**Before the**

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | PS Docket No. 07-8           |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Implementation of a Grant        | ) |                              |
| Program for Remote Community     | * |                              |
| Alert Systems Pursuant to        | * |                              |
| Section 605(a) of the Warning,   |   |                              |
| Alert, and Response Network      | * |                              |
| (WARN) Act                       | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

declaratory Ruling

**Adopted: April 11, 2007 Released: April 11, 2007**

By the Commission:

# introduction and background

1.  In this Declaratory Ruling*,* we interpret the phrase "remote
    communities effectively unserved by commercial mobile service," as
    required by Section 605(a) of the Warning, Alert, and Response
    Network (WARN) Act.[^1]

2.  The WARN Act requires the Commission to establish an advisory
    committee to develop recommendations regarding standards for
    commercial mobile service providers' transmission of emergency alert
    messages on a voluntary basis to their customers, and to conduct a
    rulemaking, taking into consideration such recommendations.[^2] The
    WARN Act also requires the establishment of a grant program to fund
    outdoor alerting technologies for remote communities lacking
    commercial mobile service, and requires the FCC to interpret the
    term "remote communities effectively unserved by commercial mobile
    service." Specifically, Section 605(a) of the WARN Act provides:

> The Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, in
> consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall establish
> a program under which grants may be made to provide for outdoor
> alerting technologies in remote communities effectively unserved by
> commercial mobile service (as determined by the Federal Communications
> Commission within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act)
> for the purpose of enabling residents of those communities to receive
> emergency alerts.[^3]

3.  On January 23, 2007, the Commission released a public notice seeking
    comment on how we should interpret the phrase "remote communities
    effectively unserved by commercial mobile service," as required by
    Section 605(a).[^4] For the reasons discussed below, we find
    that: (1) a "remote" area consists of a county with a population
    density of 100 persons per square mile or less, based upon the most
    recently available Census data; (2) "commercial mobile service"
    means those services that are required to provide E911 service in
    accordance with Section 20.18 of the Commission's rules; and (3)
    "effectively unserved" identifies "remote communities" that do not
    receive "commercial mobile service" as demonstrated by coverage
    maps, technical analyses, field tests, or any other reasonable
    means.

# discussion

4.  In this section, we define the phrases "remote communities,"
    "commercial mobile service," and "effectively unserved" as used in
    Section 605(a) of the WARN Act.

5.  *"Remote Communities."* In the *Public Notice,* the Commission asked
    whether applying the definition of "rural area," which the
    Commission had previously defined for purposes of facilitating
    deployment of wireless services in rural areas, to the WARN Act's
    phrase "remote communities" would satisfy the policy purposes
    envisioned by Congress in establishing the grant program under
    Section 605(a).[^5] The Commission previously defined "rural areas"
    as "those counties (or equivalent) with a population density of 100
    persons per square mile or less, based upon the most recently
    available Census data."[^6] In the *Public Notice*, the Commission
    invited comment on this definition and other possible
    interpretations of the term "remote communities."[^7]

6.  *Comments.* AT&T and MC/LM support utilizing the Commission's
    definition of "rural area" to define "remote communities."[^8] AT&T
    notes that neither the WARN Act nor its legislative history defines
    "remote communities."[^9] TDI states that the Commission's
    definition of "remote communities effectively unserved by commercial
    mobile service" should be read "as broadly as possible, given the
    vital public interest served by policies associated with emergency
    alerting systems."[^10] CCDTF agrees that this phrase should be
    interpreted "broadly," and adds that the Commission's definition of
    "rural area" is "too narrow in scope" and may cause the grant
    program "to miss serving households and groups of persons, or
    persons living alone, with disabilities who due to their disability,
    may in fact live remote lives but in higher density areas."[^11]

7.  AAPC states that the definition of "rural area" is "the proper
    starting point," but believes that actual applicants under the grant
    program will more likely be political subdivisions of rural areas,
    "such as incorporated villages, towns or cities, or townships or
    their equivalent," as opposed to the counties themselves.[^12]
    Accordingly, AAPC suggests that "remote communities" should be
    defined as these political subdivisions.[^13]

8.  *Discussion.* We adopt our *Public Notice* proposal to apply the
    definition of "rural area" for the purpose of determining whether a
    "community" is "remote" under the WARN Act. In reaching the
    definition of "rural area" in the context of the *Rural R&O*, the
    Commission recognized that a comprehensive definition of "rural
    area" may not be appropriate for all purposes.[^14] The Commission
    therefore decided to treat the definition of "rural area" as "a
    presumption that will apply for current and future Commission . . .
    rules, policies and analyses for which the term . . . has not been
    expressly defined."[^15] The Commission stated that the presumption
    would "maintain continuity with respect to existing definitions of
    'rural' that have been tailored to apply to specific policies, while
    also providing a practical guideline."[^16] The policy principles
    underlying the Commission's definition of "rural area" are equally
    relevant for purposes of implementing Section 605(a) of the WARN
    Act. Accordingly, we find that it is appropriate to apply the same
    definition of "rural area" to define a "community" that is "remote."

9.  Although the Commission considered several potential definitions for
    "rural area," in the *Rural R&O*,[^17] it adopted the current
    definition because it was neither difficult to administer nor "so
    narrowly tailored to only include what many refer to as the most
    rural areas."[^18] Specifically, the Commission noted that a
    definition based on county boundaries is "easy to administer and
    understand, population data based on county boundaries are widely
    available to the public, and county boundaries rarely change."[^19]
    The Commission also noted that "the total population of the counties
    that fall within this definition of 'rural area' closely tracks the
    Census Bureau's overall population for non-urban areas."[^20]

10. While AAPC may be correct that grant applicants could include the
    political subdivisions of counties, we are not persuaded that the
    nature of the potential grant applicant should be determinative of
    the definition of "remote community." As explained above, the
    definition of "rural area" is clear, and thus readily applied.
    AAPC's proposal, on the contrary, would lead to a "definition" that
    would encompass as many variables as there are political
    subdivisions within the United States, leading to a standard that
    would be difficult to apply. Because AAPC provides no specifics,
    quantitative data or other criteria to support its position, we must
    reject AAPC's proposal.

11. We also disagree with TDI's and CCDTF's arguments that we should
    interpret this phrase more broadly. Employing a county-sized basis
    for defining "remote" areas affords a sufficiently wide enough scope
    to carry out the objectives of Section 605(a). While we understand
    that persons with disabilities can be "isolated" even when located
    in an area not considered "remote,"[^21] these concerns are
    unrelated to the specific issue of defining "remote communities" for
    purposes of the WARN Act. Generally, the grant program is targeted
    to ensure that alerts can be provided in the absence of alternative
    commercial mobile communications means. CCDTF addresses "higher
    density areas" that have alternative commercial mobile
    communications options for alerts, and are thus by definition are
    beyond the scope of what constitutes a remote community.

12. We recognize, however, that persons with disabilities have unique
    needs concerning emergency alerts that should be addressed, whether
    located in "remote communities" or otherwise. In this regard, we
    note that the Commission's Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory
    Committee (CMSAAC), which was formed pursuant to Section 603(c) of
    the WARN Act, is in the process of formulating recommendations on
    technical standards and protocols to facilitate the ability of
    commercial mobile service providers to transmit emergency alerts to
    their subscribers.[^22] We therefore direct the Chief, Public Safety
    and Homeland Security Bureau, to place the comments filed by TDI and
    CCDTF in this proceeding into the CMSAAC record, so that the issues
    raised by these commenters may be considered in that docket.

13. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that communities are "remote"
    under the WARN Act where those communities are located in "counties
    (or equivalent) with a population density of 100 persons per square
    mile or less, based upon the most recently available Census
    data."[^23] This decision strikes the appropriate public interest
    balance and best ensures that the benefits of the grant program are
    achieved consistent with the WARN Act.

14. *"Commercial Mobile Service."* In the *Public Notice,* the
    Commission asked whether it should define "commercial mobile
    service" as "commercial mobile radio service" (CMRS) for purposes of
    implementing Section 605(a).[^24] The *Public Notice* also sought
    comment on other possible interpretations of "commercial mobile
    service."[^25] In the *Public Notice,* the Commission noted that
    Section 602(b)(1)(A) of the WARN Act specifically defines
    "commercial mobile service" by cross-reference to Section 332(d)(1)
    of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.[^26]

15. *Comments.* AT&T argues that, because the Commission has "long
    defined 'commercial mobile service' for purposes of Section 332 as
    CMRS," the Commission should also define "commercial mobile service"
    as CMRS for purposes of Section 605(a).[^27] However, noting that
    the definition of CMRS encompasses mobile satellite service
    (MSS),[^28] which may have nationwide coverage, AT&T and AAPC argue
    that, for purposes of Section 605(a), MSS should be excluded from
    the definition of "commercial mobile service" because its inclusion
    would mean that few, if any, "remote communities" would be deemed
    "effectively unserved."[^29] AAPC also contends that CMRS providers
    licensed under the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service and Offshore
    Radio Telephone Service should be excluded from the definition of
    commercial mobile service.[^30]

16. On the other hand, MC/LM opposes use of the definition of CMRS,
    arguing that, because the WARN Act "specifically directs the
    Commission to use the definition of Section 332(d)(1)," the
    Commission should "use only the exact definition of Section
    332(d)(1)."[^31] MC/LM also opposes use of the definition of CMRS
    contained in Section 20.3 of the Commission's rules because that
    definition includes radio services that are the "functional
    equivalent" of CMRS and is thus broader than Section 332(d)(1)'s
    definition.[^32]

17. *Discussion.* For purposes of Section 605(a) of the WARN Act only,
    we define the phrase "commercial mobile service" to include only
    those services that are required to provide E911 service in
    accordance with Section 20.18 of the Commission's rules.[^33] This
    interpretation of the statutory language is consistent with the
    purposes of the WARN Act and with the record in this proceeding. We
    agree with commenters that certain services that satisfy the
    Commission's definition of CMRS -- particularly MSS -- should not be
    included in the WARN Act's definition of "commercial mobile
    service." [^34] Compared to terrestrial-based systems, MSS can offer
    nationwide coverage, or, by some accounts "complete coverage of the
    earth."[^35] As a result, it would be difficult, if not impossible,
    for a grant applicant to prove that none of its community members
    have access to "commercial mobile service." We thus find that the
    objectives of the grant program could not be achieved if current MSS
    offerings were included in the definition of commercial mobile
    service.[^36]

18. Because including current MSS offerings in the definition of
    "commercial mobile service" could render meaningless the grant
    program of Section 605(a), we cannot equate "commercial mobile
    service" with the Commission's definition of CMRS for purposes of
    the WARN Act.[^37] By contrast, defining "commercial mobile service"
    to include only those services identified in Section 20.18(a) of the
    Commission's rules addresses commenters' concerns and creates a
    reasonable burden of proof for grant applicants. Furthermore,
    defining "commercial mobile service" to include only carriers that
    are obligated to provide E911 service focuses limited resources on
    communities that need them most: namely, those communities that have
    no access to wireless E911 service. For all of these reasons, we
    believe that the most reasonable interpretation of "commercial
    mobile service" for purposes of the WARN Act is those services that
    are identified in Section 20.18(a) of the Commission's rules.

19. We reject MC/LM's argument that the Commission must employ the exact
    definition contained in Section 332(d)(1) of the Act. Like Section
    20.9 of our rules, the Section 332(d)(1) definition also includes
    the type of ubiquitous MSS service that, if included in the Section
    605(a) definition of "commercial mobile service," would render the
    grant program authorized by Section 605 a nullity.[^38] While
    Congress required the Commission to use the Section 332(d)(1)
    definition of commercial mobile service for purposes of Section 602
    of the WARN Act, such a requirement is nowhere to be found in
    Section 605. Rather, Congress specifically directed the Commission
    to define the term "remote communities effectively unserved by
    commercial mobile service," thus providing the Commission with the
    authority to develop an appropriate definition of, among other
    terms, "commercial mobile service." This difference is not
    surprising in light of the different objectives of Sections 602
    and 605. Our charge is to interpret the entire phrase in Section 605
    that is under consideration in this Declaratory Ruling holistically,
    and with the purpose of the grant program in mind. Accordingly, we
    believe we must exercise our expertise in identifying which services
    falling under the Commission's CMRS definition are appropriately
    included in the definition of "commercial mobile services" for
    purposes of Section 605(a).

20. *"Effectively Unserved."* In the *Public Notice,* the Commission
    sought comment on possible interpretations of "effectively unserved"
    and whether "effectively unserved" means that commercial mobile
    services are not available to any consumers in a "remote community,"
    a significant portion of consumers, or some portion of
    consumers.[^39] The Commission also asked how applicants should
    demonstrate the unavailability of commercial mobile services, and
    whether a variety of means should be used, such as coverage maps
    from service providers, technical analyses, field tests, or
    subscriber levels.[^40]

21. *Comments.* MC/LM proposes that a remote community should be
    considered "effectively unserved" if fewer than two competing CMRS
    providers offer service or if 100 subscriber units or less are
    actually receiving service.[^41] AAPC argues that a remote community
    served by a CMRS provider that does not in fact distribute emergency
    alerts should be deemed "effectively unserved" for purposes of the
    WARN Act.[^42]

22. Regarding evidence of service, AT&T argues that the grantor should
    determine the unavailability of CMRS based on marketing maps made
    available on carrier websites.[^43] AAPC further requests that CMRS
    providers, particularly smaller carriers, should be able to
    demonstrate that they serve a remote community with traditional
    coverage maps in addition to web-based maps.[^44] In addition to
    coverage maps, CCDTF believes that a wide variety of means such as
    "technical analyses, field tests, and subscriber levels or other
    available information" should be used.[^45] AAPC argues that the
    grantor should post lists of communities seeking grants so that
    carriers in those areas have an opportunity to demonstrate that they
    do in fact serve those communities.[^46]

23. *Discussion.* We conclude that the phrase "effectively unserved"
    modifies "remote communities," and that this language identifies
    "remote communities" that do not receive "commercial mobile
    service." We find that a remote community can demonstrate that it is
    "effectively unserved" by using coverage maps from service
    providers, technical analyses, field tests or any other reasonable
    means.

24. Determining whether a community is "effectively unserved"
    necessarily will be a fact-specific exercise in many cases. As AT&T
    notes, this phrase is not defined in the WARN Act or in the
    legislative history.[^47] However, we offer certain guidelines that
    will assist in making such determinations. We find that the number
    of commercial mobile service providers in a given remote area should
    not serve as a metric. Even a single carrier should suffice.
    Further, the number of subscribers should not be determinative.
    While the number and location of commercial mobile service
    subscribers could serve as an indicator of where commercial mobile
    service coverage may be available, there are reasons other than
    coverage, including individual consumer choices, that could
    influence subscribers levels within a given remote area.

25. Coverage maps provided by carriers, whether for marketing purposes
    such as those displayed on a website, or prepared specifically for
    grant program purposes, would be a useful source of information on
    service availability. First, coverage maps can be easily obtained or
    produced, and also would serve as a simple, yet effective and
    objective means to immediately identify areas that are "effectively
    unserved." Second, as suggested by CCDTF and as proposed in the
    *Public Notice*, we find that other means, such as technical
    analyses and field tests, also are useful tools, and can be employed
    when creating coverage maps. We otherwise find no basis to develop
    bright line tests, such as by percent of population or land area
    served. Rather, we find that the better course of action would be to
    first determine, following analysis of data describing where
    coverage exists in a given community, the number of consumers that
    live, work, or travel in areas without coverage. Decisions
    concerning applications for grants could then be made on a
    case-by-case basis, based on the relative needs of the "effectively
    unserved" areas so identified.

26. We conclude that the guidance we provide above best fulfills our
    obligations under Section 605(a). With regard to whether procedural
    requirements or other conditions may be required to implement the
    grant program under Section 605(a), we note that Section 605(b)(2)
    expressly provides the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and
    Atmosphere (Under Secretary) with discretionary authority to
    "establish such conditions, and require such assurances, as may be
    appropriate to ensure the efficiency and integrity of the grant
    program."[^48] Because the WARN Act gives this authority to the
    Under Secretary, not to the Commission, we find it is not
    appropriate to address here CCDTF's suggestion that grantees of the
    program should be required to work with state and local entities
    serving people with disabilities,[^49] or AAPC and MC/LM's requests
    that lists of communities seeking grants under Section 605(a) be
    posted.[^50] At this juncture, we take this opportunity to
    underscore our long-standing and ongoing commitment to ensuring that
    persons with disabilities have equal access to public warnings and
    are considered in emergency preparedness planning.[^51]

# ordering clauses

27. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1 and 4(i) of
    the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151 and
    154(i), and Section 605(a) of the Warning, Alert, and Response
    Network Act, 47 U.S.C. § 1204(a), this Declaratory Ruling IS HEREBY
    ADOPTED as described herein.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Marlene H. Dortch

    Secretary

    **APPENDIX**

    **LIST OF COMMENTERS**

    **Comments filed in Response to the Public Notice in PS Docket No.
    07-8**

    **[Comments]{.underline}**

    AT&T Inc., on behalf of its affiliate, AT&T Mobility LLC (AT&T)

    Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Task Force on
    Telecommunications and Technology (CCDTF)

    Maritime Communications/Land Mobile, LLC (MC/LM)

    **[Reply Comments]{.underline}**

    American Association of Paging Carriers (AAPC)

    Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc.;
    Association of Late-Deafened Adults; California Coalition of
    Agencies Serving the Deaf and Hard of Hearing; Deaf & Hard of
    Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network; Hearing Loss Association of
    America; and National Association for the Deaf (collectively, TDI)

[^1]: Warning, Alert, and Response Network (WARN) Act, 47 U.S.C. §§
    1201-1205. The WARN Act was enacted as Title VI of the Security and
    Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act), Pub. L.
    No. 109-347, 120 Stat. 1884 (2006), which was signed into law by
    President Bush on October 13, 2006.

[^2]: *See* WARN Act, §§ 601 *et seq*.

[^3]: *I**d*. § 605(a).

[^4]: The Commission Seeks Comment on Implementation of a Grant Program
    for Remote Community Alert Systems Pursuant to Section 605(a) of the
    Warning, Alert, and Response Network (WARN) Act, PS Docket No. 07-8,
    *Public Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd 1045 (2007) (*Public Notice*). Comments
    were due on February 6, 2007, and reply comments on February 22,
    2007. *Id.* A list of commenters is provided in the Appendix.

[^5]: *Public Notice* at 2.

[^6]: *See* Facilitating the Provision of Spectrum-Based Services to
    Rural Areas and Promoting Opportunities for Rural Telephone
    Companies to Provide Spectrum-Based Services, WT Docket No. 02-381,
    2000 Biennial Regulatory Review Spectrum Aggregation Limits for
    Commercial Mobile Radio Services, WT Docket No. 01-14, Increasing
    Flexibility to Promote Access to and the Efficient and Intensive Use
    of Spectrum and the Widespread Deployment of Wireless Services, and
    to Facilitate Capital Formation, WT Docket No. 03-202, *Report and
    Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 19 FCC Rcd 19078,
    19087 ¶ 11 (2004) (*Rural R&O*).

[^7]: *Public Notice* at 2.

[^8]: Comments Filed by AT&T Inc. on behalf of its affiliate, AT&T
    Mobility LLC, PS Docket No. 07-8, at 1 (filed Feb. 6, 2007) (AT&T
    Comments); Comments Filed by Maritime Communications/Land Mobile,
    LLC PS Docket No. 07-8, at 1 (filed Feb. 6, 2007) (MC/LM Comments).

[^9]: AT&T Comments at 2. MC/LM also points out that, as a provider of
    Automated Maritime Telecommunications System services, its
    authorized service area includes areas with population densities of
    100 persons per square mile or less. MC/LM Comments at 1.

[^10]: Reply Comments Filed by Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard
    of Hearing, Inc.; Association of Late-Deafened Adults; California
    Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf and Hard of Hearing; Deaf &
    Hard of Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network; Hearing Loss Association
    of America; and National Association for the Deaf, PS Docket No.
    07-8, at 2 (filed Feb. 22, 2007) (TDI Reply Comments).

[^11]: Comments Filed by Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Task
    Force on Telecommunications and Technology, PS Docket No. 07-8, at
    1, 2 (filed Feb. 6, 2007) (CCDTF Comments).

[^12]: Reply Comments Filed by American Association of Paging Carriers,
    PS Docket No. 07-8, at 2 (filed Feb. 22, 2007) (AAPC Reply
    Comments).

[^13]: *Id.*

[^14]: *Rural R&O*, 19 FCC Rcd at 19087 ¶ 12.

[^15]: *Id.*

[^16]: *Id.*

[^17]: *See id.* at 19085-86 ¶ 9. The Commission sought comment on the
    following potential definitions: (1) counties with a population
    density of 100 persons or fewer per square mile; (2) Rural Service
    Areas (RSAs); (3) non-nodal counties within an Economic Area (EA) as
    defined by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis;
    (4) the definition for "rural" used by the Rural Utilities Service
    for its broadband loan program; (5) the definition for "rural area"
    used by the Commission in connection with universal service support
    for schools, libraries, and rural health care providers; (6) the
    definition of "rural" based on census tracts as outlined by the
    Economic Research Service of the USDA; (7) the Census Bureau
    definition of "rural" counties; and (8) any census tract that is not
    within 10 miles of any incorporated or census-designated place
    containing more than 2,500 people, and is not within a county or
    county equivalent that has an overall population density of more
    than 500 persons per square mile of land. *Id.*

[^18]: *See id.* at 19087 ¶ 11.

[^19]: *Id.*

[^20]: *Id.*

[^21]: *See* CCDTF Comments at 2.

[^22]: The WARN Act requires the Commission to establish an advisory
    committee to develop and submit to the Commission system-critical
    recommendations. WARN Act, § 603(c). On December 5, 2006, pursuant
    to Section 603(c) of the WARN Act, the Public Safety and Homeland
    Security Bureau released a public notice announcing the appointment
    of persons to serve as members of the Commission's Commercial Mobile
    Service Alert Advisory Committee. *See* Notice of Appointment of
    Members to the Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee;
    Agenda for December 12, 2006 Meeting, *Public Notice,* 21 FCC Rcd
    14175 (2006).

[^23]: *Rural R&O*, 19 FCC Rcd at 19087 ¶ 11.

[^24]: *Public Notice* at 2. Section 20.3, 47 C.F.R. § 20.3, defines a
    commercial mobile radio service as a mobile service that is:

    (a)(1) Provided for profit, *i.e.,* with the intent of receiving
    compensation or monetary gain;

    \(2\) An interconnected service; and

    \(3\) Available to the public, or to such classes of eligible users
    as to be effectively available to a substantial portion of the
    public; or

    \(b\) The functional equivalent of such mobile service described in
    paragraph (a) of this section.

[^25]: *Public Notice* at 2.

[^26]: *Id.*; WARN Act, § 602(b)(1)(A) (citing 47 U.S.C. § 332(d)(1)
    ("commercial mobile service means any mobile service \[ \] that is
    provided for profit and makes interconnected service available (A)
    to the public or (B) to such classes of eligible users as to be
    effectively available to a substantial portion of the public, as
    specified by regulation by the Commission")).

[^27]: AT&T Comments at 2-3; *see also* AAPC Comments at 3 (arguing that
    the definition of CMRS in Section 20.9 of the Commission's rules
    should be the starting point for defining "commercial mobile
    service").

[^28]: AT&T Comments at 3. Mobile Satellite Service is defined as a
    radiocommunication service: (1) Between mobile earth stations and
    one or more space stations, or between space stations used by this
    service; or (2) Between mobile earth stations by means of one or
    more space stations. This service may also include feeder links
    necessary for its operation. 47 C.F.R. § 25.201.

[^29]: AT&T Comments at 3 (referring to the inclusion of MSS as
    specifically enumerated in 47 C.F.R. § 20.9); AAPC Reply Comments at
    3.

[^30]: AAPC Reply Comments at 3-4.

[^31]: MC/LM Comments at 2.

[^32]: *Id.* (citing 47 C.F.R. § 20.3(b)). We note that rather than
    offering specific comments in regard to the appropriate definition
    of "commercial mobile service," CCDTF and TDI stress that the
    methods by which emergency notifications are provided should be made
    available to as many persons as possible. In particular, TDI states
    that reliance on a single audible warning "will provide little or no
    warning to persons with hearing loss that are unable to hear such
    warnings." TDI Reply Comments at 2, 3. CCDTF states that the devices
    should be interoperable to enable persons with all kinds of
    disabilities to access and understand emergency alert systems. CCDTF
    Comments at 2. Because the issues raised by CCDTF and TDI are
    related to the ongoing work of the CMSAAC, we incorporate their
    comments in the record being developed by the CMSAAC. *See* *supra*
    para. 12.

[^33]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(a) (identifying the services that are
    subject to the Commission's wireless 911 rules).

[^34]: Section 20.9 enumerates several mobile services that are
    regulated as CMRS, including MSS. 47 C.F.R. § 20.9.

[^35]: *See* AT&T Comments at 3 n.12 (citing website materials of MSS
    operators Iridium and Globalstar).

[^36]: MSS carriers currently provide 911 services primarily for hand
    held telephones. These services do not involve "enhanced" 911
    functionalities. The question of E911 requirements for MSS carriers
    is the subject of a separate proceeding. *See* Revision of the
    Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911
    Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102, IB Docket No.
    99-67, *Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 18 FCC Rcd 25340 (2003) ("*E911 Scope Report and Order
    and Second Further Notice*").

[^37]: Our interpretation of "commercial mobile services" also addresses
    AAPC's argument that Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service and Offshore
    Radiotelephone Service should be excluded from the definition of
    "commercial mobile service" for purposes of implementing Section
    605(a). AAPC Reply Comments at 3-4. The Air-Ground Radiotelephone
    Service allows CMRS providers to offer wireless services to
    subscribers on board aircraft. *See* Amendment of Part 22 of the
    Commission's Rules to Benefit the Consumers of Air-Ground
    Telecommunications Services, WT Docket No. 03-103, *Report and Order
    and Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 20 FCC Rcd 4403 (2005). The
    Offshore Radiotelephone Service provides telephone service to
    subscribers located on oil exploration and production platforms in
    the Gulf of Mexico. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 22.99. Accordingly, neither of
    these services would typically be available in the areas targeted by
    the grant program, and thus are appropriately excluded from the
    definition of "commercial mobile service."

[^38]: *See* Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Mobile
    Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band, *Report and Order* in IB Docket
    No. 99-81, 15 FCC Rcd 16127, 16173 (2000) (stating that if MSS "is
    offered to the public as described in \[Section 332(d)(1) of\] the
    Communications Act, service to the end user of the service would
    fall within the statutory definition of CMRS" (footnotes omitted));
    Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite
    Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L-Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz
    Bands, *Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* in IB
    Docket Nos. 01-185 and 02-364, 18 FCC Rcd 1962, 2073-75 (2003)
    (reiterating that MSS service would meet the Section 332(d)(1)
    definition of "commercial mobile service" if the service was an
    interconnected, for-profit service made available to a substantial
    portion of the public).

[^39]: *Public Notice* at 2.

[^40]: *Id.*

[^41]: MC/LM Comments at 2.

[^42]: AAPC Reply Comments at 5-6.

[^43]: AT&T Comments at 3-4; *see also* AAPC Reply Comments at 5.

[^44]: AAPC Reply Comments at 5.

[^45]: CCDTF Comments at 3. CCDTF adds that, because many persons with
    hearing disabilities lack broadband connections, "information from
    relay services providers may be useful in aggregating the unserved."
    Because CCDTF's comments are more appropriately addressed by the
    CMSAAC, we specifically refer its comments in this section to the
    CMSAAC record consistent with our treatment of other portions of its
    comments filed in this docket. *See supra* para. 12*.*

[^46]: AAPC Reply Comments at 5-6.

[^47]: AT&T Comments at 3.

[^48]: WARN Act, § 605(b)(2).

[^49]: CCDTF Comments at 3-4.

[^50]: AAPC Reply Comments at 5; MC/LM Comments at 3.

[^51]: *See* Review of Emergency Alert System, *First Report and Order
    and Further Notice*

    *of Proposed Rulemaking,* EB Docket No. 04-296, 20 FCC Rcd 18625,
    18654 ¶74 (2005); [47 C.F.R. §§
    73.1250](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW7.02&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&findtype=L&docname=47CFRS73.1250&db=1000547&vr=2.0&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=Westlaw),
    [79.1](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW7.02&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&findtype=L&docname=47CFRS79.1&db=1000547&vr=2.0&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=Westlaw),
    [79.2](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW7.02&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&findtype=L&docname=47CFRS79.2&db=1000547&vr=2.0&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=Westlaw),
    [79.3](http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW7.02&fn=_top&sv=Split&tc=-1&findtype=L&docname=47CFRS79.3&db=1000547&vr=2.0&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=Westlaw);
    *see also* Obligation of Video Programming Distributors to Make
    Emergency Information Accessible to Persons With Hearing
    Disabilities Using Closed Captioning, *Public Notice,* 21 FCC Rcd
    15084 (2006).