Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 54511 

SUPPLEMENT NO. 4 TO PART 744—ENTITY LIST—Continued 

Country Entity License requirement License review policy Federal Register 

citation 

Mostafa Salehi, No. 308, 3rd Floor, Rafi 

Center, Al Nakheel, Deira, Dubai, U.A.E.

For all items subject 

to the EAR. (See 

§ 744.11 of the 

EAR).

Presumption of denial .... 73 FR [INSERT FR 

PAGE NUMBER] 

09/22/08. 

Narinco, Flat 401-Bin Yas Center—Al 

Maktum Road, P.O. Box 42340, Dubai, 

U.A.E.; and Shops 3–4, Sharafia Ahmed 

Ali Building, al-Nakheel, Deira, Dubai, 

U.A.E.

For all items subject 

to the EAR. (See 

§ 744.11 of the 

EAR).

Presumption of denial .... 73 FR [INSERT FR 

PAGE NUMBER] 

09/22/08. 

Neda Kargar, No. 308, 3rd Floor, Rafi Center, Al Nakheel, Deira, Dubai, U.A.E.For all items subject 

to the EAR. (See 

§ 744.11 of the 

EAR).

Presumption of denial .... 73 FR [INSERT FR 

PAGE NUMBER] 

09/22/08. 

Neda Overseas Electronics L.L.C., No. 308, 

3rd Floor, Rafi Center, Al Nakheel, Deira, 

Dubai, U.A.E.

For all items subject 

to the EAR. (See 

§ 744.11 of the 

EAR).

Presumption of denial .... 73 FR [INSERT FR 

PAGE NUMBER] 

09/22/08. 

Pyramid Technologies, P.O. Box 42340, 

Dubai, U.A.E.; and No. 3–4, Sharafia 

Ahmed Ali Building, Al Nakheel, Deira, 

Dubai 396, U.A.E.

For all items subject 

to the EAR. (See 

§ 744.11 of the 

EAR).

Presumption of denial .... 73 FR [INSERT FR 

PAGE NUMBER] 

09/22/08. 

S. Basheer, No. 3–4 Sharafia Ahmed Ali 

Building, Al Nakheel, Deira, Dubai 396, 

U.A.E.

For all items subject 

to the EAR. (See 

§ 744.11 of the 

EAR).

Presumption of denial .... 73 FR [INSERT FR 

PAGE NUMBER] 

09/22/08. 

Sayed-Ali Hosseini, 201 Latifah Building, Al 

Maktoum St., Dubai, U.A.E.

For all items subject 

to the EAR. (See 

§ 744.11 of the 

EAR).

Presumption of denial .... 73 FR [INSERT FR 

PAGE NUMBER] 

09/22/08. 

Shaji Muhammed Basheer, Shop No. 3 & 4, 

Sharafia Ahmed Ali Bldg., Al Nakheel St., 

Deira, P.O. Box 171978, Dubai, U.A.E.

For all items subject 

to the EAR. (See 

§ 744.11 of the 

EAR).

Presumption of denial .... 73 FR [INSERT FR 

PAGE NUMBER] 

09/22/08. 

Telectron, Al Salam St., P.O. Box 2946, 

Abu Dhabi, U.A.E.

For all items subject 

to the EAR. (See 

§ 744.11 of the 

EAR).

Presumption of denial .... 73 FR [INSERT FR 

PAGE NUMBER] 

09/22/08. 

Dated: September 17, 2008. 

Christopher R. Wall, 

Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–22088 Filed 9–19–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 10 

[PS Docket No. 07–287; FCC 08–184] 

Commercial Mobile Alert System 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission or FCC) adopts rules to 

further enable Commercial Mobile 

Service (CMS) alerting capability for 

CMS providers who elect to transmit 

emergency alerts to their subscribers. 

This Commercial Mobile Alert System 

Third R&O (CMAS Third R&O) 

represents our next step in establishing 

a Commercial Mobile Alert System 

(CMAS), under which CMS providers 

may elect to transmit emergency alerts 

to the public. We take this step pursuant 

to the mandate of section 602(b) of the 

WARN Act, which requires the 

Commission to adopt rules allowing any 

CMS provider to transmit emergency 

alerts to its subscribers; requires CMS 

providers that elect, in whole or in part, 

not to transmit emergency alerts to 

provide clear and conspicuous notice at 

the point of sale of any CMS devices 

that they will not transmit such alerts 

via that device; and requires CMS 

providers that elect not to transmit 

emergency alerts to notify their existing 

subscribers of their election. 

DATES: Effective October 22, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas J. Beers, Chief, Policy Division, 

Public Safety and Homeland Security 

Bureau, Federal Communications 

Commission at (202) 418–0952. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s CMAS 

Third R&O in PS Docket No. 07–287, 

adopted and released on August 7, 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 or 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. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
54512 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Analysis: 

The initial election that CMS 

providers must make pursuant to 

section 602(b)(2)(A) of the WARN Act 

has been granted pre-approval by OMB 

(OMB Control Number 3060–1113). The 

FCC received OMB pre-approval for this 

collection on February 4, 2008. Public 

reporting burden for this collection of 

information is estimated to be 6 minutes 

per response, including the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. This collection of 

information is for the purpose of 

assisting the Commission in overseeing 

the Commercial Mobile Service Alert 

System. This collection is mandatory 

under the Warning, Alert and Response 

Network Act, § 602(b)(2)(A), Title VI of 

the Security and Accountability for 

Every Port Act of 2006, Public Law No. 

109–347, 120 Stat. 1884 (2006). Send 

comments regarding this burden 

estimate, or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including 

suggestions for reducing the burden to 

Federal Communications Commission, 

AMD–PERM, Washington, DC 20554, 

Paperwork Reduction Project (3060– 

1113), or via the Internet to 

PRA@fcc.gov. DO NOT SEND 

ELECTION LETTERS TO THIS 

ADDRESS. 

Under 5 CFR 1320, an agency may not 

conduct or sponsor a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

No person shall be subject to any 

penalty for failing to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that 

does not display a currently valid OMB 

Control Number. This collection has 

been assigned OMB Control Number 

3060–1113 and its expiration date is 

February 28, 2011. 

In addition, we note that, pursuant to 

the Small Business Paperwork Relief 

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

U.C.S. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought 

specific comment on how the 

Commission might ‘‘further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’ 

This R&O also contains new 

information collection requirements 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. 

These collections will be submitted to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under section 3507 of 

the PRA at any 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, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.C.S. 

3506(c)(4), we will seek specific 

comment on how the Commission might 

‘‘further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’ 

Synopsis 

Introduction 

1. This Commercial Mobile Alert 

System Third R&O (CMAS Third R&O) 

represents our next step in establishing 

a Commercial Mobile Alert System 

(CMAS), under which Commercial 

Mobile Service (CMS) providers may 

elect to transmit emergency alerts to the 

public. We take this step pursuant to the 

mandate of section 602(b) of the WARN 

Act, which requires the Commission to 

adopt rules allowing any CMS provider 

to transmit emergency alerts to its 

subscribers; requires CMS providers that 

elect, in whole or in part, not to transmit 

emergency alerts to provide clear and 

conspicuous notice at the point of sale 

of any CMS devices that they will not 

transmit such alerts via that device; and 

requires CMS providers that elect not to 

transmit emergency alerts to notify their 

existing subscribers of their election. 

2. In the CMAS Third R&O, we adopt 

rules implementing section 602(b) of the 

WARN Act. Specifically, we: 

• Adopt notification requirements for 

CMS providers that elect not to 

participate, or to participate only in 

part, with respect to new and existing 

subscribers; 

• Adopt procedures by which CMS 

providers may elect to transmit 

emergency alerts and to withdraw such 

elections; 

• Adopt a rule governing the 

provision of alert opt-out capabilities for 

subscribers; 

• Allow participating CMS providers 

to recover costs associated with the 

development and maintenance of 

equipment supporting the transmission 

of emergency alerts; and 

• Adopt a compliance timeline under 

which participating CMS providers 

must begin CMAS deployment. 

3. By adopting these rules, we take 

another significant step towards 

achieving one of our highest priorities— 

to ensure that all Americans have the 

capability to receive timely and accurate 

alerts, warnings and critical information 

regarding disasters and other 

emergencies irrespective of what 

communications technologies they use. 

As we have learned from recent 

disasters, including Hurricane Katrina 

in 2005 and the recent floods that have 

impacted our Midwestern and Southern 

states, it is essential to enable 

Americans to take appropriate action to 

protect their families and themselves 

from loss of life or serious injury. This 

CMAS Third R&O also is consistent 

with our obligation under Executive 

Order 13407 to ‘‘adopt rules to ensure 

that communications systems have the 

capacity to transmit alerts and warnings 

to the public as part of the public alert 

and warning system,’’ and our mandate 

under the Communications Act to 

promote the safety of life and property 

through the use of wire and radio 

communication. 

4. This CMAS Third R&O is the latest 

step in the Commission’s ongoing effort 

to enhance the reliability, resiliency, 

and security of emergency alerts to the 

public by requiring that alerts be 

distributed over diverse 

communications platforms. In the 2005 

EAS First R&O, we expanded the scope 

of the Emergency Alert System (EAS) 

from analog television and radio to 

include participation by digital 

television and radio broadcasters, digital 

cable television providers, Digital Audio 

Radio Service (DARS), and Direct 

Broadcast Satellite (DBS) systems. As 

we noted in the Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking that accompanied 

the EAS First R&O, wireless services are 

becoming equal to television and radio 

as an avenue to reach the American 

public quickly and efficiently. As of 

June 5, 2008, the wireless industry 

reports that approximately 260 million 

Americans subscribed to wireless 

services. Wireless service has 

progressed beyond voice 

communications and now provides 

subscribers with access to a wide range 

of information critical to their personal 

and business affairs. In times of 

emergency, Americans increasingly rely 

on wireless telecommunications 

services and devices to receive and 

retrieve critical, time-sensitive 

information. A comprehensive wireless 

mobile alerting system would have the 

ability to alert people on the go in a 

short timeframe, even where they do not 

have access to broadcast radio or 

television or other sources of emergency 

information. Providing critical alert 

information via wireless devices will 

ultimately help the public avoid danger 

or respond more quickly in the face of 

crisis, and thereby save lives and 

property. 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 54513 

Background 

5. On October 13, 2006, the President 

signed the Security and Accountability 

For Every Port (SAFE Port) Act into law. 

Title VI of the SAFE Port Act, the 

WARN Act, establishes a process for the 

creation of the CMAS whereby CMS 

providers may elect to transmit 

emergency alerts to their subscribers. 

The WARN Act requires that we 

undertake a series of actions to 

accomplish that goal, including 

requiring the Commission, by December 

12, 2006 (within 60 days of enactment) 

to establish and convene an advisory 

committee to recommend technical 

requirements for the CMAS. 

Accordingly, we formed the Commercial 

Mobile Service Alert Advisory 

Committee (CMSAAC), which had its 

first meeting on December 12, 2006. The 

WARN Act further required the 

CMSAAC to submit its 

recommendations to the Commission by 

October 12, 2007 (one year after 

enactment). The CMSAAC submitted its 

report on that date. 

6. On December 14, 2007, we released 

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

requesting comment on issues related to 

implementation of section 602 of the 

WARN Act. The Commission has 

received over 60 comments and ex parte 

filings. On April 9, 2008, we released a 

First R&O, adopting technical standards, 

protocols, processes and other technical 

requirements ‘‘necessary to enable 

commercial mobile service alerting 

capability for commercial mobile 

service providers that voluntarily elect 

to transmit emergency alerts.’’ On July 

8, 2008, we adopted a Second R&O 

establishing rules requiring 

noncommercial educational and public 

broadcast television station licensees 

and permittees to install necessary 

equipment and technologies on, or as 

part of, the broadcast television digital 

signal transmitter to enable the 

distribution of geographically targeted 

alerts by CMS providers that have 

elected to participate in the CMAS. This 

Third R&O implements further WARN 

Act requirements consistent with the 

Commission’s goal of establishing an 

effective and efficient CMAS. 

Discussion 

A. Notification by CMS Providers 

Electing Not To Transmit Alerts 

1. Notification at Point of Sale 

7. Background. Section 602(b)(1) 

provides that ‘‘within 120 days after the 

date on which [the Commission] adopts 

relevant technical standards and other 

technical requirements pursuant to 

subsection (a), the Commission shall 

complete a proceeding to allow any 

licensee providing commercial mobile 

service * * * to transmit emergency 

alerts to subscribers to, or users of, the 

commercial mobile service provided by 

such licensee.’’ Pursuant to this section, 

the Commission must ‘‘require any 

licensee providing commercial mobile 

service that elects, in whole or in part, 

under paragraph (2) [Election] not to 

transmit emergency alerts to provide 

clear and conspicuous notice at the 

point of sale of any devices with which 

its commercial mobile service is 

included, that it will not transmit such 

alerts via the service it provides for the 

device.’’ 

8. In its October 12, 2007 report, the 

CMSAAC recommended that carriers 

retain the discretion to determine how 

to provide specific information 

regarding (1) whether or not they offer 

wireless emergency alerts, and (2) 

which devices are or are not capable of 

receiving wireless emergency alerts, as 

well as how to tailor additional notice, 

if necessary, for devices offered at other 

points of sale. Nevertheless, the 

CMSAAC recommended specific 

language to be used by carriers that 

elect, in part or in whole, not to transmit 

emergency alerts. With respect to 

carriers who intend to transmit 

emergency alerts ‘‘in part,’’ the 

CMSAAC-recommended language reads 

as follows: 

Notice Regarding Transmission of 

Wireless Emergency Alerts (Commercial 

Mobile Alert Service) 

[[WIRELESS PROVIDER]] has chosen 

to offer wireless emergency alerts within 

portions of its service area, as defined 

by the terms and conditions of its 

service agreement, on wireless 

emergency alert capable devices. There 

is no additional charge for these 

wireless emergency alerts. 

Wireless emergency alerts may not be 

available on all devices or in the entire 

service area, or if a subscriber is outside 

of the [[WIRELESS PROVIDER’S]] 

service area. For details on the 

availability of this service and wireless 

emergency alert capable devices, please 

ask a sales representative, or go to 

[[INSERT WEBSITE URL]]. Notice 

required by FCC Rule XXXX 

(Commercial Mobile Alert Service). 

The CMSAAC recommended the 

following language for carriers that ‘‘in 

whole’’ elect not to transmit emergency 

alerts: 

NOTICE TO NEW AND EXISTING 

SUBSCRIBERS REGARDING 

TRANSMISSION OF WIRELESS 

EMERGENCY ALERTS (Commercial 

Mobile Alert Service) 

[[WIRELESS PROVIDER]] presently 

does not transmit wireless emergency 

alerts. Notice required by FCC Rule 

XXXX (Commercial Mobile Alert 

Service). 

In the CMAS NPRM, we sought 

comment on the CMSAAC 

recommendation and whether it 

sufficiently addressed the requirements 

of the statute. We also sought comment 

on the CMSAAC’s suggestion that, 

because the WARN Act does not impose 

a notice requirement on CMS providers 

who have elected to participate in full, 

the Commission should not adopt a 

notice requirement for those providers. 

We also sought comment on the 

definition of ‘‘any point of sale,’’ which 

we specified as any means—retail, 

telephone, or Internet-based—by which 

a service provider facilitates and 

promotes its services for sale to the 

public. We suggested that third party, 

separately branded resellers also would 

be subject to point of sale notification 

requirements. 

9. We also requested comment on 

what constitutes clear and conspicuous 

notice at the point of sale. For example, 

we asked whether a general notice in 

the form of a statement attesting to the 

election not to provide emergency alerts 

would satisfy the statutory requirement 

and whether the statutory language 

requires the posting of a general notice 

in clear view of subscribers in the 

service provider’s stores, kiosks, third 

party reseller locations, Web site 

(proprietary or third party), and any 

other venue through which the service 

provider’s devices and services are 

marketed or sold. We also asked what 

form the general notice should take. In 

addition, we asked whether a service 

provider meets the condition of clear 

and conspicuous notification if the 

service provider requires subscribers to 

read and indicate their understanding 

that the service provider does not offer 

emergency alerts. 

10. Comments. Many commenters 

supported the CMSAAC’s 

recommendation that CMS providers be 

afforded discretion in determining how 

best to provide notice at the point of 

sale. For example, SouthernLINC argues 

that ‘‘general guidance from the FCC 

regarding suggested format and 

procedures for providing notice to 

subscribers would be sufficient to meet 

the requirements of the WARN Act,’’ but 

that we should ‘‘refrain from adopting 

specific requirements for each carrier, 

regardless of the carrier’s size, business 

model, or customer preferences.’’ CTIA 

agrees, stating that ‘‘a single type of 

notice is not appropriate in all 

situations,’’ and that different points of 

sale and business circumstances lend 

themselves more readily to particular 

notice solutions. CTIA further argues 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
54514 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

that, rather than focusing on the 

mechanics of the notice, the 

Commission should encourage wireless 

providers to ‘‘furnish customers with 

the information they need to make an 

informed decision.’’ CTIA argues that a 

‘‘combination of business incentive and 

statutory requirements’’ will ensure that 

customers are given adequate notice at 

the point of sale. This is particularly the 

case, argues CTIA, where a wireless 

carrier intends to deploy the CMAS on 

a market-by-market basis, in which case 

a standardized message ‘‘may lead to 

confusion and dissatisfaction’’ among 

customers. MetroPCS argues that any 

discretion given to carriers with respect 

to the provision of ‘‘clear and 

conspicuous’’ notice also should extend 

to how carriers provide notice through 

their ‘‘indirect distribution channels,’’ 

and that since indirect distribution is 

not owned or operated by the carriers, 

‘‘carriers should not be held responsible 

for the indirect distribution retail 

outlet’s failure to follow a carrier’s 

directives, provided that the provider 

has put the distributor on notice and 

took reasonable steps to ensure prompt 

compliance.’’ 

11. Other commenters from the 

wireless industry also expressed 

support for the CMSAAC’s 

recommended text language. MetroPCS 

supports the adoption of a ‘‘safe harbor’’ 

under which carriers that use the model 

text developed by the CMSAAC are 

deemed to have provided adequate 

notice. Wireless industry commenters 

also agreed with the CMSAAC that CMS 

providers electing to participate in the 

CMAS should not be required to 

disclose such participation to 

subscribers. AAPC, for example, argues 

that such a requirement is unnecessary 

because participating CMS providers 

will have every incentive to advertise 

and promote the fact of their 

participation. 

12. Other commenters argue that the 

Commission should adopt specific 

notice requirements. California Public 

Utilities Commission (CPUC) 

recommends that CMS providers be 

required to provide notice to and 

receive confirmations from new 

customers acknowledging their 

understanding that the service provider 

does or does not offer emergency alerts. 

CPUC also recommends that notices be 

in large print and placed prominently 

on placards or their equivalent and that 

each device sold by service providers 

should include a notice that emergency 

alerts are or are not included as a feature 

of the device or the service provider’s 

service. Wireless Rehabilitation 

Engineering Research Center argues that 

such procedures should also include 

audio and video procedures (e.g., 

provision of CMAS information in large 

print, Braille and audio formats) so that 

persons with disabilities will be fully 

informed about the CMAS. It also 

recommends that CMS providers be 

required to instruct subscribers that 

technical limitations might prevent alert 

message reception even in areas with 

signal coverage and that such no-alert 

areas should be detailed in coverage 

maps. 

13. Discussion. As an initial matter, 

we find that the statute does not require 

CMS providers to provide notice in the 

event they elect to transmit alerts to all 

subscribers. For those carriers that have 

elected in whole or in part not to 

transmit emergency alerts, we find that 

the statute requires that they ‘‘provide 

clear and conspicuous notice at point-of 

sale’’ of their non-election or partial 

election to provide emergency alerts. 

Additionally, we find that the statute 

provides specific and limiting guidance. 

Therefore, we agree with commenters 

that a one-size-fits-all approach to 

notification may not adequately address 

the range of methods by which service 

providers communicate with their 

customers. Nevertheless, the CMSAAC 

has crafted plain language notifications 

that we believe are consistent with the 

intent of the statute and which convey 

concisely a service provider’s nonelection or partial election at the point 

of sale. We find that this language will 

convey sufficient information and serve 

as the minimum standard for clear and 

conspicuous notice under the WARN 

Act. Our decision allows, but does not 

require, CMS providers to provide their 

customers with additional information 

relating to CMAS. Specifically, CMS 

providers electing to transmit alerts ‘‘in 

part’’ shall use the following 

notification, at a minimum: 

Notice Regarding Transmission of 

Wireless Emergency Alerts (Commercial 

Mobile Alert Service) 

[[CMS PROVIDER]] has chosen to 

offer wireless emergency alerts within 

portions of its service area, as defined 

by the terms and conditions of its 

service agreement, on wireless 

emergency alert capable devices. There 

is no additional charge for these 

wireless emergency alerts. 

Wireless emergency alerts may not be 

available on all devices or in the entire 

service area, or if a subscriber is outside 

of the [[CMS PROVIDER’s]] service area. 

For details on the availability of this 

service and wireless emergency alert 

capable devices, please ask a sales 

representative, or go to [[CMS 

PROVIDER’S URL]]. 

Notice required by FCC Rule 47 CFR 

10.240 (Commercial Mobile Alert 

Service). CMS providers electing in 

whole not to transmit alerts shall use 

the following notification language, at a 

minimum: 

NOTICE TO NEW AND EXISTING 

SUBSCRIBERS REGARDING 

TRANSMISSION OF WIRELESS 

EMERGENCY ALERTS (Commercial 

Mobile Alert Service) 

[[CMS PROVIDER]] presently does not 

transmit wireless emergency alerts. 

Notice required by FCC Rule 47 CFR 

10.240 (Commercial Mobile Alert 

Service). 

14. We define the point of sale as the 

physical and/or virtual environment in 

which a potential subscriber judges the 

products and services of the service 

provider and the point at which the 

potential subscriber enters into a service 

agreement with the service provider. 

Thus, we adopt the CMSAAC 

recommended language as a minimum 

standard of necessary information for 

use by all service providers and their 

agents in point-of-sale venues, which 

shall include stores, kiosks, third party 

reseller locations, Web sites (proprietary 

and third party), and any other venue 

through which the service provider’s 

devices and services are marketed or 

sold. Section 601(b)(1)(2) specifically 

places the responsibility of notification 

on the CMS provider. Therefore, CMS 

providers are responsible for ensuring 

that clear and conspicuous notice is 

provided to customers at the point-ofsale, regardless of whether third party 

agents serve as the distribution channel. 

15. We expect service providers 

selling through an indirect distribution 

channel may meet their statutory 

requirements through appropriate 

agency contract terms with their 

distribution partners or by other 

reasonable means. However, the statute 

assigns responsibility for conveying 

clear and conspicuous notice to CMS 

providers and, consistent with this 

statutory language, we decline to shift 

this burden onto a non-Commission 

licensed party. Therefore, CMS 

providers are solely responsible for 

ensuring that clear and conspicuous 

notice is provided to customers at the 

point-of-sale. 

16. We decline at this time to adopt 

specific requirements, such as those put 

forth by CPUC (e.g., certain sized 

posters, type-size, brochures) for 

displaying the notification, preferring 

instead to allow carriers to create and 

position notifications that are consistent 

with the marketing and service 

notification methodologies in use at any 

given time by the service provider. 

Similarly, with respect to Wireless 

RERC’s concerns that procedures be 

mandated that include audio and video 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 54515 

notifications so that persons with 

disabilities will be fully informed about 

a service provider’s election in part or 

in whole not to transmit emergency 

alerts, we believe that service providers 

will make use of existing facilities and 

procedures to convey the necessary 

notification. The statute requires clear 

and conspicuous notification, which we 

interpret to include the provision of 

notification that takes into account the 

needs of persons with disabilities. Thus, 

clear and conspicuous notification for 

persons with disabilities would include 

enhanced visual, tactile or auditory 

assistance in conveying the required 

notification. However, we agree with 

commenters and the CMSAAC that 

wireless service providers are in the best 

position to determine the proper 

method of providing this notice and 

leave it to the discretion of providers to 

provide clear and conspicuous notice at 

the point-of-sale. In addition, our 

decision allows, but does not require, 

additional information regarding the 

technical limitations of CMAS alerts, as 

requested by Wireless RERC (i.e., that 

technical limitations might prevent alert 

message reception even in areas with 

signal coverage). 

17. We disagree with the concerns 

raised by some commenters that, 

without a written acknowledgement 

from a subscriber, notification 

requirements under the WARN Act are 

not met. The statute requires the CMS 

provider to provide clear and 

conspicuous notice, but does not require 

the Commission to mandate an 

affirmative response from customers. 

Service agreements usually define the 

carrier’s and subscriber’s rights and 

responsibilities and describe any 

limitations of the service or products 

offered. We expect that many CMS 

providers will provide clear and 

conspicuous notice in their service 

agreements. To the extent they do so, 

subscribers in effect acknowledge such 

notice by signing the agreement. 

However, we do not require that this 

notification be placed into a service 

agreement, nor do we require that CMS 

providers otherwise obtain subscriber 

acknowledgements. We find that by 

implementing the statutory requirement 

of clear and conspicuous notice at the 

point of sale, adopting an 

acknowledgment requirement would be 

unnecessary. 

2. Notifications to Existing Subscribers 

18. Background. Section 602(b)(1)(C) 

states that the Commission shall 

‘‘require any licensee providing 

commercial mobile service that elects 

under paragraph (2) not to transmit 

emergency alerts to notify its existing 

subscribers of its election.’’ In the CMAS 

NPRM, we asked whether CMS 

providers should be granted the 

discretion to determine how to provide 

notice of non-election, including the 

methods and duration of a service 

provider’s notification to existing 

subscribers of an election. We also 

asked about the use of existing 

marketing and billing practices for 

purposes of notification, and whether 

service providers should be required to 

notify existing subscribers by sending 

them a separate notice of a change in 

their terms and conditions of their 

service. In addition, we asked how 

service providers should notify pre-paid 

customers. We also asked whether 

service providers should be required to 

demonstrate to the Commission that 

they have met this requirement and, if 

so, how. Finally, we asked whether 

service providers should be required to 

maintain a record of subscribers who 

have acknowledged receipt of the 

service provider’s notification. 

19. Comments. Wireless service 

providers generally argue that the 

Commission should provide CMS 

providers with flexibility regarding 

notice to existing subscribers, and 

oppose any requirement that CMS 

providers maintain records of subscriber 

acknowledgements of the notification. 

RCA argues, for example, that a 

requirement to maintain records of 

subscriber acknowledgement exceeds 

the authority granted to the Commission 

by the WARN Act, which only requires 

the provision of notice. SouthernLINC 

opposes ‘‘the imposition of any 

burdensome notice or record keeping 

requirements on regional and small, 

rural carriers.’’ Further, SouthernLINC 

argues that it would be ‘‘unrealistic to 

expect every customer to affirmatively 

respond to notices and that it would be 

counterproductive for carriers to expend 

tremendous resources in tracking down 

customers that choose not to respond.’’ 

MetroPCS argues that the need for 

flexibility is particularly necessary in 

the case of pre-paid carriers, who offer 

flat-rate service and who may not send 

written bills to their customers or keep 

current addresses of their customers onfile. According to MetroPCS, it 

corresponds with its customers mainly 

through short message service (SMS) 

messages delivered to the handsets of its 

subscribers. 

20. Wireless RERC argues that CMS 

providers should be required to ‘‘fully 

inform’’ subscribers about the alert 

capabilities of the service provider’s 

network and wireless devices, including 

pre-paid devices. Further, it argues that 

labeling on wireless devices or packages 

of wireless devices should be available 

in alternative formats, such as large 

print to aid those with visual 

impairments, and the Commission 

should establish ‘‘CMAS standards of 

performance consistent with the 

Americans with Disabilities Act and 

other federal regulations regarding 

providing services to people with 

disabilities.’’ CPUC urges the 

Commission to require, at a minimum, 

notification requirements similar to that 

required for VoIP providers for E911 

service, recommending that any notice 

requirement be flexible so as to allow 

for the use of direct mailings, paper 

bills, e-mails and Web site notices. It 

argues that CMS providers should also 

be required to verify that 

acknowledgment was received from 

incumbent customers at a time and date 

designated by the Commission but prior 

to CMAS implementation, including 

requiring customers ‘‘to indicate their 

understanding that the service provider 

does not offer emergency alerts and 

should be required to sign a document 

(or otherwise demonstrate, such as 

through electronic acceptance) 

indicating that they have read and 

understood the notice [and] [t]his notice 

should in no case be combined with 

other direct mailings containing 

marketing materials.’’ In those cases 

where subscribers declined to receive 

direct mailings from service providers, 

CPUC suggests that carriers be required 

to demonstrate that they have taken 

reasonable steps to inform subscribers of 

the decision not to transmit alert 

messages. 

21. CTIA disagrees with the CPUC’s 

notification recommendations (modeled 

after the Commission’s VoIP 9–1–1 

notification requirements) arguing that, 

‘‘such rules cannot serve as a guideline 

because they were created in response 

to a specific issue that is inapplicable to 

CMAS.’’ CTIA argues that those notice 

requirements ‘‘were tailored to the 

notion that customers may have faulty 

assumptions about the availability of 

911 services on their IP-enabled 

phones,’’ whereas that concern is not 

present for CMAS because clear and 

conspicuous notice will be given to 

customers at the point of sale. 

22. Discussion. We again base our 

analysis on the explicit language of 

section 602(b)(1)(C), which requires any 

licensee providing commercial mobile 

service that elects not to transmit 

emergency alerts ‘‘to notify its existing 

subscribers of its election.’’ As an initial 

matter, we find that section 602(b)(1)(C) 

is not limited to CMS providers that 

elect not to provide emergency alerts in 

whole. Rather, we interpret section 

602(b)(1)(C) in concert with section 

602(b)(1)(B) to also require CMS 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
54516 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

providers that elect not to transmit 

emergency alerts in part to notify 

existing subscribers of their election. 

Thus, we require CMS providers to 

notify existing subscribers of their 

election, in whole or in part, not to 

transmit emergency alerts. Likewise, we 

require that this notice be ‘‘clear and 

conspicuous.’’ Additionally, as in the 

case of notice at point-of-sale, clear and 

conspicuous notification for persons 

with disabilities would include 

enhanced visual, tactile or auditory 

assistance in conveying the required 

notification. 

23. Turning next to how CMS 

providers are to make such 

notifications, we find that the way CMS 

providers typically convey changes in 

terms and conditions to their 

subscribers to be sufficiently analogous. 

Thus, while an election not to transmit 

alerts, in whole or in part, is not 

necessarily a change in an existing term 

or condition, we require service 

providers to notify existing subscribers 

of their election by means of an 

announcement amending the existing 

subscriber’s terms and conditions of 

service agreement. We agree with 

commenters who suggest that service 

providers should be given discretion in 

determining how to provide such notice 

to existing subscribers. Service 

providers regularly use various means to 

announce changes in service to 

subscribers, including, for instance, 

direct mailing, bill inserts, and other 

billing-related notifications. In order to 

ensure that subscribers receive the 

necessary notification, we require 

service providers to use, at a minimum, 

the notification language recommended 

by the CMSAAC that we have adopted 

for use in point of sale notification. 

24. At this time, we will not require 

service providers to obtain a written or 

verbal acknowledgment from existing 

subscribers. We conclude that section 

602(b)(1)(C) does not require an 

affirmative response from subscribers. 

Rather, it requires only that a provider 

notifies customers of its election not to 

participate. We agree with 

SouthernLINC that it would be 

unrealistic and unwarranted to require 

an affirmative response from every 

subscriber. While we recognize that 

some service providers allow their 

subscribers to opt out of receiving any 

information from the service provider, 

this usually applies to additional 

marketing or advertising 

communications and not to 

communications relating to changes in 

the terms and conditions of service. 

Finally, we recognize that service 

providers with pre-paid subscribers 

generally do not send a monthly billing 

statement to them and in some cases 

limit any customer notification to SMS 

messages. Further, service providers 

may not maintain customer information 

that can be used to communicate a 

change to the terms and conditions of 

service. Accordingly, in order to ensure 

that pre-paid customers are notified of 

the carrier’s election, we require carriers 

to communicate the election through 

any reasonable means at their disposal, 

including, but not limited to, mailings, 

text messaging, and SMS messaging. 

3. Timing of Notification 

25. Background. Under section 

602(b)(2)(A), ‘‘within 30 days after the 

Commission issues its order under 

paragraph (1), each licensee providing 

commercial mobile service shall file an 

election with the Commission with 

respect to whether or not it intends to 

transmit emergency alerts.’’ As 

discussed above, carriers electing not to 

transmit, in part or in whole, are 

required to notify prospective and 

existing subscribers of their election, but 

the statute does not state that this 

notification shall be concomitant with 

the carrier’s election on its intent to 

transmit emergency alerts. The record is 

silent on the timing of notification. 

Significantly, on May 30, 2008, the 

Department of Homeland Security’s 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) announced that it will perform 

the CMAS Alert Aggregator/Gateway 

role. FEMA noted, however, that the 

Alert Aggregator/Gateway system has 

not yet been designed or engineered, 

and did not indicate when it would 

make the Government Interface Design 

specifications available to the other 

CMAS participants. Further, the 

CMSAAC estimated that development, 

testing and deployment would require 

18–24 months from standardization of 

the alerting protocol. Thus, a period of 

time will pass between the election 

filings and the commercial availability 

of CMAS. 

26. Discussion. Accordingly, we find 

that it would not be in the public 

interest to require the commencement of 

customer notification upon the filing of 

elections with the Commission and well 

in advance of the commercial 

availability of CMAS. A principal goal 

of the customer notification requirement 

is to ensure that, upon the commercial 

availability of CMAS and the expected 

marketing of this service and supporting 

handsets by carriers that have elected to 

provide alerts, prospective and existing 

subscribers of carriers electing not to 

transmit alerts are fully informed of the 

limitations of that carrier’s alerting 

capabilities and better able to make an 

informed decision about which carriers 

can provide critical public safety 

notifications. We believe the relevance 

of this decision may be lost if 

notification is delivered to prospective 

and existing subscribers too far in 

advance of CMAS’ commercial 

availability. Further, by not tying the 

customer notification requirements to 

the 30-day election requirement, we 

provide time for CMS providers that 

may initially elect not to provide 

alerting capability to alter such 

decisions, particularly when the future 

availability and details of the CMAS 

Alert Aggregator/Gateway are made 

known. Because commercial availability 

of alerts is dependent upon the 

activation of the Alert Aggregator/ 

Gateway system to support transmission 

of emergency alerts, we find it 

reasonable to require customer 

notification upon the availability of the 

transmission of emergency alerts. Thus, 

we will require CMS providers that have 

elected, in whole or in part, not to 

provide alerts to provide point of sale 

and existing subscriber notifications as 

described supra to be made no later 

than 60 days following an 

announcement by the Commission that 

the Alert Aggregator/Gateway system is 

operational and capable of delivering 

emergency alerts to participating CMS 

providers. We find that this policy is 

consistent with the WARN Act. 

Although section 602(b)(2)(A) of the 

WARN Act requires that CMS licensees 

file an election with the Commission 

within 30 days after the Commission 

issues this Third R&O, section 

602(b)(1)(B) does not otherwise provide 

a specific deadline by which CMS 

providers must provide notice to 

subscribers regarding non-election. 

B. Election Procedures 

27. Background. Sections 

602(b)(2)(A), (B), and (D) establish 

certain requirements for CMS providers 

electing to provide or not to provide 

emergency alerts to subscribers. In 

several instances, the statute requires 

service providers to submit notifications 

to the Commission indicating their 

election, non-election, or their 

withdrawal from providing emergency 

alerts. Section 602(b)(2)(A) requires that, 

‘‘within 30 days after the Commission 

issues its order under [section 602(b)], 

each licensee providing commercial 

mobile service shall file an election with 

the Commission with respect to whether 

or not it intends to transmit emergency 

alerts.’’ Similarly, under section 

602(b)(2)(B), a service provider that 

elects to transmit emergency alerts must 

‘‘notify the Commission of its election’’ 

and ‘‘agree to transmit such alerts in a 

manner consistent with the technical 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 54517 

standards, protocols, procedures, and 

other technical requirements 

implemented by the Commission.’’ 

Further, section 602(b)(2)(D) requires 

the Commission to establish procedures 

relating to withdrawal of an election 

and the filing of late election notices 

with the Commission. Under section 

602(b)(2)(D)(i), ‘‘the Commission shall 

establish a procedure for a commercial 

mobile service licensee that has elected 

to transmit emergency alerts to 

withdraw its election without regulatory 

penalty or forfeiture upon advance 

written notification of the withdrawal to 

its affected subscribers.’’ Finally, section 

602(b)(2)(D)(ii) requires ‘‘the 

Commission to establish a procedure for 

a commercial mobile service licensee to 

elect to transmit emergency alerts at a 

date later than provided in 

subparagraph (A).’’ 

28. In the CMAS NPRM, we sought 

comment on all of these filing 

requirements. Specifically, we asked for 

comment on the most efficient method 

for accepting, monitoring and 

maintaining service provider election 

and withdrawal information. With 

respect to the initial election, we asked 

what CMS providers should provide in 

their filing if they indicate an intention 

to provide emergency alerts. For 

example, we sought comment on the 

CMSAAC’s recommendation that, at a 

minimum, a CMS provider should 

explicitly commit to support the 

development and deployment of 

technology for the following: The ‘‘C’’ 

interface, the CMS provider Gateway, 

the CMS provider infrastructure, and 

the mobile device with CMAS 

functionality. Noting that the CMSAAC 

suggested that the required technology 

may not be in place for some time, we 

asked whether electing CMS providers 

should specify when they will be able 

to offer mobile alerting. 

29. In addition, we sought comment 

about how service providers should 

notify the Commission and attest to 

their adoption of the Commission’s 

standards, protocols, procedures and 

other technical requirements. We asked 

whether we should require electronic 

filing of the submission and what CMS 

providers should submit in their report 

to the Commission if they indicate an 

intention to provide emergency alerts. 

Finally, we sought comment on the 

proper mechanism for service providers 

to file a withdrawal of election with the 

Commission. We identified two 

scenarios: First, where the service 

provider has elected to provide 

emergency alerts, but does not build the 

infrastructure, and second, where the 

service provider elects to provide 

emergency alerts and does so to all or 

some portion of its coverage area, but 

later chooses to discontinue the service. 

With respect to the latter scenario, we 

asked how much advance notification to 

subscribers the Commission should 

require prior to the service provider’s 

withdrawal. We also asked what 

methods service providers should use to 

notify all existing subscribers at the 

service provider’s various points of sale 

as well as whether the Commission 

should impose the same set of 

requirements considered under section 

602(b)(1)(C) regarding notification to 

existing subscribers and potential 

subscribers that a service provider has 

elected not to provide emergency alerts. 

30. Comments. Wireless stakeholders 

agreed with the CMSAAC’s 

recommendation regarding what notice 

service providers should include in 

their elections. For example, MetroPCS 

argues that the most effective way to 

provide notice to the Commission of a 

carrier’s election should be through a 

written election provided at the time the 

election is required and, thereafter, 

within a reasonable time after the carrier 

decides to change its election. For CMS 

providers commencing service after the 

initial election deadline, MetroPCS 

recommends the submission of elections 

within 90 days after the licensee begins 

to market service in the licensed area. 

MetroPCS suggests that the election 

notice be on a license-by-license basis, 

but with the flexibility to consolidate 

elections over all or a portion of the 

CMS providers’ licenses. MetroPCS 

recommends that service providers 

deciding to change their elections 

‘‘should be required to provide written 

notice to the Commission within 30 

days of effectuating the change in 

election.’’ 

31. Some commenters suggest that the 

Commission maintain a register listing 

the carriers that elect to participate as 

well as those that do not. CPUC argues 

that it is ‘‘essential’’ that states have 

access to CMS providers’ election 

notices and that such notices should 

include, at a minimum, the ‘‘C’’ 

reference point, the CMS provider 

Gateway, the CMS provider 

infrastructure, the mobile device with 

CMAS functionality and any geographic 

variations in the commitment to provide 

emergency alerts. CPUC further argues 

that CMS providers should also be 

required to file a report attesting to their 

adoption of the Commission’s 

standards, protocols, procedures, and 

other technical requirements, and 

reporting on the CMS providers’ 

arrangements for working with the Alert 

Aggregator, their technical connections 

with the Alert Gateway, the links used 

to provide that connection and a 

description of their technical capability 

for providing state, regional and local 

alerts. Verizon Wireless opposes any 

requirement to provide detailed 

information about its network 

capabilities, arguing that such 

information is competitively sensitive 

and highly confidential. 

32. Discussion. We find that the most 

efficient method for accepting, 

monitoring and maintaining service 

provider election and withdrawal 

information is to accept electronic 

submissions to the Commission. 

Accordingly, we require CMS providers 

to file electronically in PS Docket No. 

08–146 a letter describing their election. 

Carriers electing, in part or in whole, to 

transmit emergency alerts shall attest 

that they agree to transmit such alerts in 

a manner consistent with the technical 

standards, protocols, procedures, and 

other technical requirements 

implemented by the Commission. 

Further, we accept the recommendation 

of the CMSAAC that a CMS provider 

electing to transmit, in part or in whole, 

emergency alerts, indicates its 

commitment to support the 

development and deployment of 

technology for the following: The ‘‘C’’ 

interface, the CMS provider Gateway, 

the CMS provider infrastructure, and 

mobile devices with CMAS 

functionality and support of the CMS 

provider selected technology. We 

require CMS providers to submit their 

letter of election within 30 days after the 

release of this Order. Due to the ongoing 

development of the Alert Aggregator/ 

Gateway system and the Government 

Interface Design specifications, we do 

not require CMS providers electing to 

transmit, in part or in whole, emergency 

alerts to specify when they will be able 

to offer mobile alerting. With respect to 

commenters seeking the submission of 

detailed information about the links 

used to provide that connection and a 

description of their technical capability 

for providing state, regional and local 

alerts, we find that the statutory 

language does not require provision of 

this information. Further, we find that it 

would be unduly burdensome for 

carriers to provide such information 

and, therefore, reject those suggestions. 

We agree with Verizon Wireless that 

requiring such information could force 

providers to divulge competitively 

sensitive information. Additionally, 

requiring such information imposes 

substantial administrative and technical 

burdens on providers that are 

inconsistent with the voluntary nature 

of the CMAS program. 

33. Section 602(b)(2)(D)(i) requires the 

Commission to establish a procedure for 

a commercial mobile service licensee 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
54518 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

that has elected to transmit emergency 

alerts to withdraw its election without 

regulatory penalty or forfeiture upon 

advance written notification of the 

withdrawal to its affected subscribers. 

Thus, we require a CMS provider that 

withdraws its election to transmit 

emergency alerts to notify all affected 

subscribers 60 days prior to the 

withdrawal of the election. Carriers that 

withdraw their election to transmit 

alerts shall be subject to the notification 

requirements described in paragraph 37. 

We also require carriers to notify the 

Commission of their withdrawal, 

including information on the scope of 

their withdrawal, at least 60 days prior 

to electing to do so. Such a requirement 

is consistent with the requirement 

under section 602(b)(2)(D)(i) that we 

establish procedures for election 

withdrawal, and with the WARN Act’s 

provision requiring providers to inform 

the Commission of their election to 

participate in the CMAS. 

34. With respect to section 

602(b)(2)(D)(ii), requiring that the 

Commission ‘‘establish a procedure for 

a commercial mobile service licensee to 

elect to transmit emergency alerts at a 

date later than provided in 

subparagraph (A),’’ we require such 

CMS licensees, 30 days prior to offering 

this service, to file electronically their 

election to transmit, in part or in whole, 

or to not transmit emergency alerts in 

the manner and with the attestations 

described above. This mirrors the 

Commission’s rules for providers who 

elect immediately and provides a 

sufficient and fair amount of time for 

providers to elect to participate at a later 

date. 

C. Other Issues 

1. Subscriber Termination of Service 

35. Background. Section 

602(b)(2)(D)(iii) requires the 

Commission to establish a procedure 

‘‘under which a subscriber may 

terminate a subscription to service 

provided by a commercial mobile 

service licensee that withdraws its 

election without penalty or early 

termination fee.’’ We sought comment 

on the procedures necessary to 

implement this provision. Specifically, 

we asked whether notification in the 

terms and conditions of service is 

sufficient to apprise subscribers of their 

right to discontinue service without 

penalty or termination fee, whether the 

Commission should prescribe specific 

procedures for subscribers and whether 

service providers should submit to the 

Commission a description of their 

procedure for informing subscribers of 

their right to terminate service. 

36. Comments. CTIA argues that the 

Commission should ‘‘regulate sparingly 

in the area of customer termination of 

subscriber agreements in the event that 

a wireless provider withdraws its 

election to participate in the CMAS.’’ 

Further, it states that ‘‘heavy-handed 

regulation and oversight both consumes 

Commission resources and adds cost to 

the overall provision of service (and, in 

turn, adds to subscriber cost)’’ and 

‘‘adopting a procedure that fits with a 

company’s other procedures and 

policies will make the option more userfriendly for the customer familiar with 

the wireless provider.’’ CPUC states that 

the FCC should prescribe specific 

procedures for informing customers and 

accomplishing terminations rather than 

having providers design their own 

procedures. CPUC argues the 

Commission should design a process 

that includes notice to customers in 

clear and explicit language citing the 

statute and that the notices should 

facilitate the ability of a customer to 

automatically respond and immediately 

discontinue service. CPUC adds that 

customer acknowledgment of this 

information should be required by 

signature and dating or some 

corresponding affirmative action as 

done for non-participating providers at 

the point of initial sale. 

37. Discussion. We find that because 

section 602(b)(2)(D)(iii), on its face, 

clearly provides rights specifically 

aimed at subscribers—that they may 

terminate service without penalty or 

early termination fee if a provider 

withdraws its initial election to 

participate in CMAS—subscribers 

require individual notice of their rights 

under the WARN Act. We further find 

that carriers must notify each affected 

subscriber individually in clear and 

conspicuous language, citing the statute, 

of the subscriber’s right to terminate 

service without penalty or early 

termination fee should a carrier 

withdraw its initial election. We do not 

otherwise adopt any specific methods or 

procedures for implementing this 

individualized notice, but rather leave it 

to CMS providers to determine how best 

to communicate these statutory rights to 

their customers. 

2. Subscriber Alert Opt-Out 

38. Background. Section 602(b)(2)(E) 

provides that ‘‘[a]ny commercial mobile 

service licensee electing to transmit 

emergency alerts may offer subscribers 

the capability of preventing the 

subscriber’s device from receiving such 

alerts, or classes of such alerts, other 

than an alert issued by the President.’’ 

The CMSAAC recommended that CMS 

providers should offer their subscribers 

a simple opt-out process. With the 

exception of Presidential messages, 

which are always transmitted, the 

CMSAAC recommended that the 

process should allow the choice to opt 

out of ‘‘all messages,’’ ‘‘all severe 

messages,’’ and AMBER Alerts. The 

CMSAAC suggested that, because of 

differences in the way CMS providers 

and device manufacturers provision 

their menus and user interfaces, CMS 

providers and device manufacturers 

should have flexibility about how to 

present the opt-out choices to 

subscribers. In the CMAS First R&O, the 

Commission further defined these three 

alert classes as: (1) Presidential Alert, (2) 

Imminent Threat Alert, and (3) Child 

Abduction Emergency/AMBER Alert. 

We sought comment on the 

recommendations of the CMSAAC with 

respect to three choices of message 

types that a subscriber should be 

allowed to choose to opt out of 

receiving. Additionally, we sought 

comment on the CMSAAC 

recommendation that CMS providers 

and device manufacturers should have 

flexibility or whether the Commission 

should establish baseline criteria for 

informing subscribers of this capability 

and if any uniform standards for 

conveying that information to 

subscribers is required. We also sought 

comment on whether more classes of 

alerts should be considered. 

39. Comments. Many commenters 

who addressed this issue expressed 

support for the CMSAAC’s 

recommendations. For example, TMobile argues that, given the different 

types of handsets and the wide array of 

menu interfaces offered by CMS 

providers, the Commission should not 

impose baseline standards or a uniform 

methodology for disabling alerts on this 

array of mobile handsets or devices. 

AAPC states that carriers should be 

permitted to manage subscriber opt-outs 

of alerts at the network terminal level 

and not just at the subscriber device 

level. Wireless RERC argues that CMS 

providers should make it clear to the 

subscriber what opting-out means—that, 

for example, they will not receive 

tornado warnings. CPUC agrees, stating 

that CMS providers should be required 

to inform subscribers that they have the 

choice of opting out of alerts. 

40. One party—PTT—objected to the 

provision of any subscriber opt-out 

mechanism. PTT states that an opt-out 

capability will defeat the purpose of the 

program if a large number of potential 

users opt out due to concerns about 

battery usage. It states that if such a 

‘‘requirement’’ moves forward, it would 

prefer that subscribers use the SMS 

filtering features of their own device to 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 54519 

filter undesired messages, rather than 

making this a universal feature of the 

program. 

41. Discussion. We agree with the 

CMSAAC proposed simple opt-out 

program. The process should allow the 

choice to opt out of ‘‘Imminent Threat 

Alert messages’’ and ‘‘Child Abduction 

Emergency/AMBER Alert messages.’’ 

This allows consumers the flexibility to 

choose what type of message they wish 

to receive while still ensuring that 

customers are apprised of the most 

severe threats as communicated by 

Presidential Alert messages, which are 

always transmitted. However, because 

of the differences in how CMS providers 

and device manufacturers provision 

menus and user interfaces, we afford 

CMS providers flexibility to provide 

opt-out choices consistent with their 

own system. While we assume, as 

proposed by the Wireless RERC, that 

providers would make clear to 

consumers what each option means, and 

provide examples of what types of 

messages the customer may not receive 

as a result of opting-out so that 

consumers can make an informed 

choice, we do not require providers to 

include such information because there 

is no corresponding requirement in the 

WARN Act. 

42. We disagree with PTT’s argument 

that opt-out capability will defeat the 

purpose of the program. First, the 

WARN Act specifically grants providers 

the option to allow subscribers to optout of all but Presidential alerts. It 

would be inconsistent with the clear 

intent of Congress for the Commission 

to disallow this option. Secondly, the 

Alert Gateway used to transmit CMAS 

messages will most likely be separate 

and distinct from the SMS gateway. 

Therefore, subscribers may be unable to 

use their SMS filtering feature to filter 

CMAS messages. 

3. Cost Recovery 

43. Background. Section 602(b)(2)(C) 

states ‘‘[a] commercial mobile service 

licensee that elects to transmit 

emergency alerts may not impose a 

separate or additional charge for such 

transmission or capability.’’ In the 

Notice, we asked whether section 

602(b)(2)(C)’s reference to ‘‘transmission 

or capability’’ should be read narrowly 

and sought comment whether this 

provision precludes a participating CMS 

provider’s ability to recover costs 

associated with the provision of alerts. 

Noting, for example, that much of the 

alert technology will reside in the 

subscriber’s mobile device, we asked 

whether CMS providers should recover 

CMAS-related developmental costs from 

the subscriber through mobile device 

charges based on a determination that 

mobile devices lie outside the 

‘‘transmission or capability’’ language of 

the section. We also asked about cost 

recovery in connection with CMASrelated services and technologies that 

are not used to deliver CMAS. 

44. Comments. Many of those 

commenting on the issue argue that 

participating CMS providers should be 

allowed to recover development, 

maintenance and manufacturing costs 

from their subscribers. AT&T urges the 

Commission to declare that costs 

incurred in the development of CMAS 

and in the provision of mobile 

emergency alerts are recoverable under 

the WARN Act and that cost recovery is 

consistent with the plain language of the 

Act. AT&T argues that the statutory 

language concerning separate or 

additional charges ‘‘only addresses the 

appearance or presentation of charges 

on a subscriber’s bill for the emergency 

alert mandate,’’ ‘‘does not in any way 

limit a carrier’s ability to recover costs 

associated with CMAS 

implementation,’’ and ‘‘to limit cost 

recovery in this way would require the 

imposition of rate regulation and a 

regulatory accounting regime, which the 

Commission specifically has rejected for 

the competitive wireless industry.’’ 

SouthernLINC argues that section 

602(b)(2)(C) should be interpreted to 

apply only to separate charges 

associated with the specific costs 

involved in transmitting each alert and 

that subscribers should not be charged 

a per-alert fee. It argues, however, that 

carriers should be permitted to recover 

costs associated with the 

implementation and ongoing system 

management and any vendor-imposed 

handset costs. Such an approach, 

SouthernLINC argues, would encourage 

greater carrier participation. T-Mobile 

agrees, stating that it is fair to 

consumers who choose to buy a more 

sophisticated handset to cover some or 

all of the costs of the handset’s 

development. On the other hand, 

Wireless RERC argues that CMS 

providers should be treated no 

differently than EAS participants who 

must bear the costs of their EAS 

participation. It states further that 

‘‘since CMAS is starting as a voluntary 

system and CMS providers are not 

allowed to impose a separate or 

additional charge for such transmission 

or capability, the Commission should 

review its mobile services regulations to 

implement any incentives that might 

offset CMS expenses and encourage 

CMS providers to participate in CMAS.’’ 

45. Discussion. We agree with those 

commenters who urge us to find that 

section 602(b)(2)(C) precludes CMS 

providers from imposing a ‘‘separate or 

additional charge’’ for the transmission 

of CMAS alerts or the capability to 

transmit such alerts, but that such 

language does not preclude recovery of 

CMAS-associated costs, including costs 

related to the development of customer 

handsets. Section 602(b)(2)(C) states that 

‘‘[a] commercial mobile service licensee 

that elects to transmit emergency alerts 

may not impose a separate or additional 

charge for such transmission or 

capability.’’ We interpret this language 

to mean that CMS providers shall not 

separately or additionally charge 

customers for provided alerts. But 

nothing in this statutory language—and 

nothing in the statute’s legislative 

history—indicates an intention on the 

part of Congress to preclude recovery of, 

for example, CMAS-related 

development and implementation costs. 

In this regard, we note that Congress is 

well aware of this Commission’s Title III 

regulation of wireless carriers, which 

provides for flexible recovery of costs 

through assessed rates and other means. 

We conclude that, if Congress had 

wanted to preclude cost recovery, as 

opposed to merely prohibiting separate 

or additional charges for alert 

transmission or alert transmission 

capability, it would have said so. We 

also find that permitting recoverable 

costs associated with the provision of 

CMAS alerts would be consistent with 

the voluntary nature of the CMAS and 

our general policy to encourage 

participation in the CMAS. 

46. Although we make clear that 

section 602(b)(2)(C) does not prevent 

recovery of CMAS-related costs by CMS 

providers, we do not mandate any 

particular method of cost recovery. CMS 

providers have the discretion to absorb 

service-related costs or to pass on all or 

portions of such costs to their customers 

pursuant to generally-developed service 

rates. We also find that, because CMS 

providers operate in a competitive 

marketplace, market forces will guide 

decisions by CMS providers in 

recovering costs. Finally, we find that 

the language of section 602(b)(2)(C) is, 

on its face, limited to charges for alert 

transmissions and the capability to 

provide such transmissions and, 

accordingly, does not prohibit cost 

recovery, as described here, for 

specially-designed or augmented 

customer handsets, or in connection 

with CMAS-related services that share 

use of common technology but are not 

themselves CMAS alerts, for example, 

for provision of traffic alerts. 

4. CMAS Deployment Timeline 

47. Background. In its 

recommendations, the CMSAAC 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
54520 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

proposed a timeline for implementation 

of the CMAS. According to the 

CMSAAC, it will take twelve months 

from the date of submission of the 

CMSAAC’s recommendations to 

complete an industry standardization 

process. Participating CMS providers 

would then need an additional twentyfour months from the date of completion 

of the standardization process for CMAS 

development and testing. Initial CMS 

provider testing and deployment would 

occur 18–24 months from the date the 

industry standardization process is 

completed. 

48. The specifics of the timeline 

recommended by the CMSAAC are 

indicated in Figure 1 below. 

49. The CMSAAC based its proposed 

deployment timeline upon the 

assumptions that (1) the CMSAAC 

recommendations would be accepted 

without any major technical change and 

(2) the government documentation and 

deliverables would be available at the 

milestone dates indicated on the 

timeline. As indicated in Figure 1, when 

creating this timeline, the CMSAAC 

assumed that the Federal Alert 

Aggregator and Gateway would provide 

the Government Interface Design 

specifications in January 2008. The 

CMSAAC also identified other factors it 

stated were outside of the CMS 

providers’ control that would influence 

the deployment and availability of the 

CMAS, such as manufacturer 

development cycles for equipment in 

the CMS provider infrastructure, 

manufacturer commitment to support 

the delivery technology of choice by the 

CMS provider, and mobile device 

manufacturer development of the 

required CMAS functionality on the 

mobile devices. 

50. As discussed above, on May 30, 

2008, the Department of Homeland 

Security’s Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) 

announced that it will perform the 

CMAS Alert Aggregator/Gateway role. 

FEMA noted that the Alert Aggregator/ 

Gateway system has not yet been 

designed or engineered, and did not 

indicate when it would make the 

Government Interface Design 

specifications available to the other 

CMAS participants. FEMA did note, 

however, that it would work with DHS 

Science and Technology scientists to 

finalize the technical solutions and with 

the Federal Communications 

Commission to make the Alert 

Aggregator system operational. We also 

note that the Alliance for 

Telecommunications Industry Solutions 

(ATIS) and the Telecommunications 

Industry Association (TIA) are currently 

developing standards related to the 

CMAS, particularly regarding the 

development of standards and protocols 

for the ‘‘C’’ interface. 

51. Comments. As we indicated in our 

CMAS First R&O, a majority of 

commenters that addressed the issue 

supported the CMSAAC’s proposed 

deployment timeline. 

52. Discussion. In our recent Order on 

Reconsideration, we noted our intent 

that our rules would be implemented in 

a manner consistent with the CMSAAC 

recommended timeline. We agree with 

commenters who argue that the Alert 

Aggregator/Gateway must be a 

centralized, federal entity. As noted 

above FEMA has only recently indicated 

that it can serve as the Federal 

government entity that will provide the 

Alert Aggregator and Gateway functions, 

and has not stated when it would be 

able to provide the Government 

Interface Design specifications. 

However, in order to ensure that all 

Americans have the capability to receive 

timely and accurate alerts, warnings, 

and critical information regarding 

disasters and other emergencies 

irrespective of what communications 

technologies they use, we find that if 

FEMA has not issued its Government 

Interface Design specifications by 

December 31, 2008, the Commission 

will reconvene an emergency meeting of 

the CMSAAC to address the issuance of 

Government Interface Design 

specifications. 

53. Because of this ambiguity and the 

need to ensure timely deployment of the 

CMAS, regardless of the federal entity 

serving as the Aggregator/Gateway, the 

CMAS timeline rules we adopt today do 

not implement the specific target dates 

recommended by the CMSAAC. Rather, 

as stated in our recent Order on 

Reconsideration, participating CMS 

providers must begin development and 

testing of the CMAS in a manner 

consistent with our new part 10 rules no 

later than ten months from the date that 

FEMA makes the Government Interface 

Design specifications available. As we 

noted in the Order on Reconsideration, 

this 10-month period corresponds to the 

interval recommended by the CMSAAC 

for the completion of industry standards 

necessary for CMAS development and 

testing. However, we further require 

that, at the end of this 10-month period, 

participating CMS providers shall begin 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULESER22SE08.010</GPH> 
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 54521 

an eighteen month implementation and 

deployment period before the CMAS 

can be made available to the public. We 

recognize that this is an accelerated 

deployment schedule compared to that 

recommended by the CMSAAC. 

Specifically, following the CMSAAC 

recommendations, the timeframe would 

be as long as twenty-four months 

following the 10-month industry 

standardization process, as compared to 

the eighteen months that we order 

today. Because of the important public 

safety considerations before us, 

including the need for the provision of 

timely and vital emergency information 

to an increasingly mobile society and 

our continuing mandate under the 

Communications Act to promote the 

safety of life and property through the 

use of wire and radio communications, 

we find that this accelerated schedule is 

in the public interest. Moreover, 

providing an eighteen month 

implementation and deployment period 

still allows more than twenty-four 

months from the date the Government 

Interface Design specifications are 

available for deployment to occur. 

54. We also agree with the CMSAAC 

recommendations that during this 

development and deployment period, 

the Alert Gateway and Alert Aggregator 

should collaborate with participating 

CMS providers to test the CMAS. In 

light of what we expect to be a 

collaborative process, the considerable 

involvement of the carriers to date in 

the development of the CMAS system 

and operational parameters, and the 

compelling need to provide this 

capability to the public in a prompt 

fashion, we believe even this 

accelerated schedule provides a 

sufficient amount of time to CMS 

providers for deployment of the CMAS. 

Procedural Matters 

D. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Analysis 

55. As required by section 604 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 

U.S.C. 604, the Commission has 

prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis of the possible impact of the 

rule changes contained in this R&O on 

small entities. The Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Act Analysis is set forth in 

Appendix A, infra. The Commission’s 

Consumer & Government Affairs 

Bureau, Reference Information Center, 

will send a copy of this R&O, including 

the Final Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration. 

E. Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis 

56. The initial election that CMS 

providers must make pursuant to 

section 602(b)(2)(A) of the WARN Act, 

discussed above, has been granted preapproval by OMB. This R&O may also 

contain new information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public 

Law 104–13. If the Commission 

determines that the R&O contains 

collection requirements subject to the 

PRA, it will be submitted to the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review under section 3507 of the PRA 

at the appropriate time and the 

Commission will publish a separate 

notice inviting comment. 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, we note that, pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.C.S. 

3506(c)(4), we will seek specific 

comment on how the Commission might 

‘‘further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’ 

F. Congressional Review Act Analysis 

57. The Commission will send a copy 

of the R&O to Congress and the 

Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

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

G. Alternative Formats 

58. 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. 

Ordering Clauses 

59. 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 R&O 

is hereby adopted. The rules adopted in 

the R&O become effective October 22, 

2008. Election to participate in CMAS 

must be made no later than 30 days after 

the release of this order. 

It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Government Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this R&O, including the Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Council for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

60. 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. 

H. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Order 

61. Section 602(b) of the WARN Act 

requires the Commission to ‘‘complete a 

proceeding—(A) to allow any licensee 

providing commercial mobile service 

* * * to transmit emergency alerts to 

subscribers to, or users of, the 

commercial mobile service provided by 

such license; (B) to require any licensee 

providing commercial mobile service 

that elects, in whole or in part, * * * 

not to transmit emergency alerts to 

provide clear and conspicuous notice at 

the point of sale of any devices with 

which its commercial mobile service is 

included, that it will not transmit such 

alerts via the service it provides for the 

device; and (C) to require any licensee 

providing commercial mobile service 

that elects * * * not to transmit 

emergency alerts to notify its existing 

subscribers of its election.’’ Although 

the CMAS NPRM solicited comment on 

issues related to section 602(a) (CMS 

alert regulations) and 602(c) (Public 

Television Station equipment 

requirements), this CMAS Third R&O 

only addresses issues raised by section 

602(b) of the WARN Act. Accordingly, 

this FRFA only addressees the manner 

in which any commenters to the IRFA 

addressed the Commission’s adoption of 

standards and requirements for the 

CMAS as required by section 602(b) of 

the WARN Act. 

62. This CMAS Third R&O adopts 

rules necessary to allow any CMS 

provider to transmit emergency alerts to 

its subscribers; to require that CMS 

providers that elect, in whole or in part, 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
54522 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

not to transmit emergency alerts provide 

clear and conspicuous notice at the 

point of sale of any CMS devices that it 

will not transmit such alerts via that 

device; and to require CMS providers 

that elect not to transmit emergency 

alerts to notify their existing subscribers 

of their election. 

I. Summary of Significant Issues Raised 

by Public Comments in Response to the 

IRFA 

63. 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., which 

supported the Commission’s adoption of 

the Commercial Mobile Service Alert 

Advisory Committee’s (CMSAAC) 

recommendations. Interstate Wireless 

did not comment specifically on the 

IRFA, nor did it comment on any issues 

directly relating to section 602(b) of the 

WARN Act. 

J. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which 

Rules Will Apply 

64. 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). 

65. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite). Since 2007, 

the SBA has recognized wireless firms 

within this new, broad, economic 

census category. Prior to that time, the 

SBA had developed a small business 

size standard for wireless firms within 

the now-superseded census categories of 

‘‘Paging’’ and ‘‘Cellular and Other 

Wireless Telecommunications.’’ Under 

the present and prior categories, the 

SBA has deemed a wireless business to 

be small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Because Census Bureau data 

are not yet available for the new 

category, we will estimate small 

business prevalence using the prior 

categories and associated data. For the 

first category of Paging, data for 2002 

show that there were 807 firms that 

operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 804 firms had employment of 999 

or fewer employees, and three firms had 

employment of 1,000 employees or 

more. For the second category of 

Cellular and Other Wireless 

Telecommunications, data for 2002 

show that there were 1,397 firms that 

operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 1,378 firms had employment of 

999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms 

had employment of 1,000 employees or 

more. Thus, using the prior categories 

and the available data, we estimate that 

the majority of wireless firms can be 

considered small. 

66. Cellular Service. As noted, the 

SBA has developed a small business 

size standard for small businesses in the 

category ‘‘Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except satellite).’’ Under that 

SBA category, a business is small if it 

has 1,500 or fewer employees. Since 

2007, the SBA has recognized wireless 

firms within this new, broad, economic 

census category. Prior to that time, the 

SBA had developed a small business 

size standard for wireless firms within 

the now-superseded census categories of 

‘‘Paging’’ and ‘‘Cellular and Other 

Wireless Telecommunications.’’ 

Accordingly, the pertinent data for this 

category is contained within the prior 

Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 

(except Satellite) category. 

67. Auctions. Initially, we note that, 

as a general matter, the number of 

winning bidders that qualify as small 

businesses at the close of an auction 

does not necessarily represent the 

number of small businesses currently in 

service. Also, the Commission does not 

generally track subsequent business size 

unless, in the context of assignments or 

transfers, unjust enrichment issues are 

implicated. 

68. 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. 

69. 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 R&O. 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. 

70. Wireless Communications 

Services. This service can be used for 

fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital 

audio broadcasting satellite uses in the 

2305–2320 MHz and 2345–2360 MHz 

bands. The Commission defined ‘‘small 

business’’ for the wireless 

communications services (WCS) auction 

as an entity with average gross revenues 

of $40 million for each of the three 

preceding years, and a ‘‘very small 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 54523 

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. 

71. 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 R&O, the 

Commission reorganized the 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. 

72. 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. 

73. 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. 

74. 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.’’ 

75. Advanced Wireless Services. In 

the AWS–1 R&O, 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 R&O 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 R&O 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 

R&O also provides small businesses 

with a bidding credit of 15 percent and 

very small businesses with a bidding 

credit of 25 percent. 

76. 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, we will estimate small 

business prevalence using the prior 

categories and associated data. For the 

first category of Paging, data for 2002 

show that there were 807 firms that 

operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 804 firms had employment of 999 

or fewer employees, and three firms had 

employment of 1,000 employees or 

more. For the second category of 

Cellular and Other Wireless 

Telecommunications, data for 2002 

show that there were 1,397 firms that 

operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 1,378 firms had employment of 

999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms 

had employment of 1,000 employees or 

more. Thus, using the prior categories 

and the available data, we estimate that 

the majority of wireless firms can be 

considered small. Thus, under this 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
54524 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

category, the majority of firms can be 

considered small. 

77. In the Paging Third R&O, we 

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. Fifty-seven 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, we 

estimate that 360 are small, under the 

SBA-approved small business size 

standard. 

78. 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 services (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 

auction, there were seven winning 

bidders that qualified as ‘‘very small 

business’’ entities, and one that 

qualified as a ‘‘small business’’ entity. 

79. Wireless Communications 

Equipment Manufacturers. While these 

entities are merely indirectly affected by 

our action, we are describing 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. 

80. 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. 

81. Software Publishers. While these 

entities are merely indirectly affected by 

our action, we are 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, 

we estimate that the majority of the 

firms in this category are small entities 

that may be affected by our action. 

K. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

82. This R&O 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 R&O 

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, we note that pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4), we previously sought 

specific comment on how the 

Commission might ‘‘further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. 

L. Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

83. 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.’’ 

84. As noted in paragraph 2 above, 

this CMAS Third R&O deals only with 

the WARN Act section 602(b) 

requirement that the Commission adopt 

rules necessary to allow any CMS 

licensee to transmit emergency alerts to 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 54525 

its subscribers; to require that CMS 

providers that elect, in whole or in part, 

not to transmit emergency alerts, 

provide clear and conspicuous notice at 

the point of sale of any CMS devices 

that it will not transmit such alerts via 

that device; and to require CMS 

providers that elect not to transmit 

emergency alerts, to notify their existing 

subscribers of their election. The 

entities affected by this order were 

largely the members of the CMSAAC. In 

its formation of the CMSAAC, the 

Commission made sure to include 

representatives of small businesses 

among the advisory committee 

members. Also, as we indicate by our 

treatment of the comments of Interstate 

Wireless in paragraph 4 above, the 

requirements and standards on which 

the Commission sought comment 

already contain concerns raised by 

small businesses. The WARN ACT 

NPRM also sought comment on a 

number of alternatives to the 

recommendations of the CMSAAC, such 

as the Digital EAS and FM sub-carrier 

based alerts. In its consideration of these 

and other alternatives the CMSAAC 

recommendations, the Commission has 

attempted to impose minimal regulation 

on small entities to the extent consistent 

with our goal of advancing our public 

safety mission by adopting requirements 

and standards for a CMAS that CMS 

providers would elect to provide alerts 

and warnings to their customers. The 

affected CMS providers have 

overwhelmingly expressed their 

willingness to cooperate in the 

formation of the CMAS, and we 

anticipate that the standards and 

requirements that we adopt in this order 

will encourage CMS providers to work 

with other industry and government 

entities to complete and participate in 

the CMAS. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 10 

Alert and warning, AMBER alert, 

Commercial mobile service provider. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Final Rules 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR 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. 

Subpart A—General Information 

■ 2. Section 10.10 is amended by adding 

paragraphs (g) through (j) to read as 

follows: 

§ 10.10 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(g) ‘‘C’’ Interface. The interface 

between the Alert Gateway and CMS 

provider Gateway. 

(h) CMS provider Gateway. The 

mechanism(s) that supports the ‘‘C’’ 

interface and associated protocols 

between the Alert Gateway and the CMS 

provider Gateway, and which performs 

the various functions associated with 

the authentication, management and 

dissemination of CMAS Alert Messages 

received from the Alert Gateway. 

(i) CMS provider infrastructure. The 

mechanism(s) that distribute received 

CMAS Alert Messages throughout the 

CMS provider’s network, including cell 

site/paging transceivers and perform 

functions associated with authentication 

of interactions with the Mobile Device. 

(j) Mobile Devices. The subscriber 

equipment generally offered by CMS 

providers that supports the distribution 

of CMAS Alert Messages. 

■ 3. Section 10.11 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 10.11 CMAS Implementation Timeline. 

Notwithstanding anything in this part 

to the contrary, a participating CMS 

provider shall begin an 18 month period 

of development, testing and deployment 

of the CMAS in a manner consistent 

with the rules in this part no later than 

10 months from the date that the 

Federal Alert Aggregator and Alert 

Gateway makes the Government 

Interface Design specifications available. 

■ 4. Add a new Subpart B to read as 

follows: 

Subpart B—Election to Participate in 

Commercial Mobile Alert System 

Sec. 

10.210 CMAS Participation Election 

Procedures. 

10.220 Withdrawal of Election to 

Participate in CMAS. 

10.230 New CMS Providers Participation in 

CMAS. 

10.240 Notification to New Subscribers of 

Non-Participation in CMAS. 

10.250 Notification to Existing Subscribers 

of Non-Participation in CMAS. 

10.260 Timing of Subscriber Notification. 

10.270 Subscribers’ Right To Terminate 

Subscription. 

10.280 Subscribers’ Right To Opt Out of 

CMAS Notifications. 

Subpart B—Election to Participate in 

Commercial Mobile Alert System 

§ 10.210 CMAS Participation Election 

Procedures. 

(a) A CMS provider that elects to 

transmit CMAS Alert Messages, in part 

or in whole, shall electronically file 

with the Commission a letter attesting 

that the Provider: 

(1) Agrees to transmit such alerts in a 

manner consistent with the technical 

standards, protocols, procedures, and 

other technical requirements 

implemented by the Commission; and 

(2) Commits to support the 

development and deployment of 

technology for the ‘‘C’’ interface, the 

CMS provider Gateway, the CMS 

provider infrastructure, and mobile 

devices with CMAS functionality and 

support of the CMS provider selected 

technology. 

(b) A CMS provider that elects not to 

transmit CMAS Alert Messages shall file 

electronically with the Commission a 

letter attesting to that fact. 

(c) CMS providers shall file their 

election electronically to the docket. 

§ 10.220 Withdrawal of Election to 

Participate in CMAS. 

A CMS provider that elects to 

transmit CMAS Alert Messages, in part 

or in whole, may withdraw its election 

without regulatory penalty or forfeiture 

if it notifies all affected subscribers as 

well as the Federal Communications 

Commission at least sixty (60) days 

prior to the withdrawal of its election. 

In the event that a carrier withdraws 

from its election to transmit CMAS Alert 

Messages, the carrier must notify each 

affected subscriber individually in clear 

and conspicuous language citing the 

statute. Such notice must promptly 

inform the customer that he or she no 

longer could expect to receive alerts and 

of his or her right to terminate service 

as a result, without penalty or early 

termination fee. Such notice must 

facilitate the ability of a customer to 

automatically respond and immediately 

discontinue service. 

§ 10.230 New CMS Providers Participation 

in CMAS. 

CMS providers who initiate service at 

a date after the election procedure 

provided for in § 10.210(d) and who 

elect to provide CMAS Alert Messages, 

in part or in whole, shall file 

electronically their election to transmit 

in the manner and with the attestations 

described in § 10.210(a). 

§ 10.240 Notification to New Subscribers 

of Non-Participation in CMAS. 

(a) A CMS provider that elects not to 

transmit CMAS Alert Messages, in part 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES
54526 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 184 / Monday, September 22, 2008 / Rules and Regulations 

or in whole, shall provide clear and 

conspicuous notice, which takes into 

account the needs of persons with 

disabilities, to new subscribers of its 

non-election or partial election to 

provide Alert messages at the point-ofsale. 

(b) The point-of-sale includes stores, 

kiosks, third party reseller locations, 

web sites (proprietary or third party), 

and any other venue through which the 

CMS provider’s devices and services are 

marketed or sold. 

(c) CMS providers electing to transmit 

alerts ‘‘in part’’ shall use the following 

notification: 

NOTICE REGARDING TRANSMISSION OF 

WIRELESS EMERGENCY ALERTS 

(Commercial Mobile Alert Service) 

[[CMS provider]] has chosen to offer 

wireless emergency alerts within portions of 

its service area, as defined by the terms and 

conditions of its service agreement, on 

wireless emergency alert capable devices. 

There is no additional charge for these 

wireless emergency alerts. 

Wireless emergency alerts may not be 

available on all devices or in the entire 

service area, or if a subscriber is outside of 

the [[CMS provider]] service area. For details 

on the availability of this service and 

wireless emergency alert capable devices, 

please ask a sales representative, or go to 

[[CMS provider’s URL]]. 

Notice required by FCC Rule 47 CFR 

10.240 (Commercial Mobile Alert Service). 

(d) CMS providers electing in whole 

not to transmit alerts shall use the 

following notification language: 

NOTICE TO NEW AND EXISTING 

SUBSCRIBERS REGARDING 

TRANSMISSION OF WIRELESS 

EMERGENCY ALERTS (Commercial Mobile 

Alert Service) 

[[CMS provider]] presently does not 

transmit wireless emergency alerts. Notice 

required by FCC Rule 47 CFR 10.240 

(Commercial Mobile Alert Service). 

§ 10.250 Notification to Existing 

Subscribers of Non-Participation in CMAS. 

(a) A CMS provider that elects not to 

transmit CMAS Alert Messages, in part 

or in whole, shall provide clear and 

conspicuous notice, which takes into 

account the needs of persons with 

disabilities, to existing subscribers of its 

non-election or partial election to 

provide Alert messages by means of an 

announcement amending the existing 

subscriber’s service agreement. 

(b) For purposes of this section, a 

CMS provider that elects not to transmit 

CMAS Alert Messages, in part or in 

whole, shall use the notification 

language set forth in § 10.240 (c) or (d) 

respectively, except that the last line of 

the notice shall reference FCC Rule 47 

CFR 10.250, rather than FCC Rule 47 

CFR 10.240. 

(c) In the case of prepaid customers, 

if a mailing address is available, the 

CMS provider shall provide the required 

notification via U.S. mail. If no mailing 

address is available, the CMS provider 

shall use any reasonable method at its 

disposal to alert the customer to a 

change in the terms and conditions of 

service and directing the subscriber to 

voice-based notification or to a Web site 

providing the required notification. 

§ 10.260 Timing of Subscriber Notification. 

A CMS provider that elects not to 

transmit CMAS Alert Messages, in part 

or in whole, must comply with 

§§ 10.240 and 10.250 no later than 60 

days following an announcement by the 

Commission that the Alert Aggregator/ 

Gateway system is operational and 

capable of delivering emergency alerts 

to participating CMS providers. 

§ 10.270 Subscribers’ Right To Terminate 

Subscription. 

If a CMS provider that has elected to 

provide CMAS Alert Messages in whole 

or in part thereafter chooses to cease 

providing such alerts, either in whole or 

in part, its subscribers may terminate 

their subscription without penalty or 

early termination fee. 

§ 10.280 Subscribers’ Right To Opt Out of 

CMAS Notifications. 

(a) CMS providers may provide their 

subscribers with the option to opt out of 

both, or either, the ‘‘Child Abduction 

Emergency/AMBER Alert’’ and 

‘‘Imminent Threat Alert’’ classes of 

Alert Messages. 

(b) CMS providers shall provide their 

subscribers with a clear indication of 

what each option means, and provide 

examples of the types of messages the 

customer may not receive as a result of 

opting out. 

[FR Doc. E8–21946 Filed 9–19–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0068] 

RIN 2127–AK19 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Electronic Stability Control 

Systems; Controls and Displays 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule; response to petitions 

for reconsideration. 

SUMMARY: On April 6, 2007, NHTSA 

published a final rule establishing a new 

Federal motor vehicle safety standard 

requiring light vehicles to be equipped 

with electronic stability control systems. 

The final rule was established as part of 

a comprehensive plan for reducing the 

serious risk of rollover crashes and the 

risk of death and serious injury in those 

crashes. This document responds to 

several petitions for reconsideration of 

the final rule. After carefully 

considering the issues raised, the agency 

is granting some aspects of the petitions, 

and denying some aspects. This 

document amends the final rule 

accordingly. This document also fulfills 

the obligations of the United States with 

respect to initiating rulemaking in order 

to comply with the global technical 

regulation (GTR) for ESC, adopted on 

June 26, 2008. 

DATES: This rule is effective October 22, 

2008. 

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration 

should refer to the docket number and 

be submitted to: Administrator, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West 

Building, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 

20590. Note that all documents received 

will be posted without change to the 

docket, including any personal 

information provided. Please see the 

Privacy Act discussion under section IV 

on Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical issues, contact Nathaniel 

Beuse, Office of Crash Avoidance 

Standards, by telephone at (202) 366– 

4931, or by fax at (202) 366–7002. For 

legal issues, contact Rebecca Yoon, 

Office of the Chief Counsel, by 

telephone at (202) 366–2992, or by fax 

at (202) 366–3820. 

Both persons may be reached by mail 

at the following address: National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of Final Rule; Response to 

Petitions for Reconsideration 

II. Background 

A. Benefits of ESC 

B. April 2007 Final Rule 

C. Summary of Petitions for 

Reconsideration to the Final Rule 

III. Discussion and Analysis of Responses to 

Petitions for Reconsideration 

A. Telltale Issues 

1. Use of a Two-Part ‘‘ESC Off’’ Telltale 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with RULES