47550 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 158 / Thursday, August 14, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

DELEGATION STATUS FOR PART 63 STANDARDS—ARIZONA—Continued 

Subpart Description ADEQ 1 MCAQD 2 PDEQ 3 PCAQCD 4

PPPP ............ Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products .................................................. X X ................ .................

QQQQ .......... Wood Building Products ...................................................................................... X X X .................

RRRR ........... Surface Coating of Metal Furniture ..................................................................... X X X .................

SSSS ............ Surface Coating of Metal Coil ............................................................................. X X X .................

TTTT ............. Leather Finishing Operations .............................................................................. X X X .................

UUUU ........... Cellulose Products Manufacturing ...................................................................... X X X .................

VVVV ............ Boat Manufacturing ............................................................................................. X X X .................

WWWW ........ Reinforced Plastics Composites Production ....................................................... X X X .................

XXXX ............ Tire Manufacturing .............................................................................................. X X X .................

YYYY ............ Stationary Combustion Turbines ......................................................................... X X X .................

ZZZZ ............. Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines ..................................... X X ................ .................

AAAAA .......... Lime Manufacturing Plants ................................................................................. X X X .................

BBBBB .......... Semiconductor Manufacturing ............................................................................ X X X .................

CCCCC ......... Coke Oven: Pushing, Quenching and Battery Stacks ........................................ X X X .................

DDDDD ......... Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boiler and Process Heaters ............... X ................ ................ .................

EEEEE .......... Iron and Steel Foundries .................................................................................... X X X .................

FFFFF ........... Integrated Iron and Steel .................................................................................... X X X .................

GGGGG ........ Site Remediation ................................................................................................. X X X .................

HHHHH ......... Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing ................................................................ X X X .................

IIIII ................. Mercury Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants ................................. X X X .................

JJJJJ ............. Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing ............................................. X X X .................

KKKKK .......... Clay Ceramics Manufacturing ............................................................................. X X X .................

LLLLL ............ Asphalt Roofing and Processing ......................................................................... X X X .................

MMMMM ....... Flexible Polyurethane Foam Fabrication Operation ........................................... X X X .................

NNNNN ......... Hydrochloric Acid Production .............................................................................. X X X .................

PPPPP .......... Engine Test Cells/Stands .................................................................................... X X X .................

QQQQQ ........ Friction Products Manufacturing ......................................................................... X X X .................

RRRRR ......... Taconite Iron Ore Processing ............................................................................. X X X .................

SSSSS .......... Refractory Products Manufacturing .................................................................... X X X .................

TTTTT ........... Primary Magnesium Refining .............................................................................. X X X .................

WWWWW ..... Hospital Ethylene Oxide Sterilizers ..................................................................... ................ ................ X .................

YYYYY .......... Area Sources: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities ............................... ................ ................ X .................

ZZZZZ ........... Iron and Steel Foundries Area Sources ............................................................. ................ ................ X .................

BBBBBB ....... Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, and Pipeline Facilities ........ ................ ................ X .................

CCCCCC ...... Gasoline Dispensing Facilities ............................................................................ ................ ................ X .................

DDDDDD ...... Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production Area Sources .......................... ................ ................ X .................

EEEEEE ....... Primary Copper Smelting Area Sources ............................................................. ................ ................ X .................

FFFFFF ........ Secondary Copper Smelting Area Sources ........................................................ ................ ................ X .................

GGGGGG ..... Primary Nonferrous Metals Area Sources—Zinc, Cadmium, and Beryllium ...... ................ ................ X .................

HHHHHH ...... Paint Stripping and Miscellaneous Surface Coating Operations at Area 

Sources.

................ ................ X .................

LLLLLL .......... Acrylic and Modacrylic Fibers Production Area Sources ................................... ................ ................ X .................

MMMMMM .... Carbon Black Production Area Sources ............................................................. ................ ................ X .................

NNNNNN ...... Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources: Chromium Compounds ....................... ................ ................ X .................

OOOOOO ..... Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production and Fabrication Area Sources ........... ................ ................ X .................

PPPPPP ....... Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing Area Sources ................................................ ................ ................ X .................

QQQQQQ ..... Wood Preserving Area Sources ......................................................................... ................ ................ X .................

RRRRRR ...... Clay Ceramics Manufacturing Area Sources ...................................................... ................ ................ X .................

SSSSSS ....... Glass Manufacturing Area Sources .................................................................... ................ ................ X .................

TTTTTT ........ Secondary Nonferrous Metals Processing Area Sources .................................. ................ ................ X .................

1Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 

2 Maricopa County Air Quality Department. 

3Pima County Department of Environmental Quality. 

4Pinal County Air Quality Control District. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E8–18748 Filed 8–13–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 10 

[PS Docket No. 07–287; FCC 08–164] 

Commercial Mobile Alert System 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission or FCC) complies with 

section 602(c) of the Warning, Alert and 

Response Network (WARN) Act by 

adopting rules that require noncommercial educational (NCE) and 

public broadcast television station 

licensees and permittees to install 

equipment and technologies that will 

provide these licensees/permittees with 

the ability to enable the distribution of 

geo-targeted Commercial Mobile Alert 

System (CMAS) alerts to participating 

Commercial Mobile Service (CMS) 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 158 / Thursday, August 14, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 47551 

providers. The Commission’s stated goal 

is to implement section 602(c) in a 

manner consistent with the CMAS 

architecture and technologically neutral 

rules the Commission adopted in the 

CMAS First Report and Order. In this 

document, the Commission also 

complies with section 602(f) of the 

WARN Act by adopting rules requiring 

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. 

DATES: Effective October 14, 2008, 

except for § 10.350 (a)(7) and (b), which 

contain new or modified information 

collection requirements that have not 

been approved by OMB. After OMB has 

approved them, the Commission will 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register announcing the effective date. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffery Goldthorp, Communications 

Systems Analysis Division, Public 

Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, 

Federal Communications Commission at 

(202) 418–1096. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s CMAS 

Second Report and Order in PS Docket 

No. 07–287, adopted and released on 

July 8, 2008. 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., 

in person at 445 12th Street, SW., Room 

CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, via 

telephone at (202) 488–5300, via 

facsimile at (202) 488–5563, or via email at FCC@BCPIWEB.COM. 

Alternative formats (computer diskette, 

large print, audio cassette, and Braille) 

are available to persons with disabilities 

by sending an e-mail to FCC504@fcc.gov 

or calling the Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530, TTY (202) 418–0432. This 

document is also available on the 

Commission’s Web site at http:// 

www.fcc.gov. 

Synopsis of the Order 

1. Section 602(c) requires the 

Commission to require ‘‘licensees and 

permittees of noncommercial 

educational broadcast stations or public 

broadcast stations (as those terms are 

defined in section 397(6) of the 

Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 

397(6))) to install necessary equipment 

and technologies on, or as part of, any 

broadcast television digital signal 

transmitter * * * ’’ Section 397(6) of 

the Communications Act defines the 

terms ‘‘noncommercial educational 

broadcast station’’ and ‘‘public 

broadcast station’’ to mean a television 

or radio broadcast station which: (1) 

Under the rules and regulations of the 

Commission in effect on November 2, 

1978, is eligible to be licensed by the 

Commission as a noncommercial 

educational radio or television 

broadcast station and which is owned 

and operated by a public agency or 

nonprofit private foundation, 

corporation, or association; or (2) is 

owned and operated by a municipality 

and which transmits only 

noncommercial programs for education 

purposes. 

2. In the CMAS NPRM (73 FR 546, 

January 3, 2008) the Commission sought 

comment on the scope of section 602(c). 

The Commission noted that although 

the caption of section 602(c) refers to 

digital television transmissions, it 

mandates that the Commission impose 

any equipment requirements on 

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. The Commission 

sought comment on this definition as it 

relates to section 602(c) of the WARN 

Act, and further asked whether it was a 

fair reading of the language to conclude 

that this section applies only to 

licensees and permittees of NCE and 

public broadcast television stations. The 

Association of Public Television 

Stations (APTS) noted in its comments 

that datacasting and the equipment 

required for it depends on the ‘‘unique 

capabilities of digital television,’’ and 

that accordingly, the section applies 

only to digital television transmission. 

DataFM asserted that section 602(c) 

requires installation of equipment at all 

NCE and public broadcast stations. 

3. The Commission concluded that 

Congress intended the equipment 

requirements set forth in section 602(c) 

of the WARN Act to apply only to 

licensees and permittees of NCE and 

public broadcast television stations and 

not radio stations. Section 602(c) 

requires that the Commission complete 

a proceeding to require licensees and 

permittees of NCE or public broadcast 

stations to install necessary equipment 

and technologies ‘‘on, or as part of, any 

broadcast television digital signal 

transmitter’’ (emphasis added) to enable 

the distribution of geographically 

targeted alerts by CMS providers. This 

language clearly shows that Congress 

intended that these equipment 

requirements apply only to NCE and 

public broadcast television stations. The 

use of the term ‘‘any’’ indicates that if 

a station lacks a television transmitter—

e.g., if the station is a radio broadcast 

station—there is no installation 

requirement. Additionally, APTS has 

indicated that its ability to perform the 

functions contemplated by section 

602(c), enabling the distribution of 

geographically targeted alerts by 

participating CMS providers, is 

dependent on capabilities unique to 

digital television. For these reasons, the 

Commission disagreed with DataFM’s 

conclusion that section 602(c) requires 

installation of equipment at all NCE and 

public broadcast stations. 

Section 602(c)—Necessary Equipment to 

Support CMS Provider Geo-Targeting 

4. In the CMAS NPRM the 

Commission sought comment regarding 

the equipment required by section 

602(c) of the WARN Act. Specifically, 

the Commission asked how this digital 

television-based system would interface 

with the CMAS. The Commission also 

asked how the requirement regarding 

the geo-targeting of CMAS alerts would 

fit into a centrally administered CMAS 

as envisioned by the Commercial 

Mobile Service Alert Advisory 

Committee (CMSAAC). Further, the 

Commision sought comment regarding 

how the digital television-based system 

would implement the message formats 

defined by the ‘‘C’’ interface. 

5. Apart from APTS, no commenters 

addressed the specific type of 

equipment that would need to be 

installed to satisfy section 602(c) of the 

WARN Act. In its comments and reply 

comments, APTS argued that by 

including section 602(c) in the WARN 

Act, Congress required that datacasting, 

and the equipment necessary for its 

implementation, be part of the CMAS. 

APTS further noted that datacasting 

equipment would not be inconsistent 

with the CMAS as recommended by the 

CMSAAC, but rather would be ‘‘one 

component of a comprehensive alert 

and warning system that includes 

necessary redundancies to ensure that 

the public receives essential information 

under any circumstances.’’ Such 

redundancies, argued APTS, would 

enhance the effectiveness and security 

of the CMAS. 

6. APTS listed four types of 

equipment it says NCE/public broadcast 

television stations would need to install 

in order to transmit geo-targeted alerts 

to participating CMS providers. In 

listing this equipment, APTS 

contemplated that the Public 

Broadcasting System (PBS) would 

receive CMAS alerts directly from the 

Alert Gateway and transmit the CMAS 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
47552 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 158 / Thursday, August 14, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

alert data via national satellite feed to 

NCE/public broadcast television 

stations. NCE/public broadcast 

television stations would then transmit 

the geo-targeted CMAS alerts via their 

digital television transmitters to CMS 

Provider Gateways located in their 

television service areas, providing a 

redundant, alternate method of delivery 

of CMAS alerts to CMS Provider 

Gateways. APTS described the 

equipment needed as follows: 

• ‘‘Geo-targeting Systems.’’ According 

to APTS, this equipment would have 

the capability to activate those NCE and 

public broadcast digital television 

transmitters necessary to transmit the 

CMAS alert to areas in which CMS 

Provider Gateways are located, while all 

other NCE and public broadcast digital 

television transmitters would ignore the 

CMAS alert transmission. 

• ‘‘Groomers.’’ APTS stated that this 

equipment (also referred to as ‘‘dynamic 

bitrate capability’’) would automatically 

adjust a selected program service’s 

video bitrate to make room for CMAS 

alert data when those data are present. 

APTS stated that such a capability 

would allow the licensee to have full 

use of its transmission capability when 

CMAS alert data are not present. APTS 

argued that installation of this 

equipment is necessary for each 

licensee’s master control (with 

redundancy) as well as at each 

licensee’s remote transmitter sites (also 

with redundancy). 

• ‘‘Data Receivers.’’ APTS asserted 

that this equipment is necessary for the 

stations to receive the CMAS data from 

PBS. APTS proposed that each master 

control and each remote transmitter 

have redundant receivers. APTS also 

proposed that small satellite receive 

antennas be installed for each remote 

transmitter should the licensee’s data 

distribution via its studio-to-transmitter 

links be unavailable. 

• PBS Equipment. Additionally, 

according to APTS, PBS will require 

equipment to route the CMAS data 

around its other functions. APTS 

reported that PBS will receive the 

CMAS data from appropriate origination 

point(s), process and bridge the data 

around the master control systems, and 

transmit the data via satellite to all 

licensees, remote transmitters, and other 

selected receive locations. APTS stated 

that PBS will install redundant systems 

at both its main Network Operations 

Center (NOC) and its Disaster Recover 

Site (DRS), as well as install both data 

security and physical security at both 

locations. 

• Back-up Power Equipment. Finally, 

APTS recommended that licensees of 

NCE and public broadcast television 

stations be required to install back-up 

power equipment. 

7. In order for NCE/public broadcast 

television station licensees/permittees 

to enable geo-targeting by participating 

CMS providers, they must be able to 

interface with the CMAS in a manner 

consistent with the rules adopted in the 

CMAS First Report and Order (73 FR 

43099, July 24, 2008). According to the 

Commission, the most appropriate way 

for them to do this would be to install 

equipment that will allow them to 

receive CMAS alerts from the Alert 

Gateway over an interface and then to 

transmit such alerts to participating 

CMS providers. Under such an 

approach, licensees and permittees of 

NCE/public broadcast television stations 

would provide a redundant path by 

which participating CMS providers 

could receive geo-targeted alerts. 

Accordingly, the Commission required 

licensees and permittees of NCE/public 

broadcast television stations to install 

necessary equipment and technologies 

at, or as part of, their digital television 

transmitters that will provide them with 

the capability to receive CMAS alerts 

sent from the Alert Gateway over a 

secure interface and to transmit the 

alerts to the CMS Provider Gateways of 

participating CMS providers. 

8. As noted above, APTS 

contemplated that licensees and 

permittees of NCE/public broadcast 

television stations will use datacasting 

technology to receive and deliver CMAS 

alerts to participating CMS providers. 

While the Commission believed that 

datacasting technology and the 

associated equipment described above is 

one way of meeting this requirement, it 

did not want to foreclose other DTV 

transmitter-based technologies that may 

exist in the future. Accordingly, in 

keeping with the technologically neutral 

policy articulated in the CMAS First 

Report and Order, the Commission’s 

rules will allow, but not require, the use 

of datacasting to fulfill the requirements 

of section 602(c) and the Commission’s 

rules, as long as NCE and public 

broadcast television station licensees 

and permittees do so in a manner 

consistent with the Commission’s 

CMAS rules, including the CMAS 

architecture previously adopted in the 

CMAS First Report and Order. The 

Commission also recognized APTS’s 

proposed use of datacasting assumes 

that PBS will provide a feed from the 

Alert Gateway to the NCE/public 

broadcast station digital television 

transmitters and associated receivers. 

For purposes of this Order, the 

Commission assumed that PBS or a 

similarly situated entity will provide the 

interface feed between the Alert 

Gateway and the NCE/public broadcast 

television stations. PBS or a similarly 

situated entity must work with the Alert 

Gateway Administrator to establish the 

necessary interface by which CMAS 

alerts will be sent to NCE and public 

broadcast television stations. 

9. The Commission further noted that 

section 606(b) of the WARN Act 

provides that NCE and public broadcast 

station licensees and permittees shall be 

compensated by the Assistant Secretary 

of Commerce for Communications and 

Information for reasonable costs 

incurred in complying with the 

requirements imposed pursuant to 

section 602(c) of the WARN Act. The 

Commission noted that some, if not all, 

NCE and public broadcast television 

stations may need this funding to 

comply with the equipment 

requirements the Commission adopted 

in the CMAS Second Report and Order. 

Accordingly, the Commission required 

NCE and public broadcast television 

station licensees and permittees to 

install the required equipment no later 

than 18 months from the date of receipt 

of the funding permitted under section 

606(b) of the WARN Act or 18 months 

from the effective date of these rules, 

whichever is later. The Commission 

concluded that this should give NCE 

and public broadcast television stations 

adequate time to obtain any necessary 

funding, determine the specific 

equipment needed and acquire and 

install that equipment. 

10. According to the Commission, this 

approach satisfies section 602(c) and 

serves the public interest in that it 

requires NCE and public broadcast 

television station licensees and 

permittees to install necessary 

equipment on, or as part of, their digital 

television transmitters to enable geotargeting by participating CMS 

providers. The Commission concluded 

that its approach also ensures that NCE 

and public broadcast television station 

licensees and permittees fulfill this 

requirement in a way that complements 

the CMAS architecture envisioned by 

the CMSAAC and rules the Commission 

adopted in the CMAS First Report and 

Order. In adopting these rules in this 

Second Report and Order, the 

Commission provides participating CMS 

providers with a redundant, alternate 

distribution path by which they may 

choose to receive geo-targeted CMAS 

alerts from the Alert Gateway. As such, 

this action will provide an increased 

level of redundancy to the CMAS 

architecture. 

Section 602(f)—Testing 

11. Section 602(f) of the WARN Act 

states that the Commission ‘‘shall 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 158 / Thursday, August 14, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 47553 

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.’’ In the CMAS NPRM, the 

Commission sought comment on what 

type of testing regime the Commission 

should require. The Commission noted 

that the CMSAAC proposed that, in 

order to assure 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. The Commission sought 

comment on these proposed procedures, 

and asked whether they satisfied the 

requirements of section 602(f) of the 

WARN Act. The Commission also 

sought comment on whether there 

should be some form of testing of the 

CMAS that sends test messages to the 

mobile device and the subscriber. The 

Commission noted that it had a testing 

regime in place for the Emergency Alert 

System (EAS), and asked whether the 

EAS testing rules offered a model for 

CMAS testing. The Commission noted 

that in the EAS rules, internal system 

tests are combined with tests that are 

heard (or in some cases seen) by the 

public, and asked whether some similar 

form of test that alerts the public should 

be required for the CMAS. The 

Commission asked how subscribers 

should be made aware of such tests if 

testing were to involve subscribers. 

12. Commenters generally supported 

the testing regime recommended by the 

CMSAAC. They did not object to testing 

during development and internal 

testing, and assumed that some sort of 

logging of results will be part of the 

ultimate testing process. For example, 

the California Public Utilities 

Commission (CAPUC) supported the 

recommendations of the CMSAAC and 

endorsed thorough testing before 

deployment. Similarly, the National 

Emergency Numbering Association 

(NENA) endorsed testing and noted that 

there needs to be ample time devoted to 

testing the CMAS before its deployment. 

According to the Wireless RERC, there 

is a need to develop a thorough testing 

regime to ensure that the CMAS will be 

accessible and inclusive of all people, 

including those with disabilities and 

those who do not speak English. 

13. Although all parties that 

commented on the testing issue agree 

that a thorough testing regime is 

essential for an effective CMAS, the 

parties differ regarding the timing of 

tests, or whether testing should affect 

end-users. For example, T-Mobile, 

Nokia, and Alltel all supported testing, 

but recommended that the Commission 

follow the CMSAAC recommendations 

that end-to-end testing be defined as 

testing between the Alert initiator and 

the Alert Gateway, and that there be no 

testing that involves the end-user. 

According to Nokia, end-user testing 

would cause unnecessary network use 

and would result in customer confusion. 

AT&T agreed that any CMAS testing 

regime should follow the CMSAAC 

recommendations and asserted that ‘‘the 

EAS testing rules do not provide an 

effective model for testing the CMAS.’’

In its reply comments, Interstate 

Wireless supported testing to end-user 

‘‘test units.’’ Similarly, by supporting 

the EAS testing regime as a model for 

testing the CMAS, CAPUC inherently 

supported testing to end-users. CellCast 

recommended a separate rulemaking for 

testing, and believes that testing to the 

end-user is appropriate. In its reply 

comments, CellCast also recommended 

that the Commission adopt a monthly 

end-to-end testing requirement. 

14. In ex parte comments submitted 

on May 23, 2008, CTIA submitted a 

proposal for testing requirements that 

were developed together with Alltel, 

AT&T, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile and 

Verizon Wireless. Under CTIA’s 

proposal, participating CMS providers 

would participate in monthly testing of 

the CMAS system. The monthly test 

would be initiated by the federallyadministered Alert Gateway at a set day 

and time and would be distributed 

through the commercial mobile service 

provider infrastructure and by 

participating CMS providers over their 

networks. Upon receipt of the test 

message, participating CMS providers 

would have a 24-hour window to 

distribute the test message in their 

CMAS coverage areas in a manner that 

avoids congestion or other adverse 

effects on their networks. Under CTIA’s 

proposal, mobile devices supporting 

CMAS would not be required to support 

reception of the required monthly test 

and participating CMS providers would 

not be required to deliver required 

monthly tests to subscriber handsets, 

but a participating CMS provider may 

provide mobile devices with the 

capability for receiving these tests. 

CTIA’s testing proposal also featured 

regular testing from the ‘‘C’’ interface to 

ensure the ability of the Federal Alert 

Gateway to communicate with the CMS 

Provider Gateway. 

15. The Commission agreed with the 

CMSAAC and most commenters that 

periodic testing of all components of the 

CMAS, including the CMS provider’s 

components would serve the public 

interest and is consistent with the 

WARN Act. Accordingly, as 

recommended by CTIA and several CMS 

providers, the Commission will require 

each participating CMS provider to 

participate in monthly testing of CMAS 

message delivery to the CMS Provider 

Gateway and within the CMS providers’

infrastructure. CMS providers must 

receive these required monthly test 

messages and must also distribute those 

test messages to their coverage area 

within 24 hours of receipt by the CMS 

Provider Gateway. CMS providers may 

determine how this delivery will be 

accomplished and may stagger the 

delivery of the required monthly test 

message over time and over geographic 

subsets of their coverage area to manage 

the traffic loads and accommodate 

maintenance windows. Participating 

CMS providers must keep an automated 

log of required monthly test messages 

received by the CMS Provider Gateway 

from the Federal Alert Gateway. 

16. CMAS required monthly tests will 

be initiated only by the Federal Alert 

Gateway Administrator using a defined 

test message; real event codes and alert 

messages may not be used for test 

messages. A participating CMS provider 

may forego these monthly tests if preempted by actual alert traffic or in the 

event of unforeseen conditions in the 

CMS provider’s infrastructure, but shall 

indicate this condition by a response 

code to the Federal Alert Gateway. The 

Commission will not require that CMS 

providers make available mobile devices 

that support reception of the required 

monthly test. The Commission will, 

however, allow CMS providers to 

choose to do so. CMS providers that 

choose not to make the required 

monthly test available to subscribers 

must find alternate methods of ensuring 

that subscriber handsets will be able to 

receive CMAS alert messages. 

17. The Commision also adopted 

CTIA’s recommendation that, in 

addition to the required monthly test, 

there should be periodic testing of the 

interface between the Federal Alert 

Gateway and each CMS Provider 

Gateway to ensure the availability and 

viability of both gateway functions. 

Additional periodic testing to ensure 

that the Federal Alert Gateway is able to 

deliver CMAS alerts to the CMS 

Provider Gateway will further 

strengthen the reliability of the CMAS. 

CMS Provider Gateways must send an 

acknowledgement upon receipt of these 

interface test messages. CMS providers 

must comply with these testing 

requirements no later than the date of 

deployment of the CMAS, which is the 

date that CMAS development is 

complete and the CMAS is functional 

and capable of providing alerts to the 

public. All of these testing requirements 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
47554 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 158 / Thursday, August 14, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

are consistent with the testing 

procedures advocated by CTIA. The 

Commission declined to adopt some of 

the specific testing requirements that 

CTIA suggested, such as designating a 

specific day and time for the required 

monthly test and defining the exact 

parameters and content of the required 

monthly test, the expiration time for the 

required monthly test, and specific 

details of the periodic tests of the 

interface between the Federal Alert 

Gateway and participating CMS 

Provider Gateways. Because the CMAS 

must still undergo significant 

development and the Federal Alert 

Aggregator and Gateway have just 

recently been identified, the 

Commission believed it would be 

premature to adopt such specific testing 

requirements at this time. 

Procedural Matters 

A. Final Paperwork Reduction Act 

Analysis 

18. This Second Report and Order 

adopts a new or revised information 

collection requirement subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), Public Law 104–13. This 

requirement will be submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under section 3507 of 

the PRA. The Commission also will 

publish a separate notice in the Federal 

Register inviting comment on the new 

or revised information collection 

requirements adopted in this 

proceeding. The requirement will not go 

into effect until OMB has approved it 

and the Commission has published a 

notice announcing the effective date of 

the information collection requirement. 

In addition, the Commission noted that 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), 

it will seek specific comment on how 

the Commission might ‘‘further reduce 

the information collection burden for 

small business concerns with fewer than 

25 employees.’’

B. Report to Congress 

19. The Commission will send a copy 

of the CMAS Second Report and Order 

in a report to be sent to Congress and 

the Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

20. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 

PSHSB Docket 07–287 (CMAS NPRM). 

The Commission sought written public 

comments on the proposals in the 

CMAS NPRM, including comment on 

the IRFA. Comments on the IRFA were 

to have been explicitly identified as 

being in response to the IRFA and were 

required to be filed by the same 

deadlines as that established in section 

IV of the CMAS NPRM for other 

comments to the CMAS NPRM. The 

Commission sent a copy of the CMAS 

NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). In 

addition, the CMAS NPRM and IRFA 

were published in the Federal Register. 

This present Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA. 

21. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Order. Section 602(c) of the WARN Act 

requires the Commission to, ‘‘[w]ithin 

90 days after the date on which the 

Commission adopts relevant technical 

standards based on recommendations of 

the Commercial Mobile Service Alert 

Advisory Committee . . . complete a 

proceeding to require licensees and 

permittees of noncommercial 

educational broadcast stations or public 

broadcast stations (as those terms are 

defined in section 397(6) of the 

Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 

397(6))) to 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 

commercial mobile service providers 

that have elected to transmit emergency 

alerts under this section.’’ Although the 

CMAS NPRM solicited comment on 

issues related to section 602(a) (CMAS 

Technical requirements) and 602(b) 

(CMS provider election to the CMAS), 

this Second Report and Order only 

addresses issues raised by sections 

602(c) and 602(f) of the WARN Act. 

Accordingly, this FRFA only addressees 

the manner in which any commenters to 

the IRFA addressed the Commission’s 

adoption of rules regarding NCE and 

public television licensee’s installation 

of digital television transmission towers 

retransmission equipment, as required 

by section 602(c) of the WARN Act, and 

the Commission’s adoption of rules for 

testing the CMAS as required by section 

602(f) of the WARN Act. 

22. This Second Report and Order 

adopts further rules necessary to enable 

CMS alerting capability for CMS 

providers who elect to transmit 

emergency alerts to their subscribers. 

Specifically, the Order adopts rules that 

require NCE and public television 

stations to install on, or as part of, any 

broadcast television digital signal 

transmitter equipment to enable the 

distribution of geographically targeted 

alerts by commercial mobile service 

providers that have elected to transmit 

CMAS alerts. This equipment will 

interface with the CMAS Alert Gateway 

and enable the transmission of the 

national CMAS alert feed from the 

CMAS Alert Gateway to all covered 

broadcast television digital towers. As 

the Commission discussed in greater 

detail below, it is necessary that NCE 

and public broadcast television stations 

install this equipment to further enable 

the distribution of geographically 

targeted alerts by CMS providers that 

participate in the CMAS. The 

installation and operation of this 

equipment is consistent with the 

technologically neutral requirements 

adopted in the CMAS First Report and 

Order. 

23–24. Summary of Significant Issues 

Raised by Public Comments in Response 

to the IRFA. There were no comments 

filed that specifically addressed the 

IRFA. The only commenter that 

explicitly identified itself as a small 

business was Interstate Wireless, Inc., 

whose comments addressed only the 

technical requirements and protocols 

relevant to section 602(a) of the WARN 

Act. Interstate Wireless Inc.’s comments 

were addressed in the CMAS First 

Report and Order. 

25. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which 

Rules Will Apply. 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). 

26. 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 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 158 / Thursday, August 14, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 47555 

category, the Commission 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, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of wireless 

firms can be considered small. 

27. Cellular Radiotelephone 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.’’

Accordingly, the pertinent data for this 

category is contained within the prior 

Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 

(except Satellite) category. For the 

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 category and 

the available data, the Commission 

estimated that the majority of wireless 

firms can be considered small. 

28. Auctions. Initially, the 

Commission notes 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. 

29. Broadband Personal 

Communications Service. The 

broadband Personal Communications 

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. 

30. 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. 

31. Wireless Communications Service. 

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 service (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. 

32. 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 Economic Area (MEA) 

licenses for each of two spectrum blocks 

commenced on September 6, 2000, and 

closed on September 21, 2000. Of the 

104 licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were 

sold to nine bidders. Five of these 

bidders were small businesses that won 

a total of 26 licenses. A second auction 

of remaining 700 MHz Guard Bands 

licenses commenced on February 13, 

2001, and closed on February 21, 2001. 

All eight of the licenses auctioned were 

sold to three bidders. One of these 

bidders was a small business that won 

a total of two licenses. Subsequently, in 

the 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 

the Commission reorganized the 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
47556 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 158 / Thursday, August 14, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

licenses pursuant to an agreement 

among most of the licensees, resulting 

in a spectral relocation of the first set of 

paired spectrum block licenses, and an 

elimination of the second set of paired 

spectrum block licenses (many of which 

were already vacant, reclaimed by the 

Commission from Nextel). A single 

licensee that did not participate in the 

agreement was grandfathered in the 

initial spectral location for its two 

licenses in the second set of paired 

spectrum blocks. Accordingly, at this 

time there are 54 licenses in the 700 

MHz Guard Bands. 

33. 700 MHz Band Commercial 

Licenses. There is 80 megahertz of nonGuard Band spectrum in the 700 MHz 

Band that is designated for commercial 

use: 698–757, 758–763, 776–787, and 

788–793 MHz Bands. With one 

exception, the Commission adopted 

criteria for defining two groups of small 

businesses for purposes of determining 

their eligibility for bidding credits at 

auction. These two categories are: (1) 

‘‘Small business,’’ which is defined as 

an entity that has attributed average 

annual gross revenues that do not 

exceed $15 million during the preceding 

three years; and (2) ‘‘very small 

business,’’ which is defined as an entity 

with attributed average annual gross 

revenues that do not exceed $40 million 

for the preceding three years. In Block 

C of the Lower 700 MHz Band (710–716 

MHz and 740–746 MHz), which was 

licensed on the basis of 734 Cellular 

Market Areas, the Commission adopted 

a third criterion for determining 

eligibility for bidding credits: an 

‘‘entrepreneur,’’ which is defined as an 

entity that, together with its affiliates 

and controlling principals, has average 

gross revenues that are not more than $3 

million for the preceding three years. 

The SBA has approved these small size 

standards. 

34. An auction of 740 licenses for 

Blocks C (710–716 MHz and 740–746 

MHz) and D (716–722 MHz) of the 

Lower 700 MHz Band commenced on 

August 27, 2002, and closed on 

September 18, 2002. Of the 740 licenses 

available for auction, 484 licenses were 

sold to 102 winning bidders. Seventytwo of the winning bidders claimed 

small business, very small business, or 

entrepreneur status and won a total of 

329 licenses. A second auction 

commenced on May 28, 2003, and 

closed on June 13, 2003, and included 

256 licenses: five EAG licenses and 251 

CMA licenses. Seventeen winning 

bidders claimed small or very small 

business status and won 60 licenses, 

and nine winning bidders claimed 

entrepreneur status and won 154 

licenses. 

35. The remaining 62 megahertz of 

commercial spectrum is currently 

scheduled for auction on January 24, 

2008. As explained above, bidding 

credits for all of these licenses will be 

available to ‘‘small businesses’’ and 

‘‘very small businesses.’’

36. Advanced Wireless Services. In 

the AWS–1 Report and Order, the 

Commission adopted rules that affect 

applicants who wish to provide service 

in the 1710–1755 MHz and 2110–2155 

MHz bands. The Commission did not 

know precisely the type of service that 

a licensee in these bands might seek to 

provide. Nonetheless, the Commission 

anticipated that the services that will be 

deployed in these bands may have 

capital requirements comparable to 

those in the broadband Personal 

Communications Service (PCS), and that 

the licensees in these bands will be 

presented with issues and costs similar 

to those presented to broadband PCS 

licensees. Further, at the time the 

broadband PCS service was established, 

it was similarly anticipated that it 

would facilitate the introduction of a 

new generation of service. Therefore, 

the AWS–1 Report and Order adopts the 

same small business size definition that 

the Commission adopted for the 

broadband PCS service and that the SBA 

approved. In particular, the AWS–1 

Report and Order defines a ‘‘small 

business’’ as an entity with average 

annual gross revenues for the preceding 

three years not exceeding $40 million, 

and a ‘‘very small business’’ as an entity 

with average annual gross revenues for 

the preceding three years not exceeding 

$15 million. The AWS–1 Report and 

Order also provides small businesses 

with a bidding credit of 15 percent and 

very small businesses with a bidding 

credit of 25 percent. 

37. Common Carrier Paging. As noted, 

the SBA has developed a small business 

size standard for wireless firms within 

the broad economic census category of 

‘‘Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 

(except Satellite).’’ Under this category, 

the SBA deems a business to be 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, the Commission estimates 

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, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of wireless 

firms can be considered small. Thus, 

under this category, the majority of 

firms can be considered small. 

38. In the Paging Third Report and 

Order, the Commission developed a 

small business size standard 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’’ is an 

entity that, together with its affiliates 

and controlling principals, has average 

gross revenues not exceeding $15 

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 $3 

million for the preceding three years. 

The SBA has approved these small 

business size standards. An auction of 

Metropolitan Economic Area licenses 

commenced on February 24, 2000, and 

closed on March 2, 2000. Of the 985 

licenses auctioned, 440 were sold. Fiftyseven companies claiming small 

business status won. Also, according to 

Commission data, 365 carriers reported 

that they were engaged in the provision 

of paging and messaging services. Of 

those, the Commission estimates that 

360 are small, under the SBA-approved 

small business size standard. 

39. Wireless Communications Service. 

This service can be used for fixed, 

mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio 

broadcasting satellite uses. The 

Commission established small business 

size standards for the wireless 

communications service (WCS) auction. 

A ‘‘small business’’ is an entity with 

average gross revenues of $40 million 

for each of the three preceding years, 

and a ‘‘very small business’’ is an entity 

with average gross revenues of $15 

million for each of the three preceding 

years. The SBA has approved these 

small business size standards. The 

Commission auctioned geographic area 

licenses in the WCS service. In the 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 158 / Thursday, August 14, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 47557 

auction, there were seven winning 

bidders that qualified as ‘‘very small 

business’’ entities, and one that 

qualified as a ‘‘small business’’ entity. 

40. Wireless Communications 

Equipment Manufacturers. While these 

entities are merely indirectly affected by 

the Commission’s action, the 

Commission described them to achieve 

a fuller record. The Census Bureau 

defines this category as follows: ‘‘This 

industry comprises establishments 

primarily engaged in manufacturing 

radio and television broadcast and 

wireless communications equipment. 

Examples of products made by these 

establishments are: transmitting and 

receiving antennas, cable television 

equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, 

cellular phones, mobile 

communications equipment, and radio 

and television studio and broadcasting 

equipment.’’ The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for Radio 

and Television Broadcasting and 

Wireless Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing, which is: all such firms 

having 750 or fewer employees. 

According to Census Bureau data for 

2002, there were a total of 1,041 

establishments in this category that 

operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 1,010 had employment of under 

500, and an additional 13 had 

employment of 500 to 999. Thus, under 

this size standard, the majority of firms 

can be considered small. 

41. Radio and Television 

Broadcasting and Wireless 

Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing. The Census Bureau 

defines this category as follows: ‘‘This 

industry comprises establishments 

primarily engaged in manufacturing 

radio and television broadcast and 

wireless communications equipment. 

Examples of products made by these 

establishments are: transmitting and 

receiving antennas, cable television 

equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, 

cellular phones, mobile 

communications equipment, and radio 

and television studio and broadcasting 

equipment.’’ The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for Radio 

and Television Broadcasting and 

Wireless Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing, which is: all such firms 

having 750 or fewer employees. 

According to Census Bureau data for 

2002, there were a total of 1,041 

establishments in this category that 

operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 1,010 had employment of under 

500, and an additional 13 had 

employment of 500 to 999. Thus, under 

this size standard, the majority of firms 

can be considered small. 

42. Software Publishers. While these 

entities are merely indirectly affected by 

the Commission’s action, it is describing 

them to achieve a fuller record. These 

companies may design, develop or 

publish software and may provide other 

support services to software purchasers, 

such as providing documentation or 

assisting in installation. The companies 

may also design software to meet the 

needs of specific users. The SBA has 

developed a small business size 

standard of $23 million or less in 

average annual receipts for the category 

of Software Publishers. For Software 

Publishers, Census Bureau data for 2002 

indicate that there were 6,155 firms in 

the category that operated for the entire 

year. Of these, 7,633 had annual receipts 

of under $10 million, and an additional 

403 firms had receipts of between $10 

million and $24, 999,999. For providers 

of Custom Computer Programming 

Services, the Census Bureau data 

indicate that there were 32,269 firms 

that operated for the entire year. Of 

these, 31,416 had annual receipts of 

under $10 million, and an additional 

565 firms had receipts of between $10 

million and $24,999,999. Consequently, 

the Commission estimates that the 

majority of the firms in this category are 

small entities that may be affected by 

the Commission’s action. 

43. NCE and Public Broadcast 

Stations. The Census Bureau defines 

this category as follows: ‘‘This industry 

comprises establishments primarily 

engaged in broadcasting images together 

with sound. These establishments 

operate television broadcasting studios 

and facilities for the programming and 

transmission of programs to the public.’’

The SBA has created a small business 

size standard for Television 

Broadcasting entities, which is: such 

firms having $13 million or less in 

annual receipts. According to 

Commission staff review of the BIA 

Publications, Inc., Master Access 

Television Analyzer Database as of May 

16, 2003, about 814 of the 1,220 

commercial television stations in the 

United States had revenues of $12 

(twelve) million or less. The 

Commission notes, however, that in 

assessing whether a business concern 

qualifies as small under the above 

definition, business (control) affiliations 

must be included. The Commission’s 

estimate, therefore, likely overstates the 

number of small entities that might be 

affected by the Commission’s action, 

because the revenue figure on which it 

is based does not include or aggregate 

revenues from affiliated companies. 

44. In addition, an element of the 

definition of ‘‘small business’’ is that the 

entity not be dominant in its field of 

operation. The Commission is unable at 

this time to define or quantify the 

criteria that would establish whether a 

specific television station is dominant 

in its field of operation. Accordingly, 

the estimate of small businesses to 

which rules may apply do not exclude 

any television station from the 

definition of a small business on this 

basis and are therefore over-inclusive to 

that extent. Also as noted, an additional 

element of the definition of ‘‘small 

business’’ is that the entity must be 

independently owned and operated. 

The Commission notes that it is difficult 

at times to assess these criteria in the 

context of media entities and the 

Commission’s estimates of small 

businesses to which they apply may be 

over-inclusive to this extent. There are 

also 2,117 low power television stations 

(LPTV). Given the nature of this service, 

the Commission will presume that all 

LPTV licensees qualify as small entities 

under the above SBA small business 

size standard. 

45. The Commission has, under SBA 

regulations, estimated the number of 

licensed NCE television stations to be 

380. The Commission notes, however, 

that, in assessing whether a business 

concern qualifies as small under the 

above definition, business (control) 

affiliations must be included. The 

Commission’s estimate, therefore, likely 

overstates the number of small entities 

that might be affected by the 

Commission’s action, because the 

revenue figure on which it is based does 

not include or aggregate revenues from 

affiliated companies. The Commission 

does not compile and otherwise does 

not have access to information on the 

revenue of NCE stations that would 

permit it to determine how many such 

stations would qualify as small entities. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

46. This Report and Order may 

contain new information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public 

Law 104–13. If the Commission 

determines that the Report and Order 

contains collection subject to the PRA, 

it will be submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under section 3507(d) of the PRA 

at an appropriate time. At that time, 

OMB, the general public, and other 

Federal agencies will be invited to 

comment on the new or modified 

information collection requirements 

contained in this proceeding. In 

addition, the Commission notes that 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
47558 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 158 / Thursday, August 14, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), 

the Commission previously sought 

specific comment on how the 

Commission might ‘‘further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. 

Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

47. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in developing its 

approach, which may include the 

following four alternatives (among 

others): ‘‘(1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance and reporting requirements 

under the rule for such small entities; 

(3) the use of performance rather than 

design standards; and (4) an exemption 

from coverage of the rule, or any part 

thereof, for such small entities.’’

48. As noted in paragraph 2 above, 

this Second Report and Order deals only 

with the WARN Act section 602 (c) 

requirement that the Commission 

complete a proceeding to require 

licensees and permittees of 

noncommercial educational broadcast 

stations or public broadcast stations to 

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 

commercial mobile service providers 

that have elected to transmit emergency 

alerts under this section.’’ Many of the 

entities affected by this Second Report 

and Order are the member stations for 

the Association of Public Broadcasters 

(APTS), which was a member of the 

CMSAAC. Further, in its formation of 

the CMSAAC, the Commission made 

sure to include representatives of small 

businesses among the advisory 

committee members. The CMAS NPRM 

also sought comment on a number of 

alternatives to the recommendations of 

the CMSAAC, such as the Digital EAS. 

In its consideration of this and other 

alternatives the CMSAAC 

recommendations, the Commission has 

attempted to impose minimal regulation 

on small entities to the extent consistent 

with the goal of advancing its public 

safety mission by adopting technical 

requirements, standards and protocols 

for a CMAS that CMS providers would 

elect to provide alerts and warnings to 

their customers. The Commission’s 

action in this Second Report and Order 

neither requires nor forecloses the exact 

outcome requested by the entities most 

affected, as represented by APTS. 

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

49. None. 

Report to Congress 

50. The Commission will send a copy 

of the CMAS Second Report and Order, 

including this FRFA, in a report to be 

sent to Congress pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act. In addition, 

the Commission will send a copy of the 

Second Report and Order, including this 

FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the 

Second Report and Order and FRFA is 

also hereby published in the Federal 

Register. 

Ordering Clauses 

51. It is ordered, that pursuant to 

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, this 

Second Report and Order is hereby 

adopted. The rules adopted in this 

Second Report and Order shall become 

effective October 14, 2008, except that 

§ 10.350 (a)(7) and (b) contain new or 

modified information collection 

requirements which will not become 

effective prior to OMB approval. 

52. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Second Report and Order, including 

the Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 10 

Alert and Warning, Commercial 

Mobile Alert System, noncommercial 

educational broadcast stations, public 

broadcast stations. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Final Rules 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR chapter 1 

part 10 as follows: 

PART 10—COMMERCIAL MOBILE 

ALERT SYSTEM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 10 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 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. 

■ 2. Add a new § 10.340 to subpart C to 

read as follows: 

§ 10.340 Digital Television Transmission 

Towers Retransmission Capability. 

Licensees and permittees of 

noncommercial educational broadcast 

television stations (NCE) or public 

broadcast television stations (to the 

extent such stations fall within the 

scope of those terms as defined in 

section 397(6) of the Communications 

Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 397(6))) are 

required to install on, or as part of, any 

broadcast television digital signal 

transmitter, equipment to enable the 

distribution of geographically targeted 

alerts by commercial mobile service 

providers that have elected to transmit 

CMAS alerts. Such equipment and 

technologies must have the capability of 

allowing licensees and permittees of 

NCE and public broadcast television 

stations to receive CMAS alerts from the 

Alert Gateway over an alternate, secure 

interface and then to transmit such 

CMAS alerts to CMS Provider Gateways 

of participating CMS providers. This 

equipment must be installed no later 

than eighteen months from the date of 

receipt of funding permitted under 

section 606(b) of the WARN Act or 18 

months from the effective date of these 

rules, whichever is later. 

■ 3. Add a new § 10.350 to subpart C to 

read as follows: 

§ 10.350 CMAS Testing Requirements. 

This section specifies the testing that 

will be required, no later than the date 

of deployment of the CMAS, of CMAS 

components. 

(a) Required Monthly Tests. Testing of 

the CMAS from the Federal Alert 

Gateway to each Participating CMS 

Provider’s infrastructure shall be 

conducted monthly. 

(1) A Participating CMS Provider’s 

Gateway shall support the ability to 

receive a required monthly test (RMT) 

message initiated by the Federal Alert 

Gateway Administrator. 

(2) Participating CMS Providers shall 

schedule the distribution of the RMT to 

their CMAS coverage area over a 24 

hour period commencing upon receipt 

of the RMT at the CMS Provider 

Gateway. Participating CMS Providers 

shall determine the method to distribute 

the RMTs, and may schedule over the 

24 hour period the delivery of RMTs 

over geographic subsets of their 

coverage area to manage traffic loads 

and to accommodate maintenance 

windows. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 158 / Thursday, August 14, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 47559 

(3) A Participating CMS Provider may 

forego an RMT if the RMT is pre-empted 

by actual alert traffic or if an unforeseen 

condition in the CMS Provider 

infrastructure precludes distribution of 

the RMT. A Participating CMS Provider 

Gateway shall indicate such an 

unforeseen condition by a response 

code to the Federal Alert Gateway. 

(4) The RMT shall be initiated only by 

the Federal Alert Gateway 

Administrator using a defined test 

message. Real event codes or alert 

messages shall not be used for the 

CMAS RMT message. 

(5) A Participating CMS Provider shall 

distribute an RMT within its CMAS 

coverage area within 24 hours of receipt 

by the CMS Provider Gateway unless 

pre-empted by actual alert traffic or 

unable due to an unforeseen condition. 

(6) A Participating CMS Provider may 

provide mobile devices with the 

capability of receiving RMT messages. 

(7) A Participating CMS Provider 

must retain an automated log of RMT 

messages received by the CMS Provider 

Gateway from the Federal Alert 

Gateway. 

(b) Periodic C Interface Testing. In 

addition to the required monthly tests, 

a Participating CMS Provider must 

participate in periodic testing of the 

interface between the Federal Alert 

Gateway and its CMS Provider Gateway. 

This periodic interface testing is not 

intended to test the CMS Provider’s 

infrastructure nor the mobile devices 

but rather is required to ensure the 

availability/viability of both gateway 

functions. Each CMS Provider Gateway 

shall send an acknowledgement to the 

Federal Alert Gateway upon receipt of 

such an interface test message. Real 

event codes or alert messages shall not 

be used for this periodic interface 

testing. 

[FR Doc. E8–18144 Filed 8–13–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 071106673–8011–02] 

RIN 0648–XJ59 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Reallocation of Atka 

Mackerel in the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area; 

Correction 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: On July 30, 2008, NMFS 

published a revised Table 4 that 

reallocated Atka mackerel from the 2008 

incidental catch allowance to the B 

season allowance for the Amendment 80 

cooperative in the Eastern Aleutian 

District and the Bering Sea subarea of 

the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands 

management area (BSAI). Table 4 of that 

document contains the final 2008 and 

2009 BSAI Atka mackerel allocations. 

That table contained inadvertent 

calculation errors that are corrected in 

this rule. 

DATES: Effective August 14, 2008, 

through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Furuness, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Federal 

regulations at 50 CFR part 679 

implement the Fishery Management 

Plan (FMP) and govern the groundfish 

fisheries in the BSAI. The North Pacific 

Fishery Management Council (Council) 

prepared the FMP, and NMFS approved 

it under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act). General 

regulations governing U.S. fisheries also 

appear at 50 CFR part 600. 

On July 30, 2008 (73 FR 44173) NMFS 

published a revised Table 4 that 

reallocated Atka mackerel from the 2008 

incidental catch allowance to the B 

season allowance for the Amendment 80 

cooperative in the Eastern Aleutian 

District and the Bering Sea subarea of 

the BSAI. However, NMFS 

inadvertently miscalculated the 2008 

Amendment 80 Cooperatives total 

amount as 8,804 metric tons (mt) 

instead of 8,683 mt and A season 

amount as 3,812 mt instead of 3,691 mt. 

NMFS also inadvertently miscalculated 

the 2009 Amendment 80 sectors 

amounts in the Eastern Aleutian District 

and Bering Sea area and the Central 

Aleutian District. This document 

corrects the errors and republishes 

Table 4 in its entirety. 

Correction 

Accordingly, the revised Table 4 from 

the temporary rule (FR Doc. E8–17466) 

published on July 30, 2008, at 73 FR 

44173, is corrected as follows: 

On page 44174, Table 4, is corrected 

and republished in its entirety to read 

as follows: 

TABLE 4—2008 AND 2009 SEASONAL AND SPATIAL ALLOWANCES, GEAR SHARES, CDQ RESERVE, INCIDENTAL CATCH ALLOWANCE, AND AMENDMENT 80 ALLOCATIONS OF THE BSAI ATKA MACKEREL 

TAC 

[Amounts are in metric tons] 

Sector1 Season2,3

2008 allocation by area 2009 allocation by area 

Eastern Aleutian District/ 

Bering Sea 

Central Aleutian District Western Aleutian District 

Eastern Aleutian District/ 

Bering Sea 

Central Aleutian District Western Aleutian District 

TAC n/a 19,500 24,300 16,900 15,300 19,000 13,200 

CDQ reserve Total 2,087 2,600 1,808 1,637 2,033 1,412 

HLA4 n/a 1,560 1,085 n/a 1,220 847 

ICA Total 100 10 10 1,400 10 10 

Jig5 Total 80 0 0 61 0 0 

BSAI trawl limited access Total 319 434 0 488 678 0 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES