. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband 
Personal Communications

[[Page 554]]

Service (PCS) spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated 
A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The 
Commission has created a small business size standard for Blocks C and 
F as an entity that has average gross revenues of less than $40 million 
in the three previous calendar years. For Block F, an additional small 
business size standard for ``very small business'' was added and is 
defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average 
gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three 
calendar years. These small business size standards, in the context of 
broadband PCS auctions, have been approved by the SBA. No small 
businesses within the SBA-approved small business size standards bid 
successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning 
bidders that qualified as small entities in the C Block auctions. A 
total of 93 ``small'' and ``very small'' business bidders won 
approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F. 
On March 23, 1999, the Commission reauctioned 155 C, D, E, and F Block 
licenses; there were 113 small business winning bidders. On January 26, 
2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F PCS licenses 
in Auction 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29 qualified 
as ``small'' or ``very small'' businesses. Subsequent events concerning 
Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations, resulted in a 
total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for grant.
    57. Narrowband Personal Communications Service. The Commission held 
an auction for Narrowband Personal Communications Service (PCS) 
licenses that commenced on July 25, 1994, and closed on July 29, 1994. 
A second commenced on October 26, 1994 and closed on November 8, 1994. 
For purposes of the first two Narrowband PCS auctions, ``small 
businesses'' were entities with average gross revenues for the prior 
three calendar years of $40 million or less. Through these auctions, 
the Commission awarded a total of forty-one licenses, 11 of which were 
obtained by four small businesses. To ensure meaningful participation 
by small business entities in future auctions, the Commission adopted a 
two-tiered small business size standard in the Narrowband PCS Second 
Report and Order. A ``small business'' is an entity that, together with 
affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for 
the three preceding years of not more than $40 million. A ``very small 
business'' is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling 
interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of 
not more than $15 million. The SBA has approved these small business 
size standards. A third auction commenced on October 3, 2001 and closed 
on October 16, 2001. Here, five bidders won 317 (MTA and nationwide) 
licenses. Three of these claimed status as a small or very small entity 
and won 311 licenses.
    58. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for 
fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite 
uses in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands. The Commission 
defined ``small business'' for the wireless communications services 
(WCS) auction as an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million 
for each of the three preceding years, and a ``very small business'' as 
an entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the 
three preceding years. The SBA has approved these definitions. The 
Commission auctioned geographic area licenses in the WCS service. In 
the auction, which commenced on April 15, 1997 and closed on April 25, 
1997, there were seven bidders that won 31 licenses that qualified as 
very small business entities, and one bidder that won one license that 
qualified as a small business entity.
    59. 700 MHz Guard Bands Licenses. In the 700 MHz Guard Bands Order, 
the Commission adopted size standards for ``small businesses'' and 
``very small businesses'' for purposes of determining their eligibility 
for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment 
payments. A small business in this service is an entity that, together 
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross 
revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years. 
Additionally, a ``very small business'' is an entity that, together 
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross 
revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three 
years. SBA approval of these definitions is not required. An auction of 
52 Major E