FR Doc E7-24876

[Federal Register: January 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 2)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 545-607]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03ja08-17]

[[Page 545]]

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

Part II

Federal Communications Commission

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

47 CFR Chapter I

Commercial Mobile Alert System; Proposed Rule

[[Page 546]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Chapter I

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

Commercial Mobile Alert System

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: Send comments and reply comments to the Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. You may submit comments, identified
by PSHSB Docket No. 07-287, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov/.

Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail; FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
In addition to filing with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on
the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirement
contained herein should be submitted to the Federal Communications
Commission via e-mail to PRA@fcc.gov and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office
of Management and Budget, via e-mail to
Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov or via fax at 202-395-5167.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in PSHSB Docket No. 07-287, FCC 07-214,
adopted December 14, 2007, and released December 14, 2007. The complete
text of this document is available for inspection and copying during
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals
II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. This
document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating
contractor Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street,
SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 378-3160 or
(202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via e-mail at
fcc@bcpiweb.com. It is also available on the Commission's Web site at

http://www.fcc.gov.

This document contains a proposed information collection
requirement. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the OMB to comment on
the proposed information collection requirement contained in this
document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public
Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due March 3, 2008.
Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on the respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment
on how it might ``further reduce the information collection burden for
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
OMB Control Number: None.
Title: Election Whether To Participate in the Commercial Mobile
Alert System.
Form No.: N/A.
Type of Review: New Collection.
Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit.
Number of Respondents: 1,253.
Time per Response: 6 minutes.
Frequency of Response: One-time.
Obligation to Respond: Mandatory.
Total Annual Burden: 125.3 hours.
Total Annual Costs: $0.
Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N/A.
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Not applicable.
Needs and Uses: Section 602(b)(2)(A) of the WARN Act requires each
Commercial Mobile Service (CMS) provider to notify the Commission,
within 30 days of the Commission's release of the order adopting CMAS
technical requirements and protocols, whether it intends to participate
in the CMAS. The information collected will be the CMS provider's
contact information and its election, i.e., a ``yes'' or ``no,'' on
whether it intends to provide commercial mobile service alerts. The
Commission will use the information collected to meet its statutory
requirement under the WARN Act to accept licensees' election filings
and to establish an effective CMAS that will provide the public with
effective mobile alerts in a manner that imposes minimal regulatory
burdens on affected entities.

Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

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

[[Page 547]]

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

[[Page 548]]

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

WARN Act Section 602(a)--Technical Requirements

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

[[Page 549]]

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

[[Page 550]]

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

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

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

[[Page 551]]

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

[[Page 552]]

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

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

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

WARN Act Section 602(f)--Testing

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

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

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

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

44. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the
policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments
must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
deadlines for comments on the NPRM provided in

[[Page 553]]

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

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

48. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and,
where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may
be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
49. Small Businesses. Nationwide, there are a total of
approximately 22.4 million small businesses, according to SBA data.
50. Small Organizations. Nationwide, there are approximately 1.6
million small organizations.
51. Governmental Entities. The term ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' is defined as ``governments of cities, towns, townships,
villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of
less than fifty thousand.'' As of 2002, there were approximately 87,525
governmental jurisdictions in the United States. This number includes
38,967 county governments, municipalities, and townships, of which
37,373 (approximately 95.9%) have populations of fewer than 50,000, and
of which 1,594 have populations of 50,000 or more. Thus, we estimate
the number of small governmental jurisdictions overall to be 85,931 or
fewer.
52. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since
2007, the SBA has recognized wireless firms within this new, broad,
economic census category. Prior to that time, the SBA had developed a
small business size standard for wireless firms within the now-
superseded census categories of ``Paging'' and ``Cellular and Other
Wireless Telecommunications.'' Under the present and prior categories,
the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. Because Census Bureau data are not yet available for
the new category, we will estimate small business prevalence using the
prior categories and associated data. For the first category of Paging,
data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms that operated for the
entire year. Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer
employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.
For the second category of Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications, data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms that
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment
of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000
employees or more. Thus, using the prior categories and the available
data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be considered
small.
53. Cellular Service. As noted, the SBA has developed a small
business size standard for small businesses in the category ``Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite).'' Under that SBA
category, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Since
2007, the SBA has recognized wireless firms within this new, broad,
economic census category. Prior to that time, the SBA had developed a
small business size standard for wireless firms within the now-
superseded census categories of ``Paging'' and ``Cellular and Other
Wireless Telecommunications.'' Under the present and prior categories,
the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. Because Census Bureau data are not yet available for
the new category, we will estimate small business prevalence using the
prior categories and associated data.
54. For the first category of Paging, data for 2002 show that there
were 807 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 804
firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had
employment of 1,000 employees or more. For the second category of
Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, data for 2002 show that
there were 1,397 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19
firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, using the prior
categories and the available data, we estimate that the majority of
wireless firms can be considered small.
55. Auctions. In addition, we note that, as a general matter, the
number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close
of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small
businesses currently in service. Also, the Commission does not
generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of
assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated.
56. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband
Personal Communications

[[Page 554]]

Service (PCS) spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated
A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The
Commission has created a small business size standard for Blocks C and
F as an entity that has average gross revenues of less than $40 million
in the three previous calendar years. For Block F, an additional small
business size standard for ``very small business'' was added and is
defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average
gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three
calendar years. These small business size standards, in the context of
broadband PCS auctions, have been approved by the SBA. No small
businesses within the SBA-approved small business size standards bid
successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning
bidders that qualified as small entities in the C Block auctions. A
total of 93 ``small'' and ``very small'' business bidders won
approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F.
On March 23, 1999, the Commission reauctioned 155 C, D, E, and F Block
licenses; there were 113 small business winning bidders. On January 26,
2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F PCS licenses
in Auction 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29 qualified
as ``small'' or ``very small'' businesses. Subsequent events concerning
Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations, resulted in a
total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for grant.
57. Narrowband Personal Communications Service. The Commission held
an auction for Narrowband Personal Communications Service (PCS)
licenses that commenced on July 25, 1994, and closed on July 29, 1994.
A second commenced on October 26, 1994 and closed on November 8, 1994.
For purposes of the first two Narrowband PCS auctions, ``small
businesses'' were entities with average gross revenues for the prior
three calendar years of $40 million or less. Through these auctions,
the Commission awarded a total of forty-one licenses, 11 of which were
obtained by four small businesses. To ensure meaningful participation
by small business entities in future auctions, the Commission adopted a
two-tiered small business size standard in the Narrowband PCS Second
Report and Order. A ``small business'' is an entity that, together with
affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for
the three preceding years of not more than $40 million. A ``very small
business'' is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling
interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of
not more than $15 million. The SBA has approved these small business
size standards. A third auction commenced on October 3, 2001 and closed
on October 16, 2001. Here, five bidders won 317 (MTA and nationwide)
licenses. Three of these claimed status as a small or very small entity
and won 311 licenses.
58. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for
fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite
uses in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands. The Commission
defined ``small business'' for the wireless communications services
(WCS) auction as an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million
for each of the three preceding years, and a ``very small business'' as
an entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the
three preceding years. The SBA has approved these definitions. The
Commission auctioned geographic area licenses in the WCS service. In
the auction, which commenced on April 15, 1997 and closed on April 25,
1997, there were seven bidders that won 31 licenses that qualified as
very small business entities, and one bidder that won one license that
qualified as a small business entity.
59. 700 MHz Guard Bands Licenses. In the 700 MHz Guard Bands Order,
the Commission adopted size standards for ``small businesses'' and
``very small businesses'' for purposes of determining their eligibility
for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment
payments. A small business in this service is an entity that, together
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross
revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years.
Additionally, a ``very small business'' is an entity that, together
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross
revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three
years. SBA approval of these definitions is not required. An auction of
52 Major Economic Area (MEA) licenses for each of two spectrum blocks
commenced on September 6, 2000, and closed on September 21, 2000. Of
the 104 licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were sold to nine bidders. Five
of these bidders were small businesses that won a total of 26 licenses.
A second auction of remaining 700 MHz Guard Bands licenses commenced on
February 13, 2001, and closed on February 21, 2001. All eight of the
licenses auctioned were sold to three bidders. One of these bidders was
a small business that won a total of two licenses. Subsequently, in the
700 MHz Second Report and Order, the Commission reorganized the
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.
60. 700 MHz Band Commercial Licenses. There is 80 megahertz of non-
Guard 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.
61. 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.
Seventy-two 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,

[[Page 555]]

and nine winning bidders claimed entrepreneur status and won 154
licenses.
62. 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.''
63. Advanced Wireless Services. In the AWS-1 Report and Order, the
Commission adopted rules that affect applicants who wish to provide
service in the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands. The Commission
did not know precisely the type of service that a licensee in these
bands might seek to provide. Nonetheless, the Commission anticipated
that the services that will be deployed in these bands may have capital
requirements comparable to those in the broadband Personal
Communications Service (PCS), and that the licensees in these bands
will be presented with issues and costs similar to those presented to
broadband PCS licensees. Further, at the time the broadband PCS service
was established, it was similarly anticipated that it would facilitate
the introduction of a new generation of service. Therefore, the AWS-1
Report and Order adopts the same small business size definition that
the Commission adopted for the broadband PCS service and that the SBA
approved. In particular, the AWS-1 Report and Order defines a ``small
business'' as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the
preceding three years not exceeding $40 million, and a ``very small
business'' as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the
preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. The AWS-1 Report and
Order also provides small businesses with a bidding credit of 15
percent and very small businesses with a bidding credit of 25 percent.
64. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service.
Broadband Radio Service (``BRS''), formerly known as Multipoint
Distribution Service (``MDS''), and Educational Broadband Service
(``EBS''), formerly known as Instructional Television Fixed Service
(``ITFS''), use frequencies at 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz to transmit
video programming and provide broadband services to residential
subscribers. These services, collectively referred to as ``wireless
cable,'' were originally designed for the delivery of multichannel
video programming, similar to that of traditional cable systems, but
over the past several years licensees have focused their operations
instead on providing two-way high-speed Internet access services. We
estimate that the number of wireless cable subscribers is approximately
100,000, as of March 2005. As described below, the SBA small business
size standard for the broad census category of Cable and Other Program
Distribution, which consists of such entities generating $13.5 million
or less in annual receipts, appears applicable to MDS and ITFS. Other
standards also apply, as described.
65. The Commission has defined small MDS (now BRS) entities in the
context of Commission license auctions. In the 1996 MDS auction, the
Commission defined a small business as an entity that had annual
average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the previous three
calendar years. This definition of a small entity in the context of MDS
auctions has been approved by the SBA. In the MDS auction, 67 bidders
won 493 licenses. Of the 67 auction winners, 61 claimed status as a
small business. At this time, the Commission estimates that of the 61
small business MDS auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees.
In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations,
there are approximately 392 incumbent MDS licensees that have gross
revenues that are not more than $40 million and are thus considered
small entities. MDS licensees and wireless cable operators that did not
receive their licenses as a result of the MDS auction fall under the
SBA small business size standard for Cable and Other Program
Distribution. Information available to us indicates that there are
approximately 850 of these licensees and operators that do not generate
revenue in excess of $13.5 million annually. Therefore, we estimate
that there are approximately 850 small entity MDS (or BRS) providers,
as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules.
66. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small
entities; however, the Commission has not created a specific small
business size standard for ITFS (now EBS). We estimate that there are
currently 2,032 EBS licensees, and all but 100 of the licenses are held
by educational institutions. Thus, we estimate that at least 1,932 EBS
licensees are small entities.
67. 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 category, the majority of firms can be considered small.
68. In the Paging Third Report and Order, 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.
69. Wireless Communications Service. This service can be used for
fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio

[[Page 556]]

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.
70. Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturers. While these
entities are merely indirectly affected by our action, we see 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.
71. 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.
72. NCE and Public Broadcast Stations. The Census Bureau defines
this category as follows: ``This industry comprises establishments
primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound. These
establishments operate television broadcasting studios and facilities
for the programming and transmission of programs to the public.'' The
SBA has created a small business size standard for Television
Broadcasting entities, which is: such firms having $13 million or less
in annual receipts. According to Commission staff review of the BIA
Publications, Inc., Master Access Television Analyzer Database as of
May 16, 2003, about 814 of the 1,220 commercial television stations in
the United States had revenues of $12 (twelve) million or less. We
note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies
as small under the above definition, business (control) affiliations
must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number
of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the
revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate
revenues from affiliated companies.
73. In addition, an element of the definition of ``small business''
is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are
unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would
establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its
field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to
which rules may apply do not exclude any television station from the
definition of a small business on this basis and are therefore over-
inclusive to that extent. Also as noted, an additional element of the
definition of ``small business'' is that the entity must be
independently owned and operated. We note that it is difficult at times
to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and our
estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive
to this extent. There are also 2,117 low power television stations
(LPTV). Given the nature of this service, we will presume that all LPTV
licensees qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business
size standard.
74. The Commission has, under SBA regulations, estimated the number
of licensed NCE television stations to be 380. We note, however, that,
in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the
above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included. Our
estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities
that might be affected by our action, because the revenue figure on
which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from
affiliated companies. The Commission does not compile and otherwise
does not have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that
would permit it to determine how many such stations would qualify as
small entities.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements

75. There are potential reporting or recordkeeping requirements
proposed in this NPRM. For example, section 602(b)(2)(A) of the WARN
Act requires that CMS providers shall file an election with the
Commission with respect to whether or not it intends to participate in
the CMAS. Further, 602(b)(1)(C) of the WARN Act requires CMS providers
to provide clear and conspicuous notice to new and existing customers
of the CMS provider's election not to participate in the CMAS. Further,
the Commission is considering whether to adopt procedures by which CMS
providers would log alerts. The Commission seeks comment on these
proposals and especially invited small entity comment. The NPRM also
seeks comment on potential testing procedures for the CMAS that could
affect CMS providers as well as Wireless Communications Equipment
Manufacturers. Finally, section 602(b)(2) requires that CMS providers
undertake a procedure to elect whether or not to provide alerts to
their customers. The proposals set forth in the NPRM are intended to
advance our public safety mission and establish an effective CMAS in a
manner that imposes minimal regulatory burdens on affected entities.

Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

76. 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

[[Page 557]]

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.''
77. As noted in paragraph 1 above, this NPRM initiates a
comprehensive rulemaking to establish a system by which CMS providers
may elect to transmit emergency alerts to the public, a goal mandated
by recent legislation and consistent with the Commission's obligation
to protect the lives and property of Americans. In commenting on the
manner in which the Commission seeks in this NPRM to achieve this goal,
commenters are invited to propose steps that the Commission may take to
minimize any significant economic impact on small entities. When
considering proposals made by other parties, commenters are invited to
propose significant alternatives that serve the goals of these
proposals

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules

78. None.

Ex Parte Rules

66. These matters shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentations must contain summaries of the substance
of the presentations and not merely a listing of the subjects
discussed. More than a one or two sentence description of the views and
arguments presented is generally required. Other requirements
pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in section
1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules.

Ordering Clauses

67. 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
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS hereby ADOPTED.
68. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Government Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Council for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
69. It is further ordered that the Commission's Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureau, shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to
the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST).

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Appendix A--Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee
Commercial Mobile Alert Service Architecture and Requirements

Date: 10/12/2007.
All marks, trademarks, and product names used in this document are
the property of their respective owners.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction and Executive Summary
1.1 Executive Summary
1.1.1 Reference Architecture (Section 2)
1.1.2 Deployment Scenarios (Section 3)
1.1.3 CMAS Alert Scenarios (Section 4)
1.1.4 General Recommendations and Conclusions (Section 5)
1.1.5 Service Profiles (Section 6)
1.1.6 Mobile Device Functionality for CMAS Alerts (Section 7)
1.1.7 Security for CMAS Alerts (Section 8)
1.1.8 CMAS Reliability & Performance (section 9)
1.1.9 Interface Protocols for CMAS Alerts (Section 10)
1.2 Definitions
1.3 Acronyms
2 Reference Architecture
2.1 Functional Reference Model Diagram
2.2 Government Administered Elements Definitions & Requirements
2.2.1 Reference Point A
2.2.2 Alert Aggregator
2.2.3 Reference Point B
2.2.4 Alert Gateway
2.2.4.1 General Alert Gateway System Requirements
2.2.4.2 CMSP Profile Support
2.3 CMSP Administered Elements Definitions & Requirements
2.3.1 Reference Point C
2.3.2 CMSP Gateway
2.3.3 CMSP Infrastructure
2.3.4 Reference Points D & E
2.3.5 Mobile Device
3 Deployment Scenarios
3.1 Scenarios for Single Technology Deployed
3.1.1 Scenario--CMAS in Entire Single Technology Operator
Network on All Devices
3.1.2 Scenario--CMAS in Entire Single Technology Operator
Network on a Subset of Devices
3.1.3 Scenario--CMAS in Subset of Single Technology Operator's
Network on All Devices
3.1.4 Scenario--CMAS in Subset of Single Technology Operator's
Network on Subset of Devices
3.2 Scenarios for Multiple Technologies Deployed
3.2.1 Scenario--CMAS in Entire Multiple Technology Operator
Network on All Devices
3.2.2 Scenario--CMAS in Entire Multiple Technology Operator
Network on Subset of Devices
3.2.3 Scenario--CMAS in Subset of Multiple Technology Operator
Network on Subset of Devices
3.3 Scenario for Operator Does Not Elect to Transmit CMAS Alerts
3.4 Subscriber Notification Recommendations
3.4.1 Notification Procedures
3.4.2 Notification Text Recommendations
4 CMAS Alert Scenarios
4.1 Nominal CMAS Alert Scenarios
4.1.1 Scenario for Nominal Text CMAS Alert
4.1.1.1 Pre-Conditions
4.1.1.2 Normal Flow
4.1.2 Scenario for Nominal Streaming Audio or Streaming Video
CMAS Alert
4.1.3 Scenario for Nominal Downloaded Multimedia CMAS Alert
4.2 CMAS Alert Cancellation Scenario
4.2.1 Pre-Conditions
4.2.2 Normal Flow
4.3 CMAS Alert Update Scenarios
4.3.1 Scenario for Update of Text CMAS Alert
4.3.1.1 Pre-Conditions
4.3.1.2 Normal Flow
4.3.2 Scenario for Update of Streaming Audio or Streaming Video
CMAS Alert
4.3.3 Scenario for Update of Downloaded Multimedia CMAS Alert
4.4 CMAS Alert Expiration Scenario
4.4.1 Pre-Conditions
4.4.2 Normal Flow
4.5 Duplicate CMAS Alerts Scenarios
4.5.1 Scenario for Duplicate CMAS Alerts on Same Broadcast
Technology
4.5.1.1 Pre-Conditions
4.5.1.2 Normal Flow
4.5.2 Scenario for Duplicate CMAS Alerts on Different Broadcast
Technologies
4.5.2.1 Pre-Conditions
4.5.2.2 Normal Flow
4.6 Multiple Different Active CMAS Alerts Scenario
4.6.1 Pre-Conditions
4.6.2 Normal Flow
5 General Requirements & Conclusions
5.1 Scope & Definition of CMAS Alerts
5.2 General CMAS Requirements & Conclusions
5.3 Recommendations for Alert Initiation & Alert Initiators
5.3.1 CMAM Elements
5.3.2 Generating CMAM From CAP Fields
5.3.2.1 Generating CMAM From Free Form Text
5.3.3 Presidential Message and AMBER Alert
5.3.4 Recommended Message Initiator Training
5.4 Recommendations for Geo-Targeting of CMAS Alerts

[[Page 558]]

5.5 Requirements and Recommendations on Needs of Users,
Including Individuals with Disabilities and the Elderly
5.5.1 General Requirements
5.5.2 User Needs Requirements
5.5.2.1 Alert/Attention Signal
5.5.2.2 Message Content
5.5.2.3 Output Mode/Display
5.5.2.4 Behavior on Receipt of a Message
5.5.2.5 CMAS-Related Print and Online Materials
5.5.3 Subscriber CMA Opt-Out Recommendations
5.6 Recommendations for CMAM Transmissions
5.7 Multi-Language CMAS Alerts Recommendations
5.8 CMAS Reception Control on Mobile Devices
5.9 Roaming
6 Service Profiles
6.1 Conclusions on Text, Audio, Video & Multimedia Resources
6.2 Text Profile
6.3 Streaming Audio Profile (future capability)
6.4 Streaming Video Profile (future capability)
6.5 Downloaded Multimedia Profile (future capability)
7 Mobile Device Functionality for CMAS Alerts
7.1 General Requirements on Mobile Device Functionality
7.2 Mobile Device Audio Attention Signal & Vibration Cadence
Recommendations
7.3 CMAS Functionality on Mobile Device
7.4 Impact to Mobile Device Battery Life
8 Security for CMAS Alerts
8.1 Alert Interface & Aggregator Trust Model
8.1.1 Trust Model Definitions
8.1.2 Trust Model Requirements
8.2 Alert Gateway Security Requirements
8.3 Reference Point C Security
8.4 Reference Points D & E Security
9 CMAS Reliability & Performance
9.1 Alert Gateway Performance Requirements
9.2 Alert Delivery Latency
9.3 CMAS End-to-End Reliability
9.4 Message Logging
9.4.1 Alert Gateway Logging
9.5 CMAS Testing
9.5.1 General CMAS Testing Recommendations
9.5.2 Alert Gateway Testing
10 Interface Protocols for CMAS Alerts
10.1 Reference Point A Protocol
10.2 Reference Point B Protocol
10.3 Alert Gateway Interfaces & Mapping Requirements
10.3.1 Alert Gateway Interface Requirements
10.3.2 Alert Gateway Interface Mapping Requirements
10.4 Reference Point C Protocol
10.4.1 Structure of the CMA ``C'' Reference Point Protocol
10.4.2 CMAC Data Dictionary
10.4.2.1 CMAC--Alert--Attributes Segment
10.4.2.2 CMAC--Alert--Info Segment
10.4.2.3 CMAC--Area Segment:
10.4.2.4 CMAC--Resource Segment:
10.4.3 Example CMAC XML Schema
10.4.4 Element Mapping from B Reference Point (CAP) to C
Reference Point (CMAC) to E Reference Point (CMAE) Elements
10.4.5 Definition of CMAC--cmas--geocode Element
10.4.6 Definition of CMAC Response Codes
10.4.7 Example CMAS ``C'' Interface Alert Messages
10.5 Reference Point E Protocols
11 Annex A--Anticipated Peak & Average CMAS Traffic Volume
12 Annex B--WARN Act Statutory Requirements
12.1 WARN Act Requirements
12.2 WARN Act Interpretations
12.2.1 CMSP Election
12.3 Licensees and Permittees of Noncommercial Educations
Broadcasting Stations or Public Television Stations

List of Figures

Figure 2-1 CMAS Functional Reference Model
Figure 3-1 CMAS in Entire Single Technology Network on All Devices
Figure 3-2 CMAS in Entire Network on Sub-set of Devices
Figure 3-3 CMAS in Subset of Single Technology Operator's Network on
All Devices
Figure 3-4 CMAS in Subset of Single Technology Operator's Network on
Subset of Devices
Figure 3-5 CMAS in Entire Multiple Technology Operator Network on
All Devices
Figure 3-6 CMAS in Entire Multiple Technology Operator Network on
Subset of Devices
Figure 3-7 CMAS in Subset of Multiple Technology Operator Network on
Subset of Devices
Figure 3-8 Operator Does Not Elect to Transmit CMAS Alerts
Figure 4-1 Flow for Scenario for Nominal Text CMAS Alert
Figure 4-2 Flow for CMAS Alert Cancellation Scenario
Figure 4-3 Flow for Scenario for Update of Text CMAS Alert
Figure 4-4 Flow for CMAS Alert Expiration Scenario
Figure 4-5 Flow for Scenario for Duplicate CMAS Alerts on Same
Broadcast Technology
Figure 4-6 Flow for Scenario for Duplicate CMAS Alerts on Different
Broadcast Technologies
Figure 4-7 Flow for Scenario for Multiple Different Active CMAS
Alerts Scenario
Figure 10-1 Relationship of CAP Elements to Reference Point C
Elements
Figure 10-2 CMAC Message Structure
Figure 12-1 Potential Deployment Timeline

List of Tables

Table 2-1 CMSP Profile on Alert Gateway
Table 5-1 CAP Value Field Mapping to Text
Table 6-1 Text Profile
Table 6-2 Streaming Audio Profile
Table 6-3 Video Profile
Table 6-4 Downloaded Multimedia Profile
Table 10-1 Parameter Mapping from ``B'' Interface CAP Message in to
``C'' Interface CMAC message
Table 10-2 CMAC--Alert--Attributes Segment
Table 10-3 CMAC--Alert--Info Segment
Table 10-4 CMAC--Area Segment
Table 10-5 CMAC--Resource Segment
Table 10-6 Mapping Reference Point B Elements to Reference Point C
Elements
Table 10-7 CMAC--cmas--geocode Assignments
Table 10-8 Reference Point E Protocol Elements
Table 11-1 Table of Total 2006 Tornado & Flash Flood Warnings by
State
Table 11-2 Table of 2006 Tornado & Flash Flood Warnings by State by
Month
Table 11-3 Estimated CMA Volume by Month

1 Introduction and Executive Summary

1.1 Executive Summary

On October 13, 2006, the President signed the Security and
Accountability For Every Port (SAFE Port) Act \1\ into law. Title VI
of the SAFE Port Act, the Warning, Alert and Response Network (WARN)
Act, \2\ establishes a process for Commercial Mobile Service
Providers (CMSPs) to voluntarily elect to transmit emergency alerts.
Section 603(c) of the WARN Act required that the Federal
Communications Commission (Commission) establish the Commercial
Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee (CMSAAC) to develop and
recommend technical standards and protocols for the voluntary
transmission of emergency alerts by CMSPs within one year from the
date of enactment of the WARN Act. (i.e., by October 12, 2007).\3\
This document presents the result of the CMSAAC's efforts to satisfy
the obligations set forth in the WARN Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE
Port Act), Pub. L. 109-347.
\2\ Safe Port Act, Title VI-Commercial Mobile Service Alerts.
\3\ WARN Act, Sec. 603(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The WARN Act places the following tasks before the CMSAAC. Each
is followed by the section number or numbers in this report that
includes recommendations addressing the associated WARN Act's
requirements:
Within one year after the enactment of this Act, the Advisory
Committee shall develop and submit to the Federal Communications
Commission recommendations--
(1) For protocols, technical capabilities, and technical
procedures through which electing commercial mobile service
providers receive, verify, and transmit alerts to subscribers
(Sections 2, 4, 6, 8, 10);
(2) For the establishment of technical standards for priority
transmission of alerts by electing commercial mobile service
providers to subscribers (Sections 2, 9);
(3) For relevant technical standards for devices and equipment
and technologies used by electing commercial mobile service
providers to transmit emergency alerts to subscribers (Sections 7,
9);
(4) For the technical capability to transmit emergency alerts by
electing commercial mobile service providers to subscribers in
languages in addition to English, to the extent practicable and
feasible (Section 5);
(5) Under which electing commercial mobile service providers may
offer subscribers the capability of preventing the

[[Page 559]]

subscriber's device from receiving emergency alerts, or classes of
such alerts, (other than an alert issued by the President),
consistent with Section 602(b)(2)(E) of the WARN Act (Section 5);
(6) For a process under which commercial mobile service
providers can elect to transmit emergency alerts if
(a) Not all of the devices or equipment used by such provider
are capable of receiving such alerts (Section 3); or
(b) The provider cannot offer such alerts throughout the
entirety of its service area (Section 3); and
(7) As otherwise necessary to enable electing commercial mobile
service providers to transmit emergency alerts to subscribers.
Following are summaries of each section in the document, with a
focus on the recommendations the CMSAAC makes in each. This section
is provided as a high-level overview only and is not intended as a
substitute for the formal recommendations of the CMSAAC, many of
which are highly technical and are laid forth in detail in
subsequent sections of the document.

1.1.1 Reference Architecture (Section 2)

This section recommends a functional reference model for the
distribution of alerts to Commercial Mobile Service Providers
(CMSPs) (Section 2.1). Under this reference model, a Federal
government entity, the ``Alert Aggregator,'' would receive,
aggregate, and authenticate alerts originated by authorized alert
initiators using the Common Alerting Protocol (CAP). The government
entity would also act as an ``Alert Gateway'' (Section 2.2) to
formulate a 90 character alert based on key fields in the CAP alert
sent by the alert initiator \4\. Based on CMSP profiles maintained
in the Alert Gateway, the Alert Gateway would then deliver the alert
over a secure interface (see Section 2.3.1) to another gateway
maintained by the appropriate CMSP ``CMSP Gateway.'' (Section 2.3.2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Provisions have also been made for authorized alert
originators to formulate and distribute alerts via the Alert Gateway
in free text. See e.g., section 5.3.2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Each individual CMSP Gateway would be responsible for the
management of the particular CMSP elections to provide alerts in
whole or in part. The CMSP Gateway would also be responsible for
formulating the alert in a manner consistent with the individual
CMSP's available delivery technologies, mapping the alert to the
associated set of cell sites/paging transceivers, and handling
congestion within the CMSP Infrastructure. The CMSP Gateway will
process alerts in a first in--first out (FIFO) queuing method except
for a Presidential-level alert, which will be immediately moved to
the top of the queue and processed before all other non-Presidential
alerts. The CMSAAC or its successor will study the feasibility of
establishing a procedure that, if invoked, would give certain
messages priority status irrespective of their ranking in the Alert
Gateway queue.
Upon receipt of an alert from the CMSP Gateway, the CMSP
Infrastructure distributes the received CMAS alert message to the
determined set of cell sites/paging transceivers and authenticates
interactions with the Mobile Device (Section 2.3.3). Ultimately, the
alert is received on a customer's Mobile Device. The major functions
of the Mobile Device are to authenticate interactions with the CMSP
Infrastructure, to monitor for CMAS alerts, to maintain customer
options (such as the subscriber's opt-out selections and
subscriber's preferred language, if applicable), and to activate the
associated visual, audio, and mechanical (e.g., vibration)
indicators that the subscriber has indicated as options when an
alert is received on the Mobile Device. (Section 2.3.5.)

1.1.2 Deployment Scenarios (Section 3)

This section notes that the WARN Act specifies that a CMSP who
elects to transmit emergency alerts can elect to transmit the CMAS
alerts ``in whole or in part.'' \5\ The CMSAAC defines ``in whole or
in part'' as including all or a subset of the CMSP's service area,
and/or all or a subset of current and future mobile devices
supported by the CMSP network. The section then posits a set of
scenarios in which an individual alert is sent over CMSP networks
that deploy various technologies and handsets that may or may not
support the transmission of the alert. (Sections 3.1-3.3). This
section also contains recommendations for the notices to subscribers
that the WARN Act requires where a CMSP does not elect to provide
alerts. (Section 3.4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ WARN Act, Sec. 602(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.1.3 CMAS Alert Scenarios (Section 4)

This section provides descriptions of a representative sample of
scenarios and message flows related to the transmission and support
of CMAS Alerts. The section includes descriptions and charts of
scenarios involving text based streaming audio or streaming video
CMAS alert, CMAS alert cancellation, CMAS alert updates, CMAS alert
expiration, duplicate CMAS alerts, and multiple different active
CMAS alerts.

1.1.4 General Recommendations and Conclusions (Section 5)

This section sets forth the CMSAAC's recommendations concerning
the extent and scope of CMAS alerts. The major recommendation in
this section is that there should be three classes of Commercial
Mobile Alerts (CMAs): Presidential-level, Imminent threat to life
and property; and Child Abduction Emergency or ``AMBER Alert''
Service (Section 5.1). The section also recommends a format for CMAS
alerts (Section 5.3.1.) and a method for extracting a CMAS alert
from CAP fields and free form text (Section 5.3.2.). The section
also recommends that alert initiators be trained on creating CMAS
alerts (Section 5.3.4).
A significant recommendation concerns the geo-targeting of CMAS
alerts. The CMSAAC acknowledges that it is the goal of the CMAS for
CMSPs to be able to deliver geo-targeted alerts to the areas
specified by the alert initiator. However, early CMAS
implementations will likely be limited to static geo-targeting
areas. Hence, the CMSAAC recommends that, initially, geo-targeting
be at least precise enough to target at the county level. The CMSAAC
further recognizes that certain areas with especially urgent
alerting needs have a need for more precise geo-targeting, and
provisions are made to accommodate them. Longer term the CMSAAC
recommends that provisions in Section 604 of the WARN Act be applied
to fully realize the benefits of dynamic geo-targeting.
This section also makes recommendations on the needs of users,
including individuals with disabilities and the elderly. Among the
major recommendations is the requirement for the CMAS to support a
common audio attention signal and a common vibrating cadence to be
used solely for CMAS alerts. Further, the CMSAAC recommends that the
alert initiator use clear and simple language whenever possible,
with minimal use of abbreviations and that the mobile devices
provide an easy way to allow the user to recall the message for
review.
The section notes that the WARN Act provides for subscriber CMAS
alert Opt-Out, and recommends that CMSPs shall offer their
subscribers a simple opt-out process that is based on the
classification of imminent threat and AMBER Alerts. Except for
presidential messages, which are always transmitted, the process
should allow the choice to opt-out of (1) All messages, (2) All
severe messages, or (3) AMBER Alerts. Regarding the transmission of
CMAS alerts in languages other than English, the CMSAAC has analyzed
the technical feasibility of supporting multi-language CMAS alerts
on various delivery technologies and has determined that support of
languages other than English is a very complex issue and that, at
the present time, the CMSAAC believes there are fundamental
technical problems to reliably implement any languages in addition
to English. The CMSAAC recommends, however, that the biennial review
committee continue to study the feasibility of supporting additional
languages, as technology evolves.
Finally, the CMSAAC notes that roaming is only supported on an
intra-technology basis.

1.1.5 Service Profiles (Section 6)

In this section the CMSAAC notes that the CMAS architecture and
recommendations are based upon the principles of technology-neutral
service profiles containing, for example, profiles for maximum
payload and displayable message size. The section defines service
profiles for: (a) Text; (b) Streaming Audio (future capability); (c)
Streaming Video (future capability); and (c) Downloaded Multimedia
Profile (future capability), and provides general recommendations
and conclusions for each.

1.1.6 Mobile Device Functionality for CMAS Alerts (Section 7)

This section describes the impact to the mobile devices, i.e.,
the handsets, for the support of CMAS alerts. The section includes
the recommendation that if the end user has both muted the mobile
device audio and alarms and/or has deselected or turned off the
vibration capabilities of the mobile device, neither the CMAS audio
attention signal nor the special emergency alert vibration cadence
will be activated upon receipt of a CMAS alert. Further, the section
recommends that, in order to minimize the

[[Page 560]]

possibility of network congestion and false alerts, mobile devices
should not support any user interface capabilities to forward
received CMAS alerts, to reply to received CMAS alerts, or to copy
and paste CMAS alert contents. The section also notes that the
monitoring for CMAS alerts could have a significant impact on
handset battery life, but that with modifications to network
infrastructure, mobile devices and/or standards, the reduction of
battery life can be less than 10% of today's capability for
monitoring.

1.1.7 Security for CMAS Alerts (Section 8)

This section recommends a specific Alert Aggregator and Alert
Gateway Trust Model to assure the security, authentication and
authorization of alerts from the Alert initiator to the CMSP
Gateway. The section then recommends security requirements for the
interface between the Alert and CMSP Gateways and within each CMSP's
network.

1.1.8 CMAS Reliability & Performance (Section 9)

Recommendations in this section include Alert Gateway
performance requirements such as the capability to monitor system
utilization for capacity planning purposes, and to temporarily
disable and buffer CMAS alert traffic in the event of an overload.
The CMSAAC acknowledges the importance of assessing any latency in
alert delivery, but notes that it will be difficult to predict
system performance in this area prior to deployment. The CMSAAC
suggests that factors relevant to potential latency include; mobile
device battery life impact, call processing impact; capabilities of
the delivery technology; message queues; number of languages; number
of targeted cell sites/paging transceivers for the alert area; and
any geo-targeting processing. Similarly, although the CMSAAC
recommends that the CMAS end-to-end reliability technology meet
telecom standards for highly reliable systems, the over-all
reliability of CMAS is unpredictable because RF transmissions can be
subject to noise and other interference or environmental factors;
the capabilities of the cellular environment are not predictable
especially in a disaster environment; the subscriber may be in a
location that does not have any RF signal; and the subscriber's
mobile device may not have any remaining power. In order to assure
the reliability and performance of this new system, the CMSAAC
recommends procedures for logging CMAS alerts at the Alert Gateway
and for testing the system at the Alert Gateway and on an end-to-end
basis.

1.1.9 Interface Protocols for CMAS Alerts (Section 10)

This section establishes detailed technical protocols and
specifications for the delivery of alerts over the various
interfaces in the Reference Model. Specifically, the section
established requirements that Alert Initiators must meet to deliver
CMAS alerts to the Alert Aggregator, and that the Alert Gateway must
meet to deliver CMAS alerts to the CMSP gateway. CAP mapping
parameters are provided in detail.

1.2 Definitions

Commercial Mobile Alert (CMA)--The term CMA refers to the event
that creates the need for a CMAM and can fall into any of the
following three categories: (i) A Presidential alert, (ii) An
imminent threat to life and property, or (iii) An AMBER alert.
Commercial Mobile Alert Message (CMAM)--The term CMAM refers to
communication that is issued to the end-user via the Commercial
Mobile Alerting System in response to (i) A Presidential alert, (ii)
an imminent threat to life and property, or (iii) An AMBER alert.
Commercial Mobile Alert Service (CMAS)--The term CMAS refers to
the end-to-end architecture for delivery of emergency alert messages
subject to the WARN Act.
Commercial Mobile Service Provider (CMSP)--Per the WARN Act
Section 602(b)(1)(A), a CMSP is a licensee providing commercial
mobile service as defined in section 332(d)(1) of the Communications
Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(d)(1)), where the term ``commercial
mobile service'' means any mobile service that is provided for
profit and makes interconnected service available.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ WARN Act, Sec. 602(b)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.3 Acronyms

AMBER America's Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response
CAP Common Alerting Protocol as defined in CAP version 1.1
specification
CDMA Code Division Multiple Access
CMA Commercial Mobile Alert
CMAM Commercial Mobile Alert Message
CMAS Commercial Mobile Alert Service
CMSAAC Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee
CMSP Commercial Mobile Service Provider
CTIA Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association
EOC Emergency Operations Center
FIPS Federal Information Processing Standards
GNIS Geographic Names Information System
GSM Global System for Mobile communications
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
MVNO Mobile Virtual Network Operator
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
NWS National Weather Service
SAME Specific Area Message Encoding
SMS Short Message Service
UMTS Universal Mobile Telecommunications System
VPN Virtual Private Network
WARN Warning, Alert, and Response Network
XML Extensible Markup Language

2 Reference Architecture

[[Page 561]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JA08.000

2.2 Government Administered Elements Definitions & Requirements

The CMSAAC recommends that the Alert Aggregator and Alert
Gateway be the responsibility of the authorized government entity.
The CMSAAC further recommends that the system be acquired, managed,
operated, and administered by the same authorized government entity.

2.2.1 Reference Point A

The actions to be performed at Reference Point A include the
following:
1. Provide information for the authentication and validation of
actions across this reference point.
2. Delivery of a new, updated, or cancelled wireless alert
message to Alert Distribution Network in CAP format.
3. Acknowledgement from Alert Gateway to Alert Aggregator that
the new, updated, or cancelled wireless alert message has been
received by the Alert Gateway.

2.2.2 Alert Aggregator

The CMSAAC recommends that the authorized government entity
operate an alerting framework that aggregates all alerts submitted
by Federal, State, Tribal and local originators and deliver these
alerts to the Alert Gateway. The CMSAAC makes the following
additional recommendations regarding the Alert Aggregator:
1. All message originators will comply with the Trust Model when
sending messages through the alert framework to the Alert Gateway.
(See Section 8.1, below for a discussion of the Trust Model)
2. The Alert Aggregator will be operated according to the
requirements set forth in the Trust Model.
3. The authorized government entity will publish open non-
proprietary standards for message origination
4. The Alert Aggregator will utilize CAP as the messaging
standard to the Alert Gateway.
5. Messages will be delivered to the Alert Gateway on a first-in
first-out basis, with the exception of the Presidential message,
which will move to the front of any existing messages.
6. The Alert Aggregator will support bi-directional message
traffic to deliver the message and to notify the alert message
originator of the status of its CMAS message.
7. The Alert Aggregator may consist of separate paths for the
delivery of the message to the Alert Gateway and from the Alert
Gateway for message status notification.

2.2.3 Reference Point B

The actions to be performed by Reference Point B include the
following:
1. Carry forward information for the authentication and
validation of actions across this reference point.
2. Delivery of a new, updated, or cancelled wireless alert
message to Alert Gateway in CAP format.
3. Carry acknowledgement from Alert Gateway to Alert Aggregator
that the new, updated, or cancelled wireless alert message has been
received.

2.2.4 Alert Gateway

2.2.4.1 General Alert Gateway System Requirements

The functions to be performed by the Alert Gateway include the
following:
1. Ensure authenticity of interactions with the Alert Aggregator
and the CMSP Gateway.
2. Validate (e.g., authentication and non-repudiation) the
received wireless alert message.
3. Maintain a log of wireless alert messages received from the
Alert Aggregator and delivered to and rejected by the CMSP Gateway.
4. Implementation and support of defined ``service profiles''
specifying alert message formats containing information elements
required by CMSPs for the delivery of alert messages to wireless
devices.
5. Stores CMSPs profiles including the CMSP election within a
specific service area, supported technologies including any
associated service profiles, characteristics, restrictions,
limitations, or parameters.
6. Deployment to achieve geographic separation from the CMSP
Gateway.
7. Support interfacing with multiple CMSPs and with multiple
CMSP Gateways per CMSP.
8. Geographically redundant Alert Gateway to avoid a single
point of failure.

2.2.4.2 CMSP Profile Support

The CMSAAC recommends that the Alert Gateway have a profile for
every CMSP. The CMSAAC further recommends that these profiles be
administered using the following procedures:
The CMSP Gateway IP addresses and CMSP service area on
a state level will be provided by an authorized CMSP representative
to the Alert Gateway administrator 30 days in advance of the
required in-service date when CMSP begin to transmit the CMAMs.
Any updates of CMSP profile will be provided by an
authorized CMSP representative to the Alert Gateway administrator in
writing at least 30 days in advance of the required in-service date.
The parties will negotiate and mutually agree on an
implementation date.

[[Page 562]]

Table 2-1.--CMSP Profile on Alert Gateway
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profile parameter Parameter election Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CMSP Name....................... .................. Unique
identification of
CMSP.
CMSP Gateway Address............ IP address or ..................
Domain Name.
Alternate IP Optional and
address. subject to
implementation.
Geo-Location Filtering.......... .......... If ``yes'' the
only CMAM issued
in the listed
states will be
sent to the CMSP
Gateway.
If ``no'', all
CMAM will be sent
to the CMSP
Gateway.
If yes, list of states.......... CMAC Geocode for List can be state
state. name, abbreviated
state name, or
CMAC GeoCode for
state (see
Section 10.4.5).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.3 CMSP Administered Elements Definitions & Requirements

2.3.1 Reference Point C

The CMSAAC recommends that the actions to be performed by
Reference Point C include the following:
1. Provide information for the authentication and validation of
actions across this reference point.
2. Delivery of a new, updated, or cancelled wireless alert
message by the Alert Gateway in a format that is suitable for the
mobile devices and the wireless alert delivery technology or
technologies implemented by the CMSP.
3. Acknowledgement from CMSP Gateway to Alert Gateway that the
new, updated, or cancelled wireless alert message has been received
by the CMSP Gateway.

2.3.2 CMSP Gateway

The CMSAAC recommends that the functions to be performed by the
Commercial Mobile Service Provider Gateway include the following:
1. Authentication of interactions with the Alert Gateway.
2. Management of Commercial Mobile Service Provider elections to
support CMAS alert services within the Commercial Mobile Service
Provider's service areas.
3. Determination if CMSP has elected to offer CMAS alert
services within the specified alerting area.
4. Determination of which delivery technology or delivery
technologies will be utilized for the transmission of CMAS alert
messages within the specified alerting area.
5. Map the alert area of the CMAS alert message into the
associated set of cell sites/paging transceivers.
6. Manage and execute CMAS alert retransmission subject to
delivery technology capability and CMSP policy.
7. A CMSP that elects to transmit alerts will have one or more
CMSP Gateways designated for receipt of alerts from the Alert
Gateway.
8. The CMSP Gateway should have redundancy and be designed to
provide high reliability and availability comparable to similarly
situated network elements.
9. A Commercial Mobile Service Provider may have one or more
CMSP Gateways in the CMSP network to support regional distribution
of CMSA messages and to handle anticipated CMAM traffic levels. The
CMSP has the responsibility for the distribution of the CMAM traffic
among CMSP Gateways.
10. CMSP Gateway(s) in a CMSP network will be identified by a
unique IP address or domain name.
11. The CMSP Gateway will support the defined CMAS ``C''
interface and associated protocols between the Alert Gateway and the
CMSP Gateway.
12. The interface from the CMSP Gateway to the CMSP
Infrastructure is CMSP and technology dependent and is not specified
in CMAS.
13. The CMSP Gateway model will support standardized IP based
security mechanisms such as a firewall. The CMSP will provide a
secure connection from the CMSP Gateway to the Alert Gateway for
reception of the CMAS messages.
14. The CMSP Gateway application will support CMAM:
a. Authentication.
b. Message integrity.
c. Availability (i.e. keep alive messages).
15. The CMSP Gateway will support a mechanism on the Reference
Point C interface with the Alert Gateway to stop and start alert
message deliveries from the Alert Gateway to the CMSP Gateway under
conditions such as the event too many messages are being received on
the interface, the CMSP Gateway buffers are full, congestion exists
at the CMSP Gateway, etc.
16. The CMSP Gateway will support a mechanism to handle
congestion within the CMSP Infrastructure according to CMSP policy.
17. The CMSP Gateway will not be responsible for performing any
formatting, re-formatting, or translation of the CMAM other than the
following:
a. Text, audio, video, and multimedia files may require
transcoding into the proper format (e.g., codec) supported by the
mobile device.
18. The CMSP Gateway will be responsible for validating message
integrity and alerting parameters and respond with an error message
to the Alert Gateway if these validations fail.
19. The CMSP Gateway will retrieve any resources (e.g., audio,
video, multimedia files such as graphics) from the Alert Gateway if
the alert attributes indicate a resource is available and if the
CMSP has the capability to broadcast these resource types.
20. The CMSP Gateway will process CMAMs in a first in-first out
(FIFO) queuing method except for a Presidential-level alert which
will be immediately moved to the top of the queue and processed
before all other non-Presidential alerts. The CMSAAC or its
successor will study the feasibility of establishing a procedure
that, if invoked, would give certain messages priority status
irrespective of their ranking in the Alert Gateway queue.

2.3.3 CMSP Infrastructure

CMSP infrastructure functionality is generally dependent on
delivery technology, the capabilities of the delivery technology,
and mobile vendor/CMSP specific policy and requirements. The
following are general guidelines recommended by the CMSAAC for the
functions to be performed by the CMSP Infrastructure:
1. Authentication of interactions with the Mobile Device which
is dependent upon the capabilities of the delivery technology and
CMSP policy. This function may not be part of CMAS but a capability
of the underlying delivery technology.
2. Distribute the received CMAS alert message to the determined
set of cell sites/paging transceivers for transmission to the mobile
devices within the range of cell sites/pager transceivers.
3. For each specified cell site/pager transceiver, transmit the
CMAS alert message using the delivery technology or delivery
technologies supported by the CMSP for that specific cell site/
paging transceiver.

2.3.4 Reference Points D & E

Reference Point D is the interface between the CMSP Gateway and
the CMSP Infrastructure. Reference Point E is the interface between
the CMSP Infrastructure and the mobile device including the air
interface.
Reference Points D and E are defined and controlled by the
Commercial Mobile Service Providers. The CMSAAC recommendations in
this document define what type of information needs to be conveyed
across Reference Point E to support CMAS alerts on mobile devices.
The CMSAAC recommends that the definition of the Reference Point D
and E protocols be performed by the commercial mobile service
providers in conjunction with the CMSP infrastructure network
vendors and the mobile device vendors.

2.3.5 Mobile Device

Mobile device functionality is generally dependent on delivery
technology, the capabilities of the delivery technology, and mobile
vendor/CMSP specific policy and requirements. CMAS should allow for
mobile device vendor flexibility in the design of CMA user
interactions, and allow for innovation by the mobile device vendors
and CMSPs, especially as mobile device

[[Page 563]]

technology advances. The following are general guidelines
recommended by the CMSAAC for the functions to be performed by the
Mobile Device:
1. Authentication of interactions with the CMSP infrastructure.
The authentication will not be part of the CMAS alert and is
delivery technology dependent.
2. Determination of delivery technology or delivery technologies
being supported by the Commercial Mobile Service Provider in the
subscriber's current visited network.
3. Monitor associated channel or channels according to the
requirements of the delivery technology or delivery technologies for
CMAS alerts.
4. Maintain configuration of CMAS alert options including the
following:
a. Subscriber's choice of CMAS alert opt-out selections.
b. Subscriber's preferred language for CMAS alerts if applicable
to the delivery technology.
c. Default language is English if CMAS alert is not being
transmitted in subscriber's preferred language.
5. Extraction of the CMAS alert content in the subscriber's
preferred language or in the default language of English, if the
CMAS alert is not being transmitted in the subscriber's preferred
language.
6. Presentation of received CMAS alert content to the mobile
device user in accordance with the capabilities of the mobile
device, if the CMAS alert complies with the subscriber's opt-out
selections.
a. Presidential level CMAS alerts are always presented.
b. Presentation of a CMAS alert will activate associated visual,
audio, and mechanical (e.g., vibration) indicators per subscriber
options configured on the mobile device.
7. Detection and suppression of presentation of duplicate CMAS
alerts.
8. Suppression of CMAS alert visual, audio and mechanical (e.g.,
vibration) indicators upon subscriber's action on the mobile device
user interface (e.g., key stroke, touch screen).

3 Deployment Scenarios

The WARN Act specifies that a commercial mobile service operator
who elects to transmit emergency alerts can elect to transmit the
CMAS alerts in whole or in part.\7\ The CMSAAC recommends that the
definition of ``in whole or in part'' include the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ WARN Act, Sec. 602(b)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

All or a subset of the CMSP's service area.
All or a subset of current and future mobile devices
supported by the CMSP network.
For reasons detailed in Annex B--WARN Act Statutory
Requirements, the date of election is likely not the date of
deployment. Therefore the CMSAAC recommends that the process for a
CMSP to ``file an election with the Commission with respect to
whether or not it intends to transmit emergency alerts'' should
include the following information:
1. Potential date of initial deployment.
2. Potential date when mobile device(s) with CMAS support are
available for consumer purchase.
3. Whether the deployment will be ``in whole or in part''.
It is important to understand the various scenarios that may be
deployed in CMSP networks to support CMAS for those CMSP that do
elect to transmit the CMAS alerts in whole or part. In addition,
these scenarios need to be understood for the development of
appropriate information a CMSP must provide to the subscriber to
educate them on the availability of CMAS alerts. This information
also needed to educate the sources of the CMAS alerts so there is
not an unrealistic expectation as to the percentage of population to
which the alert message may be broadcast.

Note: The following diagrams show variety of mobile devices
(i.e. cellular mobile phones and pagers) as illustrative examples;
it is not the intention to suggest all mobile device technologies
are supported by a single operator or via a single CMSP network.

3.1 Scenarios for Single Technology Deployed

3.1.1 Scenario--CMAS in Entire Single Technology Operator Network on
All Devices

This scenario illustrates where the CMSP deploys a single
delivery technology within the CMSP network to support CMAS alerts,
and all mobile devices on that network support the delivery
technology and thus the reception of the CMAS alerts.

[[Page 564]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JA08.001

3.1.2 Scenario--CMAS in Entire Single Technology Operator Network on a
Subset of Devices

This scenario illustrates where the CMSP deploys a single
delivery technology within the CMSP network to support CMAS alerts,
and only a subset of mobile devices on that CMSP network support the
delivery technology and thus the reception of the CMAS alerts.

[[Page 565]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JA08.002

3.1.3 Scenario--CMAS in Subset of Single Technology Operator's Network
on All Devices

This scenario illustrates where the CMSP deploys a single
delivery technology in a subset of the CMSP network to support CMAS
alerts, and all mobile devices on that CMSP network support the
delivery technology and thus the reception of the CMAS alerts while
in the portion of the CMSP network where the delivery technology is
deployed.

[[Page 566]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JA08.003

3.1.4 Scenario--CMAS in Subset of Single Technology Operator's Network
on Subset of Devices

This scenario illustrates where the CMSP deploys a single
delivery technology in a subset of the CMSP network to support CMAS,
and only a subset of mobile devices on the CMSP network support the
delivery technology and thus the reception of the CMAS alerts while
in the portion of the CMSP network where the delivery technology is
deployed.

[[Page 567]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JA08.004

3.2 Scenarios for Multiple Technologies Deployed

3.2.1 Scenario--CMAS in Entire Multiple Technology Operator Network on
All Devices

This scenario illustrates where the CMSP deploys multiple
delivery technologies within the CMSP network to support CMAS
alerts, and all mobile devices on that CMSP network support all
delivery technologies and thus the reception of the CMAS alerts.

[[Page 568]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JA08.005

3.2.2 Scenario--CMAS in Entire Multiple Technology Operator Network on
Subset of Devices

This scenario illustrates where the CMSP deploys multiple
delivery technologies within the CMSP network to support CMAS
alerts, and only a subset of mobile devices on the CMSP network
supports one or both delivery technologies and thus the reception of
the CMAS alerts. Some mobile devices may not support either delivery
technology.

[[Page 569]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JA08.006

3.2.3 Scenario--CMAS in Subset of Multiple Technology Operator Network
on Subset of Devices

This scenario illustrates where the CMSP deploys multiple
delivery technologies on a subset of the CMSP network to support
CMAS alerts, and only a subset of mobile devices on the CMSP network
support one or both delivery technologies and thus the reception of
the CMAS alerts. Some mobile devices may not support either delivery
technology. This is a realistic picture of the deployment of CMAS,
especially in a nationwide scenario.

[[Page 570]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JA08.007

3.3 Scenario for Operator Does Not Elect to Transmit CMAS Alerts

This option illustrates where the CMSP does not elect to
transmit CMAS alerts.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JA08.008

[[Page 571]]

3.4 Subscriber Notification Recommendations

The CMSAAC, in collaboration with the Cellular Telephone and
Internet Association (CTIA) and its membership developed the
proposed text to be used by commercial mobile service providers to
notify their subscribers (1) when they intend to transmit emergency
alerts ``in part'' or (2) when they do not intend to transmit
emergency alerts. The WARN Act appears not to require specific text
be developed for service providers who elect to transmit emergency
alerts throughout its entire coverage area. Therefore no text was
developed for that case.

3.4.1 Notification Procedures

The CMSAAC recommends 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, i.e., retail outlets, mobile
virtual network operators (MVNOs) and third party vendors.

3.4.2 Notification Text Recommendations

The CMSAAC submits the following recommended notice text,
consistent with the requirements of the WARN Act.

I. NOTICE BY CARRIER WHO INTENDS TO TRANSMIT EMERGENCY ALERTS ``IN
PART.''
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 WEB SITE URL]].
Notice required by FCC Rule XXXX (Commercial Mobile Alert
Service).

II. NOTICE BY CARRIER WHO, ``IN WHOLE,'' DOES NOT INTEND 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).

4 CMAS Alert Scenarios

This section provides descriptions recommended by the CMSAAC for
many common scenarios which are related to the support of CMAS Alert
messages. These scenarios are a representative sample and do not
include all possible sequences and/or events. Specifically this
section will include descriptions of the following scenarios:
Nominal CMAS alert scenarios for text based CMAS alert,
as well as future capabilities of streaming audio, streaming video,
and downloaded multimedia CMAS alerts.
CMAS alert cancellation scenario.
CMAS alert update scenarios for text based CMAS alert,
as well as future capabilities of streaming audio, streaming video,
and downloaded multimedia CMAS alerts.
CMAS alert expiration scenario.
Duplicate CMAS alert scenarios for both duplicate CMAS
alerts on the same broadcast technology and duplicate CMAS alerts
from different broadcast technologies.
Multiple different active CMAS alert scenarios.
Multiple different CMAS alerts.

4.1 Nominal CMAS Alert Scenarios

4.1.1 Scenario for Nominal Text CMAS Alert

An event has occurred and the appropriate government entities
have decided to issue a text based CMA to warn the CMSP subscribers
within the indicated alerting area.
This scenario applies to both the CMSP subscribers and to
subscribers who are roaming as visiting subscribers into the service
area of the CMSP network which will be broadcasting the CMA.

4.1.1.1 Pre-Conditions

1. Mobile device is authorized and authenticated for service on
CMSP network.
2. Mobile device is receiving adequate radio signal strength
from the CMSP.
3. Mobile device is in state that allows for the detection and
reception of the CMA (e.g., not busy, not on a voice call).
4. No previous Commercial Mobile Alert Message (CMAM) is being
broadcast by the CMSP.
5. There is no active CMAM on mobile device.
6. CMSP subscriber is within the alerting area for the CMA.

4.1.1.2 Normal Flow

The normal flow for the text based CMA is described in the
following steps and in the associated flow diagram which follows:
1. The appropriate government entity creates the alert message
in CAP format which is sent to the government alerting network over
Reference Point A.
2. The government alerting network validates and authenticates
the received alert request.
a. If the alert fails validation or authentication, an error
response is returned to the originating government entity and the
alert is not sent to the CMSP. End of scenario.
3. The government alerting network converts the received alert
message into the text profile based CMAS format supported by the
CMSP.
a. If the alert fails conversion, the alert is not sent to the
CMSP. End of scenario.
4. The text profile based CMAM is sent to the CMSP over
Reference Point C.
5. The CMSP validates the received CMAM.
a. If the CMAM fails validation, an error response is returned
to the government alerting network and the CMAM is not broadcast by
the CMSP. End of scenario.
6. The CMSP sends an acknowledgement to the government alerting
network that a valid CMAM has been received.
7. The CMSP performs geo-targeting to translate the indicated
alert area into the associated set of cell sites / paging
transceivers for the broadcast of the CMA.
a. If the CMSP does not support CMAS in the indicated alert
area, the CMAM is not broadcast by the CMSP. End of scenario.
b. If the CMSP does not have any cell site / paging transceiver
coverage within the indicated alert area, the CMAM is not broadcast
by the CMSP. End of scenario.
c. If the entire nation is indicated as the alert area then all
cell sites / paging transceivers of the CMSP which support the CMAS
service are used for the broadcast of the CMAM.
8. The CMSP broadcasts the CMAM to the set of cell sites /
paging transceivers identified by the geo-targeting processing in
the previous step.
a. The CMAM is broadcast via the CMSP selected technology.
9. The mobile device monitors for the broadcast of the CMAM via
the CMSP selected technology.
a. If the CMAM is not a Presidential alert and if the end user
opt-out selections for CMAS alerts indicate that this type of CMAM
is not to be presented, the CMAM is discarded or ignored. End of
scenario.
10. The CMAM is received and presented to the end user including
the activation of the CMAS audio attention signal and/or the
activation of the special emergency alert vibration cadence (if
mobile device has vibration capabilities) for a short duration as
defined by CMSP policies and by the capabilities of the mobile
device, and display of the CMAM message text on the visual display
of the mobile device.
a. Activation of the CMAS audio attention signal and/or special
vibration cadence complies with the end user mobile device
configuration as defined in Section 7.2, below.
11. The behavior of the mobile device beyond this point is
outside the scope of the WARN Act and, therefore, is not subject to
recommendations by the CMSAAC. The functionality of the mobile
device is CMSP and mobile device specific.
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

[[Page 572]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JA08.009

BILLING CODE 6712-01-C

4.1.2 Scenario for Nominal Streaming Audio or Streaming Video CMAS
Alert Streaming audio or streaming video CMAS alerts are a future
capability.

4.1.3 Scenario for Nominal Downloaded Multimedia CMAS Alert Downloaded
multimedia CMAS alerts are a future capability.

4.2 CMAS Alert Cancellation Scenario

The event that caused the issuance of the CMA has changed and
the appropriate government entities have decided that the event is
no longer an imminent threat to life or property. Consequently the
appropriate government entities have decided to issue a cancellation
of the CMA.
This scenario applies to both the CMSP subscribers and to
subscribers who are roaming as visiting subscribers into the service
area of the CMSP network which will be broadcasting the CMA.
If the received CMAM cancellation is not valid and if, as a part
of its implementation, the CMSP has enabled message retransmission,
the CMSP may continue to send the original alert until expiry or
until a valid CMAM cancellation is received.

4.2.1 Pre-Conditions

1. Mobile device is authorized and authenticated for service on
CMSP network.
2. Mobile device is receiving adequate radio signal strength
from the CMSP.
3. Mobile device is in state that allows for the detection and
reception of the CMA (e.g., not busy, not on a voice call).
4. A previous non-expired Commercial Mobile Alert Message (CMAM)
has been broadcast by the CMSP and has been received by the mobile
device (i.e., there is an active CMAM on the mobile device).
6. CMSP subscriber is within the alerting area of the active
CMA.

4.2.2 Normal Flow

The normal flow for the cancelled CMA is described in the
following steps and in the associated flow diagram which follows:
1. The appropriate government entity creates the alert
cancellation message in CAP format which is sent to the government
alerting network over Reference Point A.

[[Page 573]]

2. The government alerting network validates and authenticates
the received alert cancellation request.
a. If the alert fails validation or authentication, an error
response is returned to the originating government entity and the
alert cancellation is not sent to the CMSP. End of scenario.
3. The government alerting network converts the received alert
message into the text profile based CMAS format support by the CMSP.
a. The Alert Gateway ensures that the urgency, severity,
certainty match the values of those fields in the original message.
As a consequence, a cancelled CMAM passed to the CMSP Gateway has
the same urgency, severity, certainty, and message category as the
original CMA alert in order to ensure the opt-out filter on the
handset is the same for both messages. Therefore if the original
CMAM was ignored based on opt-out criteria, then the CMAM
cancellation should also be ignored.
b. If the alert fails conversion, the alert cancellation is not
sent to the CMSP. End of scenario.
4. The CMAM cancellation is sent to the CMSP over Reference
Point C.
5. The CMSP validates the received CMAM cancellation.
a. If the CMAM cancellation fails validation, an error response
is returned to the government alerting network and the CMAM
cancellation is not broadcast by the CMSP. End of scenario.
6. The CMSP sends an acknowledgement to the government alerting
network that a valid CMAM cancellation has been received.
7. The CMSP discontinues the broadcasts the associated CMAM
including the text component and any associated audio, video, or
multimedia components.
8. The CMSP performs geo-targeting to translate the indicated
alert area into the associated set of cell sites/paging transceivers
for the broadcast of the CMA.
a. If the CMSP does not support CMAS in the indicated alert
area, the CMAM is not broadcast by the CMSP. End of scenario.
b. If the CMSP does not have any cell site/paging transceiver
coverage within the indicated alert area, the CMAM is not broadcast
by the CMSP. End of scenario.
c. If the entire nation is indicated as the alert area then all
cell sites/paging transceivers of the CMSP which support the CMAS
service are used for the broadcast of the CMAM.
9. The CMSP broadcasts the CMAM cancellation to the same set of
cell sites / paging transceivers identified by the geo-targeting
processing in the previous step.
10. The mobile device monitors for the broadcast of the CMAM
cancellation via the CMSP selected technology and receives the CMAM
cancellation.
a. If the CMAM cancellation is not a Presidential alert and if
the end user opt-out selections for CMAS alerts indicate that this
type of CMAM is not to be presented, the CMAM cancellation is
discarded or ignored. End of scenario.
11. The CMAM cancellation is received and the CMAM cancellation
is presented to the end user including the activation of the CMAS
audio attention signal and/or the activation of the special
emergency alert vibration cadence (if mobile device has vibration
capabilities) for a short duration as defined by CMSP policies and
the capabilities of the mobile device, and the display of the CMAM
cancellation message text on the visual display of the mobile
device.
a. Activation of the CMAS audio attention signal and/or special
vibration cadence will comply with the end user mobile device
configuration as defined in Section 7.2 below.
12. The behavior of the mobile device beyond this point is
outside the scope of the WARN Act and, therefore, is not subject to
recommendations by the CMSAAC. The functionality of the mobile
device is CMSP and mobile device specific.

[[Page 574]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JA08.010

4.3 CMAS Alert Update Scenarios

4.3.1 Scenario for Update of Text CMAS Alert

The appropriate government entities have decided to issue an
update to a previously issued text based CMA to warn the CMSP
subscribers within the indicated alerting area about changes
associated with the event that caused the issuance of the previous
CMA.
This scenario applies to both the CMSP subscribers and to
subscribers who are roaming as visiting subscribers into the service
area of the CMSP network which will be broadcasting the CMA.
If the received CMAM cancellation is not valid and if, as a part
of its implementation, the CMSP has enabled message retransmission,
the CMSP may continue to send the original alert until expiration or
until a valid CMAM cancellation is received.

4.3.1.1 Pre-Conditions

1. Mobile device is authorized and authenticated for service on
CMSP network.

[[Page 575]]

2. Mobile device is receiving adequate radio signal strength
from the CMSP.
3. Mobile device is in state that allows for the detection and
reception of the CMA (e.g., not busy, not on a voice call).
4. The CMSP may be broadcasting a previous CMA which is
associated with the updated CMA.
5. A CMAM may be active on mobile device.
6. CMSP subscriber is within the alerting area of the updated
CMA.

4.3.1.2 Normal Flow

The normal flow for the update of text based CMAM is described
in the following steps and in the associated flow diagram which
follows:
1. The appropriate government entity creates the updated alert
message in CAP format which is sent to the government alerting
network over Reference Point A.
2. The government alerting network validates and authenticates
the received updated alert request.
a. If the alert fails validation or authentication, or
conversion, an error response is returned to the originating
government entity and the alert is not sent to the CMSP. End of
scenario.
3. The government alerting network converts the received alert
message into the text profile based CMAS format supported by the
CMSP.
a. The Alert Gateway ensures that the urgency, severity,
certainty match the values of those fields in the original message.
As a consequence, an updated CMAM passed to the CMSP Gateway has the
same urgency, severity, certainty, and message category as the
original CMA alert in order to ensure the opt-out filter on the
handset is the same for both messages. Therefore if the original
CMAM was ignored based on opt-out criteria, then the updated CMAM
should also be ignored.
b. If the alert fails conversion, the alert is not sent to the
CMSP. End of scenario.
4. The updated text based CMAM is sent to the CMSP over
Reference Point C.
5. The CMSP validates the received updated CMAM.
a. If the updated CMAM fails validation, an error response is
returned to the government alerting network and the updated CMAM is
not broadcast by the CMSP. End of scenario.
6. The CMSP sends an acknowledgement to the government alerting
network that a valid updated CMAM has been received.
7. The CMSP discontinues any broadcasts of the previously issued
CMAM.
8. The CMSP performs geo-targeting to translate the indicated
alert area into the associated set of cell sites/paging transceivers
for the broadcast of the updated CMAM.
a. If the CMSP does not support CMAS in the indicated alert
area, the updated CMAM is not broadcast by the CMSP. End of
scenario.
b. If the CMSP does not have any cell site/paging transceiver
coverage within the indicated alert area, the updated CMAM is not
broadcast by the CMSP. End of scenario.
c. If the entire nation is indicated as the alert area then all
cell sites/paging transceivers of the CMSP which support the CMAS
service are used for the broadcast of the updated CMAM.
9. The CMSP broadcasts the updated CMAM to the set of cell
sites/paging transceivers identified by the geo-targeting processing
in the previous step.
a. The updated CMAM is broadcast via the CMSP selected
technology.
10. The mobile device monitors for the broadcast of the updated
CMAM via the CMSP selected technology.
a. If the updated CMAM is not a Presidential alert and if the
end user opt-out selections for CMAS alerts indicate that this type
of CMAS alert is not to be presented, the updated CMAM is discarded
or ignored. End of scenario.
11. The updated CMAM is received and presented to the end user
including the activation of the CMAS audio attention signal and/or
the activation of the special emergency alert vibration cadence (if
mobile device has vibration capabilities) for a short duration as
defined by CMSP policies and the capabilities of the mobile device,
and the display of the updated CMAM message text on the visual
display of the mobile device.
a. Activation of the CMAS audio attention signal and/or special
vibration cadence complies with the end user mobile device
configuration as defined in Section 7.2 below.
12. The behavior of the mobile device beyond this point is
outside the scope of the WARN Act and, therefore, is not subject to
recommendations by the CMSAAC. The functionality of the mobile
device is CMSP and mobile device specific.

[[Page 576]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JA08.011

4.3.2 Scenario for Update of Streaming Audio or Streaming Video CMAS
Alert

Streaming audio or streaming video CMAS alerts are a future
capability.

4.3.3 Scenario for Update of

Downloaded Multimedia CMAS Alert
Downloaded multimedia CMAS alerts are a future capability.

4.4 CMAS Alert Expiration Scenario

The previously issued Commercial Mobile Alert Message (CMAM)
alert has reached its expiration time without having been updated or
cancelled. This scenario describes the functionality when the
expiration time has been detected.

4.4.1 Pre-Conditions

1. The associated non-expired non-cancelled CMAM has been or is
currently being broadcast by the CMSP.

[[Page 577]]

4.4.2 Normal Flow

The normal flow for the CMAS alert expiration is described in
the following steps and in the associated flow diagram which
follows:
1. The expiration time of a previously issued CMAM has been
determined by the CMSP.
2. Any active broadcasts of text component of the previously
issued CMAM are discontinued by the CMSP.
3. All active broadcasts of any associated audio, video, or
multimedia components of the previously issue CMAM are discontinued
by the CMSP.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JA08.012

4.5 Duplicate CMAS Alerts Scenarios

4.5.1 Scenario for Duplicate CMAS Alerts on Same Broadcast Technology

A CMAM is being retransmitted by the CMSP network. The mobile
device detects and ignores the duplicate CMAM.
This scenario applies to both the CMSP subscribers and to
subscribers who are roaming as visiting subscribers into the service
area of the CMSP network which will be broadcasting the CMA.

4.5.1.1 Pre-Conditions

1. Mobile device is authorized and authenticated for service on
CMSP network.
2. Mobile device is receiving adequate radio signal strength
from the CMSP.
3. Mobile device is in state that allows for the detection and
reception of CMAM (e.g., not busy, not on a voice call).
4. A previous copy of the CMAM has been broadcast by the CMSP.
5. The previous copy of the CMAM is contained on mobile device.
6. CMSP subscriber is still within the alerting area for the
CMA.

4.5.1.2 Normal Flow

The flow for duplicate CMAM on the same broadcast technology is
described in the following steps and in the associated flow diagram
which follows:
1. The CMSP network retransmits a previously broadcast CMAM.
a. The CMAM being retransmitted contains the same message
identifier as the previously broadcast version.
b. The retransmission could be performed by the CMSP selected
delivery technology depending on the capabilities of the delivery
technology.
2. The mobile device monitors for the broadcast of the CMAM via
the CMSP selected technology.
3. The mobile device detects the received CMAM as a duplicate
CMAM based upon message identifier and other message attributes. The
duplicate CMAM is ignored and discarded by the mobile station.

[[Page 578]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JA08.013

4.5.2 Scenario for Duplicate CMAS Alerts on Different Broadcast
Technologies

An event has occurred and the appropriate government entities
have decided to issue a text based CMA to warn the CMSP subscribers
within the indicated alerting area. The CMSP network supports more
than one broadcast technology in the indicated alerting area and the
CMSP elects to broadcast the CMA on more than one technology in the
indicated alerting area. Support of multiple broadcast technologies
by the CMSP network may be result of the deployment and
implementation of newer broadcast technologies. This scenario
applies to both the CMSP subscribers and to subscribers who are
roaming as visiting subscribers into the service area of the CMSP
network which will be broadcasting the CMA.

4.5.2.1 Pre-Conditions

1. Mobile device is authorized and authenticated for service on
CMSP network.
2. Mobile device is receiving adequate radio signal strength
from the CMSP.
3. Mobile device is in state that allows for the detection and
reception of the CMA (e.g., not busy, not on a voice call).
4. No previous CMAM is being broadcast by the CMSP.
5. There is no active CMAM on mobile device.
6. CMSP subscriber is still within the alerting area for the
CMA.
7. The mobile device is capable of receiving the CMAM from more
than one broadcast technology.

4.5.2.2 Normal Flow

The flow for duplicate text profile based CMAS alerts on the
different broadcast technologies is described in the following steps
and in the associated flow diagram which follows:
1. The appropriate government entity creates the alert message
in CAP format which is sent to the government alerting network over
Reference Point A.
2. The government alerting network validates and authenticates
the received alert request.
a. If the alert fails validation or authentication, an error
response is returned to the originating government entity and the
alert is not sent to the CMSP. End of scenario.
3. The government alerting network converts the received alert
message into the text profile based CMAS format supported by the
CMSP.
a. If the alert fails conversion, the alert is not sent to the
CMSP. End of scenario.
4. The text profile based CMAM is sent to the CMSP over
Reference Point C.
5. The CMSP validates the received CMAM.
a. If the CMAM fails validation, an error response is returned
to the government alerting network and the CMAM is not broadcast by
the CMSP. End of scenario.
6. The CMSP sends an acknowledgement to the government alerting
network that a valid CMAM has been received.
7. The CMSP performs geo-targeting to translate the indicated
alert area into the associated set of cell sites/paging transceivers
for the first broadcast technology used for the broadcast of the
CMAM.
a. If the CMSP does not support CMAS in the indicated alert
area, the CMAM is not broadcast by the CMSP. End of scenario.
b. If the CMSP does not have any cell site/paging transceiver
coverage for the first broadcast technology within the indicated
alert area, the CMAM is not broadcast by the CMSP using the first
broadcast technology. The CMAM will be processed as described in
Section 4.1.1 above. End of scenario.
c. If the entire nation is indicated as the alert area then all
cell sites/paging transceivers of the first broadcast technology of
the CMSP which support the CMAS service are used for the broadcast
of the CMAM.
8. The CMSP broadcasts the CMAM using the first broadcast
technology to the set of cell sites/paging transceivers identified
by the geo-targeting processing in the previous step.
a. The CMAM is broadcast via the first CMSP selected technology.
9. The CMSP performs geo-targeting to translate the indicated
alert area into the associated set of cell sites/paging transceivers
for the second broadcast technology used for the broadcast of the
CMAM.
a. If the CMSP does not have any cell site/paging transceiver
coverage for the second broadcast technology within the indicated
alert area, the CMAM is not broadcast by the CMSP using the second
broadcast technology. The CMAM is processed as described in Section
4.1.1 above. End of scenario.
c. If the entire nation is indicated as the alert area then all
cell sites/paging transceivers of the second broadcast technology of
the CMSP which support the CMAS service are used for the broadcast
of the CMAM.
10. The CMSP broadcasts the CMAM using the second broadcast
technology to the set of cell sites/paging transceivers identified
by the geo-targeting processing in the previous step.
a. The CMAM is broadcast via the second CMSP selected
technology.
11. The CMAM is received from both the first and second
broadcast technologies.
12. Based upon mobile device capabilities and configurations,
only one of the received CMAM will be presented to the end user. The
mobile device should only perform one activation of the CMAS audio
attention signal and/or the activation of the special emergency
alert vibration cadence (if mobile device has vibration
capabilities).
a. If the CMAM is not a Presidential alert and if the end user
opt-out selections for CMAS alerts indicate that this type of CMAS

[[Page 579]]

alert is not to be presented, the CMAM is discarded or ignored. End
of scenario.
13. The behavior of the mobile device beyond this point is
outside the scope of the WARN Act and, therefore, is not subject to
recommendations by the CMSAAC. The functionality of the mobile
device is CMSP and mobile device specific.
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JA08.014

BILLING CODE 6712-01-C

[[Page 580]]

4.6 Multiple Different Active CMAS Alerts Scenario

An event has occurred and the appropriate government entities
have decided to issue a text based CMA to warn the CMSP subscribers
within the indicated alerting area. During the broadcast period of
the 1st alert message, a second event has occurred for the same
alerting area and the appropriate government entities have decided
to issue a second text based CMA to warn the CMSP subscribers within
the indicated alerting area.
The CMSP processes CMAM received from the Alert Gateway on a
first come first served basis. There is no prioritization of
processing or delivery of CMAM within the CMSP network. This
scenario applies to both the CMSP subscribers and to subscribers who
are roaming as visiting subscribers into the service area of the
CMSP network which will be broadcasting the CMA.

4.6.1 Pre-Conditions

1. Mobile device is authorized and authenticated for service on
CMSP network.
2. Mobile device is receiving adequate radio signal strength
from the CMSP.
3. Mobile device is in state that allows for the detection and
reception of CMA (e.g., not busy, not on a voice call).
4. No previous CMAM is being broadcast by the CMSP.
5. There is no CMAM on mobile device.
6. CMSP subscriber is within the alerting area for the CMA.
7. Both CMA are to be issued for the same alerting area.

4.6.2 Normal Flow

The flow for multiple different CMAS alerts within the same
alerting area is described in the following steps and in the
associated flow diagram which follows:
1. The appropriate government entity creates the 1st alert
message in CAP format which is sent to the government alerting
network over Reference Point A.
2. The government alerting network validates and authenticates
the 1st received alert request.
a. If the 1st alert fails validation or authentication, an error
response is returned to the originating government entity and the
alert is not sent to the CMSP. End of scenario.
3. The government alerting network converts the 1st received
alert message into the text profile based CMAS format supported by
the CMSP.
a. If the alert fails conversion, the alert is not sent to the
CMSP. End of scenario.
4. The 1st text profile based CMAM is sent to the CMSP over
Reference Point C.
5. The CMSP validates the 1st received CMAM.
a. If the 1st CMAM fails validation, an error response is
returned to the government alerting network and the CMAM is not
broadcast by the CMSP. End of scenario.
6. The CMSP sends an acknowledgement to the government alerting
network that the 1st received CMAM is valid.
7. The CMSP performs geo-targeting for the 1st CMAS alert to
translate the indicated alert area into the associated set of cell
sites/paging transceivers for the broadcast of the 1st CMAM.
a. If the CMSP does not support CMAS in the indicated alert
area, the 1st CMAM is not broadcast by the CMSP. End of scenario.
b. If the CMSP does not have any cell site/paging transceiver
coverage within the indicated alert area, the 1st CMAM is not
broadcast by the CMSP. End of scenario.
c. If the entire nation is indicated as the alert area then all
cell sites/paging transceivers of the CMSP which support the CMAS
service are used for the broadcast of the 1st CMA.
8. The CMSP broadcasts the 1st CMAM to the set of cell sites/
paging transceivers identified by the geo-targeting processing in
the previous step.
a. The 1st CMAM is broadcast via the CMSP selected technology.
9. The 1st CMAM is received and presented to the end user
including the activation of the CMAS audio attention signal and/or
the activation of the special emergency alert vibration cadence (if
mobile device has vibration capabilities) for a short duration as
defined by CMSP policies and by the capabilities of the mobile
device, and display of the 1st CMAM message text on the visual
display of the mobile device.
a. If the 1st CMAM is not a Presidential alert and if the end
user opt-out selections for CMAS alerts indicate that this type of
CMAS alert is not to be presented, the CMAM is discarded or ignored.
b. Activation of the CMAS audio attention signal and/or special
vibration cadence complies with the end user mobile device
configuration as defined in Section 7.2 below.
10. An appropriate government entity creates a 2nd alert message
in CAP format for the same alerting area as the 1st alert message.
The 2nd alert message is sent to the government alerting network
over Reference Point A.
11. The government alerting network validates and authenticates
the 2nd received alert request.
a. If the 2nd alert fails validation or authentication, an error
response is returned to the originating government entity and the
alert is not sent to the CMSP. End of scenario.
12. The government alerting network converts the 2nd received
alert message into the text profile based CMAS format supported by
the CMSP.
a. If the alert fails conversion, the alert is not sent to the
CMSP. End of scenario.
13. The 2nd text profile based CMAM is sent to the CMSP over
Reference Point C.
14. The CMSP validates the 2nd received CMAM.
a. If the 2nd CMAM fails validation, an error response is
returned to the government alerting network and the CMAM is not
broadcast by the CMSP. End of scenario.
15. The CMSP sends an acknowledgement to the government alerting
network that the 2nd received CMAM is valid.
16. The CMSP performs geo-targeting for the 2nd CMAM to
translate the indicated alert area into the associated set of cell
sites/paging transceivers for the broadcast of the 2nd CMAM.
a. For this scenario, since the indicated alert area of the 1st
and 2nd CMAM are the same, the results of the geo-targeting for both
the 1st and 2nd CMAM should return the same set of cell sites/paging
transceivers.
17. The CMSP broadcasts the 2nd CMAM to the set of cell sites/
paging transceivers identified by the geo-targeting processing step.
a. The 2nd CMAM is broadcast via the CMSP selected technology.
b. The retransmission of the 1st CMAM and the initial
transmission of the 2nd CMAM may be simultaneously broadcast, or may
be transmitted sequentially, depending on the delivery technology.
18. The 2nd CMAM is received and presented to the end user
including the activation of the CMAS audio attention signal and/or
the activation of the special emergency alert vibration cadence (if
mobile device has vibration capabilities) for a short duration as
defined by CMSP policies and by the capabilities of the mobile
device, and display of the 2nd CMAM message text on the visual
display of the mobile device.
a. If the 2nd CMAM is not a Presidential alert and if the end
user opt-out selections for CMAS alerts indicate that this type of
CMAS alert is not to be presented, the 2nd CMAM is discarded or
ignored.
b. Activation of the CMAS audio attention signal and/or special
vibration cadence complies with the end user mobile device
configuration as defined in Section 7.2 below.
c. The mobile device ignores the retransmission of the duplicate
1st CMAM.
d. The mobile device processing and presentation of multiple
received CMAS alerts is outside the scope of the WARN Act and,
therefore, is not subject to recommendations by the CMSAAC. The
functionality of the mobile device is CMSP and mobile device
specific.

[[Page 581]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JA08.015

5 General Requirements & Conclusions

The following section contains the CMSAAC's general
recommendations and conclusions for the CMAS. Many of the
conclusions and recommendations apply to initial deployments of the
CMAS, for a text-based service profile. Future technologies, such as
streaming audio, streaming video, and multimedia, are mentioned
throughout this document; however, technology advances to support
these future capabilities are just beginning to be developed and
introduced. As CMSPs gain experience with these technologies, the
applicability of those technologies to the CMAS will be better
understood.
The CMSAAC recommends that this document be treated as a living
document,

[[Page 582]]

with periodic updates to account for experiences with initial CMAS
deployments and experiences with new technologies and their
applicability to CMAS. An industry group consisting of government
and industry stakeholders should be created after the CMSAAC's
activity is complete to review and update this document on a
periodic basis. This review should occur no less frequently than
biennially. It is expected that during research, development, and
deployment, this industry group may need to convene more frequently
than biennially to address research conclusions and any development
or deployment issues.

5.1 Scope & Definition of CMAS Alerts

The CMSAAC recommends that there are three classes of Commercial
Mobile Alerts:
1. Presidential-level.
2. Imminent threat to life and property (defined as alerts where
the CAP severity equals Extreme or Severe, CAP urgency is Immediate
or Expected, and CAP certainty is Observed or Likely).
3. Child Abduction Emergency or ``AMBER Alert''.
Because of the technical limitations in delivering emergency
alerts on CMSP systems, the CMSAAC recommends that only the 3
classes defined above will be transmitted as CMA messages.
The CMSAAC recommends that the CMSPs who elect to support CMAs
are considered for this purpose only to be agents of the federal,
state, local, or tribal agencies that originate the alerts and are
providing CMAs on their behalf.
A CMSP that elects to transmit alerts under Section 602(b)(2) of
the WARN Act may not impose a separate or additional charge for such
transmission or capability when the emergency alerts are transmitted
in a manner consistent with the technical standards, protocols,
procedures, and other technical requirements implemented by the
Commission. For transmission or service beyond standards, protocols,
procedures, and other technical requirements implemented by the
Commission, a Commercial Mobile Service licensee is not bound by
Section 602(b)(2)(C) of the WARN Act.
The Commercial Mobile Service licensee may utilize the technical
standards, protocols, procedures, and other technical requirements
implemented by the Commission to support the WARN Act for other
services or purposes and are not bound by Section 602(b)(2)(C) of
the WARN Act. The government portion, from Reference Point A to
Reference Point C, of the CMAS will not be made available for
commercial use.
CMAS will be provided according to the technical standards,
protocols, procedures, and other technical requirements implemented
by the Commission to support the WARN Act. A CMSP's networks shall
not be bound to use any specific vendor, technology, software,
implementation, client, device, or third party agent, in order to
meet the obligations under the WARN Act.
Technical standards, protocols, procedures, and other technical
requirements implemented by the Commission shall be standardized in
industry fora which have a well-defined reasonable and non-
discriminatory intellectual property rights policy, allowing for
multi-vendor implementations.
It is anticipated that mobile devices that support CMAS may
incur additional development and manufacturing costs and these costs
may be passed on to the subscriber.
A CMSP or any device deployed by a CMSP to support the
transmission of CMAS alerts according to the WARN Act shall not be
required to identify location or location history of the mobile
device.
The CMSAAC recommends that, prior to the adoption of rules as
specified in the WARN Act Section 602 (b) (1), the Commission will
require all participants in the CMSAAC and all participants in the
public comment process on this Commercial Mobile Alert Service
Architecture and Requirements document to provide written assurance
to the Commission that, if and insofar as one or more licenses may
be required under any of their respective Intellectual Property
Rights (IPR) that are technically essential for purposes of
implementing or deploying CMAS, the rights holders shall license
such IPR on a fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis for those
limited purposes only.

5.2 General CMAS Requirements & Conclusions

This section contains the CMSAAC's recommendations for general
requirements and assumptions for CMAS. More specific requirements
and assumptions may be contained within the other sections of this
document.
1. Federal, state, tribal, and local level CMAS alert messages
will be supported using the same CMAS solution.
2. Point-to-point or unicast delivery technologies are not
feasible or practical for the support of CMAS, i.e., SMS point-to-
point, MMS. Reasons for point-to-point technologies not being
feasible or practical are:
a. Point-to-point technologies can experience significant
delivery delays.
b. Point-to-point technologies can result in network and radio
interface congestion to the point of blocking voice calls.
c. Point-to-point technologies lack security and can be easily
spoofed.
d. Point-to-point technologies lack geo-targeting capabilities
because it is targeted to phone numbers instead of a specific alert
area.
e. Point-to-point technologies lack emergency alert specific
alert tones and thereby emergency alerts can not be distinguished
from normal SMS message traffic.
f. Point-to-point technologies lack support of roamers.
3. For a CMSP that elects to transmit CMAS alerts, text is the
minimum requirement for CMAS alert messages. All CMAS alert messages
delivered to the CMSP will contain at least a textual component.
4. No new CALEA lawful intercept access points will be created
for CMAS alert broadcast delivery technologies.
5. There is no interaction between CMAS alert message delivery
and Number Portability. There is no guarantee that the end user will
receive the CMAS alert message during the time interval that the
user's subscription is being ported between CMSPs. As part of Number
Portability, there is no service portability between CMSPs.
6. It is not a requirement to support CMAS on non-initialized
mobile devices, including mobile devices that are not authorized for
service.
7. CMAS is intended for commercial mobile services (i.e,
cellular phones and pagers) supported by commercial mobile service
licensees. Some devices are not designed to support CMAS (e.g.,
telematics, data only devices such as laptop data cards) and thus
are outside the scope of the CMAS architecture.
a. Broadcast technologies such as MediaFLO, DVB-H, and FM/RBDS
receivers are not considered as part of the CMAS. Service providers
of these technologies do not hold commercial mobile service licenses
as they do not provide interconnect service, and are not licensed to
transmit in the same channels as commercial mobile services. It is
recognized that these technologies may provide supplemental alert
information for the CMAS.
8. The CMAMs are delivered across Reference Point C to the CMSP
network at no cost to the CMSP.

5.3 Recommendations for Alert Initiation & Alert Initiators

5.3.1 CMAM Elements

A typical emergency alert message issued by the National Weather
Service on weather radio might appear as follows:
``The National Weather Service in Phoenix has issued a severe
thunderstorm warning for northwest Maricopa County effective until 5
p.m. local time. Seek shelter now inside a sturdy structure and stay
indoors!''
(Note the above message contains over 200 characters and spaces
and is not in the correct format for a CMAM).
The CMSAAC recommends that CMAMs follow this same general
format, within the text character limitations of CMA as defined in
the text profile in Section 6.2 below. Given the rapidly evolving
nature of wireless technology, the biennial review committee shall
review whether the character limit profile, as described in Section
6.2, may be increased.
The necessary elements of an effective CMAM and the order in
which they should be presented in the CMAM are:
1. What's happening (Event Type or Event Category).
2. Area affected (in this area).
3. Recommended action (Response description).
4. Expiration time with time zone (Represented as a distinct
time--e.g., until 09:30 a.m. EDT).
5. Sending agency (agency type, i.e., police, fire, National
Weather Service, etc.).

Note: The above format for a CMAM is recommended for initial
deployments of CMAS and as experience is gained by alert initiators
and by CMSPs, we envision that the format will evolve to provide the
most efficient and informative format for the CMAMs.

[[Page 583]]

5.3.2 Generating CMAM From CAP Fields

For initial CMAS system deployments and until Alert Initiators
are trained in the generation of CMAM, in order to create consistent
and accurate CMAMs, the CMSAAC recommends that the Alert Gateway
``construct'' the CMAM using selected required and optional fields
in the CAP message. The translated CMAM will then be transmitted to
the CMSP across the Reference Point C.
Allowing the Alert Gateway to create the CMAM using CAP fields
creates consistent and accurate messages and will enable
enhancements to be made over time in the Alert Gateway and made
available to all CMA capable mobile devices in the field. For
instance, if a new alert event is identified, a new event code or
category can be added to the CAP message, translated in the Alert
Gateway and a new text string can be sent to the mobile device
through the CMSP Gateway.
However, generating CMAM using CAP fields may not provide
flexibility to Alert Initiators to tailor the CMAM content to a
specific alert event. Even though CMAS is not intended to provide
comprehensive alert information, a CMAM with a ``what is happening''
text indicating ``security warning'' may not be very meaningful to
the end user. The recent steam pipe explosion in New York City and
the Virginia Tech shootings are examples where an automatically
generated CMAM would not have provided meaningful information in the
CMAM text.
The CMSAAC recommends the use of the sender identity used by the
Alert Gateway in the Trust Model to identify the sender. The Alert
Gateway will then assign an agreed upon text phrase or abbreviation
(e.g., VDOT, NWS, etc.) to be transmitted to the CMSP Gateway.
The CMSAAC makes the following recommendations regarding the use
of the required category and optional eventCode CAP fields. They
are:
1. Encourage the National Weather Service to continue its
practice of using codes, such as SAME codes, in the eventCode field
to identify weather alerts.
2. When the eventCode field is populated with a value, that
value will be used by the Alert Gateway to determine what text
phrase will be transmitted to the CMSP gateway (e.g., TOR will be
translated to Tornado Warning).
3. If the eventCode field is not populated or is populated with
a value unknown to the Alert Gateway, the required category field
will be used by the Alert Gateway to determine what text phrase to
be transmitted to the CMSP gateway.
4. Emergency message originators and the National Weather
Service are encouraged to utilize codes for eventCodes. These codes
should be known by the Alert Gateway and have appropriate text
phrases associated with them to be transmitted to the CMSP gateway.
The CMSAAC recommends that a process be developed by which new event
codes in addition to the standard SAME and CAP event codes can be
developed and registered.
The CMSAAC recommends that the affected area be generated from
the optional geocode field. If the optional geocode field is
missing, the polygon or circle elements will be used to determine
the associated geocodes and the corresponding affected area
description. The CMSAAC further recommends that a process be
developed by which new geocodes in addition to standard FIPS codes
can be registered and implemented in the Alert Gateway for deriving
the affected area description.
The CMSAAC recommends that the response description will be
taken from the optional responseType CAP Field. If the field is not
populated, the message should be transmitted with the text string
``Check local media for info'' applied. The CMSAAC further
recommends that a process be developed by which new responseType
Codes in addition to the standard CAP response type codes can be
developed and registered.
The CMSAAC recommends that the expiration time will be
determined from the optional expires CAP field. If this field is not
populated, local guidelines will be applied by the Alert Gateway as
to when the message is no longer in effect.
The following table defines the text string associated with the
CAP value fields used to generate the CMAM:

Table 5-1.--CAP Value Field Mapping to Text
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAP field Value Text string
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is happening
------------------------------------------------------------------------
category........................ Met............... Severe Weather
Warning.
Safety............ Public Safety
Warning.
Fire.............. Fire Warning.
Geo............... Geologic Warning.
Security.......... Security Warning.
Rescue............ Rescue Alert.
Health............ Health Warning.
Env............... Environmental
Warning.
Transport......... Transport Alert.
eventCode....................... TOR............... Tornado Warning.
VOW............... Volcano Warning.
SVR............... Severe TStorm
Warning.
EQW............... Earthquake
Warning.
TSW............... Tsunami Warning.
BZW............... Blizzard Warning.
DSW............... Dust Storm
Warning.
FFW............... Flash Flood
Warning.
HWW............... High Wind Warning.
HUW............... Hurricane Warning.
TRW............... Tropical Storm
Warning.
WSW............... Winter Storm
Warning.
CFW............... Coastal Flood
Warning.
FLW............... Flood Warning.
FRW............... Fire Warning.
SMW............... Special Marine
Warning.
AVW............... Avalanche Warning.
CDW............... Civil Danger
Warning.
CEM............... Civil Emergency.
HMW............... HazMat Warning.
LEW............... Police Warning.
CAE............... AMBER Alert.
NUW............... Nuclear Power
Plant Warning.
RHW............... Radiological
Hazard Warning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 584]]

What area is affected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
..................
``in this area''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the alert expires
------------------------------------------------------------------------
expires......................... The expiration Translated by the
time of the Alert Gateway to
information of an event expires
the alert time in a 12 hour/
message. The date Time zone format
and time is (i.e.,
represented in Until7:00AM PDT).
[dateTime] format
(e.g., ``2002-05-
24T16:49:00-07:00
'' for 24 May
2002 at 16:49
PDT).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What action should be taken
------------------------------------------------------------------------
responseType.................... Shelter or SPW.... Take Shelter Now.
Evacuate or EVI... Evacuate Now.
Prepare........... Prepare for
Action.
Execute........... Execute Action.
Avoid Hazard \8\.. Avoid Hazard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who is sending the alert
------------------------------------------------------------------------
sender.......................... Identifies the Translated by the
originator of Alert Gateway to
this alert. an acronym or
Guaranteed by short
assigner to be abbreviation
unique globally; picked by the
e.g., may be sender.
based on an Note: URLs, phone
Internet domain numbers, and
name--could also email addresses
come from the are not sent to
sender's name in the mobile
the Trust Model. device.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.3.2.1 Generating CMAM From Free Form Text
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ This value is recommended for CMAS use only pending
inclusion into the CAP standard by the responsible standards body.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As indicated in the above section, the generation of CMAM using
CAP fields may not provide flexibility to Alert Initiators to tailor
the CMAM content to a specific alert event where only an event
category is available such as a ``security warning''. In addition,
Alert Initiators may want to provide specific response information
above what is available in the CAP responseType field.
The CMSAAC recommends that a capability be provided for Alert
Initiators to generate free form text consistent with the text
profile of Section 6.2, below. The CMSAAC further recommends that
the Alert Gateway have a mechanism to determine when the free form
text should be used instead of the automatically generated CMAM
described in Section 5.3.2 above. The Alert Gateway mechanism is
subject to the implementation of the Alert Gateway and the policy of
the authorized government entity.
The CMSAAC recommends that the FCC establish a forum that
includes the CMSPs to develop the Alert Gateway mechanism and policy
for free form text-based CMAMs that will be subject to final
approval of the CMSPs. This policy would encompass specific decision
points at the Alert Gateway such as: the message length does not
exceed the maximum character limit, the message contains no phone
numbers or URLs which would encourage mass access of the wireless
network, the message contains all the necessary elements of an
effective message referenced in section, etc. If any of the decision
points are not met, the automatically generated message would be
issued to the CMSP instead of the free form text.
The CMSAAC recommends that the Alert Gateway issue automatically
generated CMAMs for alerts other than presidential and AMBER Alert
messages until free form CMAMs meet the policies established for the
Alert Gateway.
If the use of free form text messages becomes problematic or
induces network disruptions in practice, the Alert Gateway mechanism
and policy would need to be modified to further restrict the
issuance of free form text messages or to utilize only automatically
generated CMAMs.
The free form text for the CMAM should be included as a
parameter of the CAP message with the valueName indicating
``CMAMtext''.
The CMSAAC further recommends that training be provided to Alert
Initiators on generation of meaningful CMAM which provides
sufficient information on the mobile devices. It is recommended that
the above mentioned forum participate in the development of the
training program for free form text targeted for CMAMs.

5.3.3 Presidential Message and AMBER Alert

There are two additional special cases where automatic text
generation at the Alert Gateway would not be practical. These are
the Presidential Alert message and AMBER Alerts. The CMSAAC
recommends that:
1. They may be identified either by a code in the optional CAP
eventCode field--EAN for Presidential Alert and CAE for AMBER
Alert--or by the required CAP sender field. Presidential level
messages are not restricted to nationwide only alert messages. The
Presidential level message may contain polygon, circle, GNIS, or
geocode information to designate the targeted alert area.
2. The free text message would be presented to the Alert Gateway
in a free text CAP field. This free text message would be
transmitted to the CMSP gateway. For Presidential alerts, the Alert
Gateway may use a generic statement such as ``The President has
issued an emergency alert. Check local media for more details''.
3. It may be desirable for some AMBER Alert messages to include
specific information such as a vehicle license plate. The National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) should be
authorized to formulate unique free-form message text for CMAS.
4. These two special cases will use the normal processes for
sending messages to the Alert Aggregator (i.e., use of CAP messages)
and will be treated as any other emergency alert initiated message
except as specified above and in Section 2.2.2 above.

5.3.4 Recommended Message Initiator Training

In order for emergency message initiators to develop and
transmit effective emergency messages, within the character length
limits of the CMAM, the CMSAAC recommends that alert initiator
training on consistently populating CAP fields and generating CMAM
be accomplished via the credentialing process (See Section 8.1
below).

5.4 Recommendations for Geo-Targeting of CMAS Alerts

The CMSAAC acknowledges that it is the goal of the CMAS for
CMSPs to be able to deliver geo-targeted alerts to the areas
specified by the Alert Initiator. Systems used by Alert Initiators
may allow them to define an alert area on a map. For example, the
defined alert area could include the projected

[[Page 585]]

path of a tornado or an event that encompasses a portion of an urban
area. The CMSAAC further recognizes that CMSPs currently have
limited capability to deliver geo-targeted alerts.
Based upon current capabilities, the CMSAAC recommends the
following for geo-targeting of CMAS alerts:
1. In order to expedite initial deployments of CMAS an alert
that is specified by a geocode, circle or polygon (See Section 10.4)
will be transmitted to an area not larger than the CMSP's
approximation of coverage for the county \9\ or counties with which
that geocode, circle, or polygon intersects. Some wireless
technology RF propagation areas, for systems such as paging systems
or multi-county cell sites, may greatly exceed a single county. In
these instances, CMSPs will support geo-targeting subject to the
limitations imposed by their technology. Cell sites'/paging
transceivers' physical location within the alert area may be used to
determine the initial predefined alert areas. The CMSP is not
required to perform RF coverage mapping of cell sites/paging
transceivers to initial alert areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ County, parish or equivalent jurisdictional area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. A CMSP may elect to target smaller areas. CMSP may elect to
target CMAM for distributions to predefined alert areas smaller than
a county and may use GNIS codes, polygon, or circle information to
identify a predefined list of cell sites/paging transceivers within
the alert area. In the interim period before the availability of
dynamic targeting, the CMSAAC recommends that certain urban areas
with populations exceeding 1,000,000 inhabitants or with other
specialized alerting needs be identified for priority consideration
regarding implementation of more precise geo-targeting. The CMSAAC
further recommends that a process be established by the Alert
Gateway operator and the CMSPs to identify no later than August 2008
those initial areas that should be given such priority treatment for
more precise geo-targeting. The CMSAAC recognizes the desire to move
forward with this process on a small number of areas with
particularly urgent alerting needs as soon as possible. The CMSAAC
recommends that Section 604 funding be provided to FEMA for this
purpose.
2. The CMSAAC recognizes that the use of predefined sets of cell
sites frequently will not optimally cover the alert area desired.
Therefore, the CMSAAC recommends that the FCC encourage DHS/FEMA, in
concert with CMSPs, to immediately initiate the research,
development, testing, and evaluation program referenced in Section
604 of the WARN Act. Section 604 requires DHS to establish a program
to develop innovative technologies that will allow CMSPs to
efficiently transmit geo-targeted CMAMs to the public. The CMSAAC
further recommends that CMSPs work with this DHS program to evaluate
the feasibility and implementation issues associated with proposed
solutions to increase geographic targeting specificity. Finally, the
CMSAAC recommends that the FCC assess the progress of the CMSP geo-
targeting as part of the biennial review process.
3. The architecture to support CMAS shall not require the CMSPs
to open the configuration, interfaces and topology of their network
including cell or paging transceiver towers to any third parties,
nor provide subscriber information or data outside their network. A
CMSP shall not be required to report cell site/paging transceiver
information, coverage information, or any RF properties of their
respective networks. The CMSP shall be the sole agent responsible
for determining which network facilities, elements, or locations are
involved in transmitting an alert to a mobile device.
4. Transmission of alerts shall be to two-dimensional areas.
There shall not be any altitude or ceiling component.

5.5 Requirements and Recommendations on Needs of Users, Including
Individuals With Disabilities and the Elderly

The WARN Act requirements for the establishment of the
Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee membership
specifically call for representation from ``national organizations
representing individuals with special needs, including individuals
with disabilities and the elderly''.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ Beyond the WARN Act, consideration may be given to
legislation such as Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act
which requires accessibility to state and local government programs
and communications; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act which
requires accessibility of Federal government programs; Section 255
of the Communications Act which requires accessibility in
telecommunications products where readily achievable; and Section
508 which applies to Federal government purchase of wireless
devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

During its work, the CMSAAC reviewed input from members on
accessibility considerations. Most of the following requirements
benefit all subscribers in an emergency.
It is recognized that not all wireless devices have the features
to support all recommendations, but manufacturers are strongly
encouraged to implement those recommendations that are technically
feasible, so that their mobile devices can accommodate as many users
as possible for emergency alerting.

5.5.1 General Requirements

In order to notify mobile service subscribers that an emergency
alert message has been received on the mobile device, the CMSAAC
recommends that the CMAS support a common audio attention signal and
a common vibrating cadence to be used solely for CMAMs. These
alerting mechanisms must be distinct from all other audio alerting
signals and vibrations available in the mobile device and must not
be able to be selected or modified by the user for any other
purpose. The CMAS audio attention signals and vibration cadence
signals as defined in Section 7.2 below are applicable to all mobile
devices which support CMAS including any specialized mobile devices
for individuals with special needs.
In addition, the CMSAAC recommends that the user should not be
required to remember or use a unique command to turn off the
notification of the CMAM. A familiar command, consistent with the
other commands used for call or message handling on the mobile
device, is recommended.

5.5.2 User Needs Requirements

5.5.2.1 Alert/Attention Signal

A unique vibration cadence (if supported by the mobile device)
should be provided as well as a unique audio attention signal. If
both are available, the two modes do not need to be activated
simultaneously but will follow the user's settings in the handset.
If the handset supports dual activation the signals will be
simultaneous according to user settings, but otherwise will be
separate signals. The vibration cadence for the alert signal should
be noticeably different from the default cadence of the handset.
For devices that have polyphonic capabilities, the CMSAAC
recommends that the audio attention signal should consist of more
than one tone, all of which are to be in the low frequency range
below 2 kHz, and preferably below 1 kHz. For devices which have only
single frequency audio alert tone capability, it is recommended that
the audio alert tone be in the low frequency range below 2 kHz. The
CMSAAC further recommends, subject to mobile device capabilities,
that the signal have a temporal pattern (on-off pattern) to make it
easier to detect, particularly in noisy conditions and by people
with hearing loss. See Section 7 below for additional information.
An audio attention signal starting with a lower intensity and
going to a higher intensity during the tone sequence may effectively
get attention while endeavoring to avoid unduly startling the
message recipient. Some mobile devices may support this capability;
however, such a capability is controlled by the subscriber
preferences for audio attention signal settings; this capability is
not applicable to all mobile devices and should be implemented at
the discretion of the mobile device vendors.

5.5.2.2 Message Content

The CMSAAC makes the following recommendations regarding message
content:
General Guideline: alert initiator use clear and simple language
whenever possible, with minimal use of abbreviations. The most
important information should be presented first.
Text messages: Follow General Guideline.
Audio messages: Follow General Guideline. The alert initiator
must insure abbreviations are spoken as full words.
Video messages: Follow General Guideline.
Multimedia messages: The alert initiator should provide ample
text and audio to explain images such as maps, so that message
recipients understand the content of the graphics/images.

5.5.2.3 Output Mode/Display

The CMSAAC makes the following recommendations regarding output
mode/display:
General Guideline: The mobile device should provide an easy way
to allow the user to recall the message for review.
Outside the scope of CMSAAC are alternate delivery mechanisms
that would enable a CMAS-registered person to sign up with a third
party for alternate format

[[Page 586]]

message delivery. This would provide the means to access speech
delivery for people who do not have text-to-speech (TTS)
functionality in their phones, and would enable delivery of American
Sign Language (ASL) if available and supported by the user's handset
and service. The CMSAAC recommends that the Alert Aggregator have
the capability to deliver alerts to third party services in order
for them to deliver accessible alerts to users with special needs.
The need to support languages other than English is recognized.
See Section 5.7 Multi-Language CMAS Alert Recommendations below for
further information.
Text Messages:
The mobile devices should use a font to make the message easily
readable. Per the American Foundation for the Blind, the goal in
font selection is to use easily recognizable characters, either
standard Roman or Sans Serif fonts. Another good choice is Arial.
Avoid decorative fonts.
The use of color should be avoided for the purpose of conveying
information, as some people are color-blind, and some devices do not
display color.
If technically feasible, the mobile device display should
provide high contrast display and provide adjustable font size.
One area of particular concern is that people who are blind or
visually impaired will be most underserved by a solely text-based
CMAM. The Committee recognizes that these subscribers could be best
served by having the CMAM made available in speech format. There are
mobile devices and software on the market with screen reading and
text-to-speech conversion capability. It is agreed that such
specialized mobile devices, which are geared for people who are
blind and who have low vision, could be a solution.\11\ The CMSAAC
recommends that participating CMSPs who elect to transmit CMAS alert
messages strongly consider offering this capability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ For more information, the American Foundation for the Blind
(AFB) is an authoritative resource for accessible devices and
related technology developments: http://www.afb.org.

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

In mobile devices/software that includes capabilities to support
text-to-speech access, the CMAS text should be accessible to the
screen-reading functions in phones that are capable of generating
text-to-speech. The opt-out menus on displays also should be
available to these screen readers. The CMSAAC recommends that the
CMAS text is accessible to these screen readers when CMAS capability
is incorporated in those devices.
Future Audio Alert Message:
Follow the general guideline. Alert initiators should insure
that speech is enunciated and presented at a slow pace. Alert
initiators should provide a text version along with the audio
version. Note this is not the text-based alert; this is a multimedia
alert that contains both a text and audio component consistent with
the multimedia profiles.
Future Video Alert Message:
Follow the general guideline. Alert initiators should provide
text versions of the audio content of video alerts. CMSPs and mobile
device vendors should consider appropriate methods for delivery and
allowing users the ability to display this associated text on mobile
devices as technology evolves and video and captioning capabilities
become available. Also, the alert initiator should provide an audio
description of the video content as a separate multimedia audio
component consistent with the multimedia profiles.
Future Multimedia Alert Message:
Follow the general guideline. The alert initiator should provide
all information in text and graphical form as part of the multimedia
components to the alert message. The alert initiator should provide
an audio description of the important information supplied in the
graphic, which is a separate multimedia component consistent with
the multimedia profiles.

5.5.2.4 Behavior on Receipt of a Message

It is desirable to have the CMAM prominently presented on the
mobile device without user interaction when the alert message is
received. To turn off the notification of the CMAS message, a
familiar command consistent with the other commands used for message
handling on the mobile device is recommended. It is best to avoid
requiring the subscribers to remember and use a unique command or
command sequence. The need to scroll or manipulate the device should
be minimized.

5.5.2.5 CMAS-Related Print and Online Materials

As important to the accessibility of the CMAS is the
accessibility of any CMAS-related consumer information in print or
electronic form. Providing information that incorporates
accessibility solutions for individuals with special needs may also
bring benefits to the general population, not just users with
disabilities, as studies of multimodal learning have shown. Listed
here are a variety of available resources that present solutions to
accessibility obstacles in formats designed to easily educate and
assist publishers. The Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) develops
strategies, guidelines, and resources to help make the Web
accessible to people with disabilities. The following WAI resources
are intended to provide basic information for people who are new to
Web accessibility. The W3C--World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines are available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/
.

The principles of universal design--designing to meet the needs
of as many users as possible--provide a new dimension for improving
the usability of electronic materials for everyone. The Carl and
Ruth Shapiro Family National Center for Accessible Media at WGBH
developed Accessible Digital Media Design Guidelines for Electronic
Publications, Multimedia and the Web, available at http://ncam.wgbh.org/publications/adm/
.

The above resources are provided for informational purposes to
ensure the accessibility of all CMAS related print and web content.
It is not the intent of the CMSAAC to make recommendations for
existing web content or web content not associated with CMAS.
For future multimedia capabilities, if web content is delivered
to the mobile device, consideration should be given to the proposed
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Mobile Web Best Practices 1.0.

5.5.3 Subscriber CMA Opt-Out Recommendations

As stated in the WARN Act, the CMA subscriber opt out process
may be supported by a CMSP that elects to transmit.
[cir] Opt-out is defined in Section 602(b)(2)(E) in the WARN Act
as ``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''.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ WARN Act Sec. 602(b)(2)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[cir] ``Receiving such alerts'' may also be interpreted to
``notify and display to the user of such alerts'' as the mobile
device may actually receive the alert but not present it to the
subscriber.
As noted in Section 5.1 above, there are three classes of CMAS
Message categories:

1. Presidential-level
2. Imminent threat to life and property
3. Child Abduction Emergency or ``AMBER Alert''

Presidential-level messages must always be transmitted and are
not eligible for the opt-out procedure. Imminent Threat alerts are
messages where the CAP severity field is Extreme or Severe, the CAP
urgency field is Immediate or Expected, and the CAP certainty field
is Observed or Likely. AMBER Alert messages are considered a
different message classification and are treated separately.

The CMSAAC recommends that CMSPs shall offer their subscribers a
simple opt-out process that is based on the classification of
imminent threat and AMBER Alerts. Except for presidential messages,
which are always transmitted, the process should allow the choice to
opt-out of:
All messages,\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ Presidential messages will still be received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

All severe messages,\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ Extreme messages, AMBER Alerts and presidential messages
will still be received (Extreme messages are those messages where
the CAP severity field is Extreme, the CAP urgency field is
Immediate, and the CAP certainty field is Observed or Likely).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMBER Alerts \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ All other messages will still be received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because of differences in the way CMSPs and device manufacturers
provision their menus and user interfaces, CMSPs and device
manufacturers shall have flexibility on how to present the opt-out
choices to subscribers.

5.6 Recommendations for CMAM Transmissions

The CMSAAC recommends that the CMAM be retransmitted into an
effected area until the alert expires. This will provide the alert
to those that might have missed the initial broadcast alert, e.g.,
been in the process of a voice call, those that might have had their
mobile device turned off when the alert was issued or those that
might be entering the area after the alert was issued.

[[Page 587]]

The interval and frequency of transmission of CMAM performed by
the CMSP is based upon balancing the capabilities of the CMSP
specified delivery technology and various factors, such as:

--Number of simultaneous active alerts
--Number of languages
--Mobile device battery life
--Latency from alert initiator to receipt by first mobile device
--Notification to subscribers entering alert area
--Limitations of delivery technology
--Configuration of delivery technology and mobile devices
--Impact to normal call processing.

Therefore, the CMSAAC recommends that the CMSP determine the
frequency of retransmissions based upon the considerations and
optimization of the above mentioned factors.

5.7 Multi-Language CMAS Alerts Recommendations

The WARN Act requires the CMSAAC to submit to the Commission
recommendations ``for the technical capability to transmit emergency
alerts by electing commercial mobile providers to subscribers in
languages in addition to English, to the extent practical and
feasible.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ WARN Act Sec. 603(c)(4)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provision has been made in the CMAS architecture to support
language extensions, for example the C interface contains fields to
identify language and character encoding (see Section 10.4, below).
Such extensions are reserved for a time at which the engineering
impact of additional language sets is understood. The biennial
review committee shall continue to study the feasibility of
broadcasting alerts in languages other than English.
It is recognized that there is a strong desire for the CMAS to
support Spanish in addition to English. A CMSP may choose to
transmit alerts received in languages other than English based on
the capabilities of the technology the CMSP has deployed to support
CMAS alerts, the capabilities of the mobile device, the CMSP's
policy, and the definition of the single unified Federal policy for
the support of alerts in multiple languages. In addition, the Alert
Gateway would need to be able to generate CMAM in multiple
languages.
The CMSAAC recommends that CMSPs not be required to give
notification in its election to transmit alerts, at point of sale or
through any other means, or to the CMSP's subscriber base for not
supporting the transmission in languages other than English.
A fundamental requirement for the optional support of languages
other than English is that the CMAM must be delivered to the CMSP in
the language that it is to be delivered and in the CMAS format. At
the current time, there shall be no language translation in the CMSP
network or in the mobile device. This requirement should be reviewed
as technology improvements are developed.
The CMSAAC has analyzed the technical feasibility of supporting
multilanguage CMAS alerts on the various delivery technologies and
has determined that support of languages other than English is a
very complex issue. Fundamentally the existing air interfaces of
CMSPs have technical limitations and the support of multiple
languages may result in a significant impact to capacity and latency
due to these limitations.
In addition, an important question is how many languages should
be considered? On a National basis, only Spanish exceeds 1% of
households. On a local basis, however, there are potentially more
than 37 languages that exceed 1% of households which would require
more than 16 different character sets to be supported in the mobile
device. This raises issues such as character set limitations, the
amount of CMAS alert message traffic that would need to be delivered
in multi-languages, bandwidth limitations, increased cost and
complexity, mobile device capabilities and deployment impacts.
Additional character sets to support multiple languages also will
potentially limit the amount of data that can be transmitted; for
example, some character sets require 2 Bytes per character versus 1
Byte per character, and thus 90 characters available in the text
profile for a CMAM now reduces the text message to 45 characters.
Additional languages increase the cost and complexity both in the
mobile device and in the CMSP network. At the present time, the
CMSAAC believes there are fundamental technical problems to reliably
implement any languages in addition to English.

5.8 CMAS Reception Control on Mobile Devices

CMAS reception control is required where subscribers and/or
CMSPs should be allowed to control the reception of CMAS alerts via
control of the delivery technology (e.g., broadcast) on a CMAS-
capable mobile device. The CMSAAC recognizes the WARN Act
requirements of not being able to opt-out of Presidential messages.
However, the primary justifications for allowing a subscriber and/or
CMSP to control the CMAS delivery technology capabilities on the
mobile devices include:
a. Providing the ability of not presenting CMAS alert messages
to users that may not understand or may experience undue alarm such
as parents wanting to suppress this service for young children or
the elderly.
b. Disabling the broadcast capability when traveling to
locations where the CMAS services are not desired or not supported
and thus preserving battery life in normal circumstances.
c. In the presence of the CMSP radio signal, potential savings
on battery life, which may be critical in an emergency or disaster
situation especially where power is not available to recharge the
mobile device.
d. Disabling the broadcast capability for mobile devices that
are being used for special applications where the CMAS service is
not applicable such as a backup notification method for in-home
security systems.
e. Being able to disable the broadcast capability for CMSPs that
elect not to transmit alerts in whole or in part.
Based upon the above, the CMSAAC recommends:
1. The CMSP will have the capability to enable or disable the
broadcast capabilities or CMAS functionality on any of their
associated mobile devices. This capability is under CMSP control
mechanisms such as mobile device provisioning, and the CMSP shall be
required to give notification to the subscribers as defined in
Section 3.4 above.
2. The mobile device user may have the capability on their
mobile device to disable the delivery technology for the CMAS alert
messages. The execution of this capability by the subscriber shall
require confirmation of the action by the subscriber and there are
no additional CMSP notification requirements as described in Section
3.4 above.

5.9 Roaming

The CMSAAC recommends that roaming be supported only on an
intra-technology basis. For example:
1. Roaming GSM subscribers receive CMAS alerts from GSM
operators in the serving market.
2. Roaming CDMA subscribers receive CMAS alerts from CDMA
operators in the serving market.
3. If a CMSP elects not to support CMAS alerts, subscribers from
other CMSP will not receive CMAS alert messages when roaming onto
that CMSP's network.
4. If a CMSP elects not to support CMAS alerts and subscribers
from that CMSP roam onto another CMSP network which does support
CMAS alerts, that roaming subscriber will receive CMAS alert
messages only if their mobile device is configured to receive CMAS
alert messages with the delivery technology of roamed-to CMSP
network.
5. Inbound roamers may be supported if the mobile device is
configured for, is eligible to receive and is technically capable of
receiving CMAS alert messages with the delivery technology of the
serving CMSP network.

6 SERVICE PROFILES

The CMAS architecture and recommendations are based upon the
principles of service profiles. Commercial mobile operators may
utilize any broadcast technology to the mobile devices which comply
with the service profiles. The following service profiles are
defined

Text Profile
Streaming Audio Profile (future capability)
Streaming Video Profile (future capability)
Downloaded Multimedia Profile (future capability)

The CMSAAC recommends that each CMAS alert sent to the CMSP
Gateway contain, at a minimum, the attributes for the text profile.
Optionally, there may be multiple streaming audio, streaming video,
and/or downloaded multimedia attributes associated with the CMAS
alert sent to the CMSP Gateway.
Specifically, the following will be the service profiles
associated with a CMAS alert sent to the CMSP Gateway:

One Text Profile
Zero or more Streaming Audio Profiles
Zero or more Streaming Video Profiles

[[Page 588]]

Zero or more Downloaded Multimedia Profiles

The following section provides general recommendations and
conclusions on text, audio, video, and multimedia resources.

6.1 Conclusions on Text, Audio, Video & Multimedia Resources

1. The CMSAAC recommends that the formats for future streaming
audio, streaming video, and multimedia be defined at point where
implementation and deployment of these technologies have reached a
point where a standard set of formats can be identified, e.g., at
the initial biennial review described in Section 5 above. The CMSAAC
also recommends that the alert initiation systems do not implement
any coding formats for these types of resources until the full
impact to the end-to-end CMAS system is understood.
2. The CMAS service profiles for text, audio, video, and
multimedia messages are for the transmission of text data, audio
files, video files, and multimedia files and not for the
presentation of real-time content.
3. The CMSP networks are outside the scope of the Trust Model of
the government alerting infrastructure.
4. The Alert Gateway is responsible for collecting and
assembling all text, audio, video, and multimedia components of the
CMAS messages to be given to the CMSPs for transmission.
a. If the CAP message includes a Resource Element that includes
an URI, it is not expected that the CMSPs will be required to
retrieve the file specified by the URI. Rather, the Alert Gateway
will retrieve the associated file during the collection and assembly
process for the CMAS alert message for retrieval by the CMSPs.
b. Any audio, video, and multimedia files collected for the CMAS
alert messages must be provided to the CMSPs in a standard set of
formats.
5. The CMSAAC recommends that the government alerting
infrastructure be aligned with the capabilities and requirements as
defined under the CMAS.
a. The above referenced initial CMAS service profiles are not
capable of providing real-time multimedia broadcasts including a
Presidential audio alert.

6.2 Text Profile

Support of the text profile is the minimum requirement for any
CMSP which elects to support CMAS.
This information is passed from the Alert Gateway to the CMSP
Gateway and may include attributes that are generated by the CMAS
alert originator.

Table 6-1.--Text Profile
[Service profile: Text--universal--service--profile]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attribute name Attribute definition Note
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purpose..................... Common denominator
for text messages.
Maximum Payload Size........ 120 bytes (As noted Size is estimated.
in Section 5.3.1,
the biennial review
committee shall
review whether the
character limit
profile may be
increased.).
Maximum Displayable Message 90 characters for an Languages other than
Size. English language English, or coding
CMA encoded with 7- other then 7-bit
bit encoding. (As coding, will result
noted in Section in a change to the
5.3.1, the biennial maximum number of
review committee characters
shall review supported.
whether the
character limit
profile may be
increased.).
Data Coding Scheme.......... UTF-8 as defined in The text on the C
IETF RFC-3629. interface is
provided in UTF-8
format which is
capable of
supporting text in
English and other
languages. It is
the responsibility
of the CMSP Gateway
to translate to any
character format
encoding required
by the CMSP
selected delivery
technology.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.3 Streaming Audio Profile (Future Capability)

The streaming audio profile defines the attributes for the
support of streaming audio based CMAS alerts. Support of the
streaming audio profile is optional for any CMSP which elects to
support CMAS and is dependent on the technology selected by the CMSP
and mobile device capabilities.
This information is passed from the Alert Gateway to the CMSP
Gateway and may include attributes that are generated by the CMAS
alert originator.

Table 6-2.--Streaming Audio Profile
[Service profile: Streaming--audio--service--profile]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attribute name Attribute definition Note
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purpose..................... Define service ....................
profile for
streaming audio
messages..
Maximum size................ Based upon the Size of the
authorized streaming audio
government entity file is dependent
policy. on the file type
and encoding
algorithms.
Size of CMAS alerts
with streaming
audio components
are much larger
than text based
CMAS alerts and,
therefore, could
have greater impact
to bandwidth
requirements,
message latency,
etc.
C Interface Data Coding Identification of See reference model.
Scheme. the standard format
of the streaming
audio file being
retrieved by the
CMSP Gateway.
C interface Audio File Issue of audio file The contents of this
Reference. transmissions attribute are based
remains to be upon the streaming
addressed. audio file being
pulled by the CMSP
Gateway from the
Alert Gateway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.4 Streaming Video Profile (Future Capability)

The streaming video profile defines the attributes for the
support of streaming video based CMAS alerts. Support of the
streaming video profile is optional for any CMSP which elects to
support CMAS and is dependent on the technology selected by the CMSP
and mobile device capabilities.
This information is passed from the Alert Gateway to the CMSP
Gateway and may include attributes that are generated by the CMAS
alert originator.

[[Page 589]]

Table 6-3.--Video Profile
[Service profile: Streaming--video--service--profile]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attribute name Attribute definition Note
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purpose..................... Define service
profile for
streaming video
alert messages.
Maximum Size................ Based upon the Size of the
authorized streaming video
government entity file is dependent
policy. on the file type
and encoding
algorithms.
Size of CMAS alerts
with streaming
video components
are much larger
than text based
CMAS alert messages
and, therefore,
could have greater
impact to bandwidth
requirements,
message latency,
etc.
C Interface Data Coding Identification of See reference model.
Scheme. the standard format
of the streaming
video file being
retrieved by the
CMSP Gateway.
C Interface Video File Issue of video file The contents of this
Reference. transmissions attribute are based
remains to be upon the streaming
addressed. video file being
pulled by the CMSP
Gateway from the
Alert Gateway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.5 Downloaded Multimedia Profile (Future Capability)

The downloaded multimedia profile defines the attributes for the
support of CMAS alerts with multimedia files (e.g., graphics,
photos, maps, animation) which are to be downloaded to the mobile
device. Support of the downloaded multimedia profile is optional for
any CMSP which elects to support CMAS and is dependent on the
technology selected by the CMSP and mobile device capabilities. The
multimedia files for download to the mobile device are distributed
using broadcast mechanisms instead of point-to-point mechanisms
based upon by the CMSP selected technology.
This information is passed from the Alert Gateway to the CMSP
Gateway and may include attributes that are generated by the CMAS
alert originator.

Table 6-4.--Downloaded Multimedia Profile
[Service profile: Downloaded--multimedia--service--profile]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attribute name Attribute definition Note
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purpose..................... Define service
profile for CMAS
alerts with
multimedia files
for download to the
mobile device.
Maximum Size................ Based upon the Size of the
authorized multimedia file for
government entity download is
policy. dependent on the
file type and
encoding
algorithms.
Size of CMAS alerts
with multimedia
components for
download to the
mobile device are
much larger than
text based CMAS
alert messages and,
therefore, could
have greater impact
to bandwidth
requirements,
message latency,
etc.
C Interface Data Coding Identification of See reference model.
Scheme. the standard format
of the multimedia
file being
retrieved by the
CMSP Gateway.
C Interface Multimedia File Issue of multimedia The contents of this
Reference. file transmissions attribute are based
remains to be upon the multimedia
addressed. file being pulled
by the CMSP Gateway
from the Alert
Gateway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

7 Mobile Device Functionality for CMAS Alerts

This section describes the impact to the mobile devices for the
support of CMAS alerts and organized into the following topics:

General Requirements of Mobile Device Functionality
Mobile Device Audio Attention Signal & Vibration Cadence
Recommendations
CMAS Functionality on Mobile Device
Impact to Mobile Device Battery Life

7.1 General Requirements of Mobile Device Functionality

The CMSAAC recommends that the CMSP and the mobile device
vendors have the flexibility in the design and implementation of
mobile devices in order to take the maximum advantages of advances
in mobile device technologies and to account for the evolution of
mobile devices and the capabilities of the future. The CMSAAC
further recommends that:
1. Mobile device behavior is outside the scope of the WARN Act
and, therefore, is not subject to recommendations by the CMSAAC.
2. There be a common audio attention signal and a common
vibration alert cadence for CMAM. (See Section 7.2 below.)
3. The functionality and features of the mobile device after the
receipt of the CMAM (e.g., message storage, message expiration,
alert presentation visual interface, and user acknowledgment to the
mobile device of alert messages) will be CMSP and mobile device
specific.
4. Legacy deployed mobile devices may not be supported. At a
minimum, new CMAS functionality is needed on future mobile devices.
a. New mobile devices will be introduced by normal market mobile
device lifecycle replacement.
b. Some legacy pager devices may be able to be updated with over
the air programming.
5. Distribution of the CMAS alert messages to the CMSP's
subscribers will be unidirectional from the CMSP network to the
mobile device of the subscriber. There will not be any
acknowledgement or confirmation of receipt from the mobile device.
6. CAP messages will not be delivered to mobile devices of the
subscribers.

7.2 Mobile Device Audio Attention Signal & Vibration Cadence
Recommendations

Currently most Americans are familiar with the current EAS audio
attention signals on radios and televisions which have been in use
since the 1960s. Reproduction of this audio attention signal on
mobile devices is the most recognizable method to notify the
American public of CMAS alert message.
The EAS uses a two tone system for audio alerts which is a
combination of 853Hz and 960Hz sine waves. For devices capable of
supporting dual tone EAS audio attention signals, the CMAS audio
attention signal should sound as close to the EAS audio attention
signals as can be feasibility achieved with the capabilities of the
mobile devices.

[[Page 590]]

The single tone for the NOAA warning alarm tone for NOAA Weather
Radios and commercial broadcast stations is 1050Hz. EAS audio
attention signals on commercial broadcast stations are 8 to 25
seconds in duration and the NOAA warning alarm tone is 8 to 10
seconds.
The CMSAAC recommends that temporal patterns of the CMAS audio
attention signal should be supported if technologically feasible.
The recommended temporal pattern of the CMAS audio attention signal
is one long tone of approximately 2 seconds followed by two short
tones of approximately 1 second each with approximately \1/2\ second
gap between tones. The entire sequence is repeated twice with
approximately \1/2\ second between repetitions. Temporal patterns of
the CMAS audio attention signal are mobile device manufacturer
specific.
For devices that have polyphonic capabilities, the CMSAAC
recommends that the audio attention signal consist of the two EAS
tones. For devices which have only single frequency alert tone
capability, it is recommended that the CMAS audio attention signal
be in the low frequency range below 2 kHz.
The CMSAAC recommends that the vibration cadence for the CMAS
alert signal be noticeably different from the default cadence of the
mobile device and should be similar to the temporal pattern of the
audio attention signal and is mobile device manufacturer specific.
If both CMAS audio and vibration cadence alerts are available,
the two modes do not need to be activated simultaneously but will
follow the user's settings in the mobile device; if the mobile
device supports dual activation the signals will be simultaneous
according to user settings, but otherwise will be separate signals.
The CMSAAC recommends that neither the CMAS audio attention
signal nor the vibration cadence provided by the CMSP for the CMAS
alert should be selectable by the subscriber for any mobile device
functions. However, the CMSAAC acknowledges that there is no way to
prevent the subscriber from downloading a ring tone that emulates
the CMAS audio attention signal.
The CMSAAC recommended that the CMAS audio attention signal and
the associated vibration cadence shall not be used for any
application other than CMAS. The CMSAAC further recommended that the
CMAS audio attention signal and the associated vibration cadence
should be protected via copyright and/or trademarks and should be
available for appropriate use on free and non-discriminatory basis.

7.3 CMAS Functionality on Mobile Device

This section contains the CMSAAC's conclusions and
recommendations regarding the CMAS functionality on the mobile
device that would be needed to support CMAS alerts.
1. If the end user has muted the mobile device audio and alarms,
the CMAS audio attention signal will not be activated upon receipt
of a CMAS alert.
2. If the end user has deselected or turned off the vibration
capabilities of the mobile device, the special emergency alert
vibration cadence will not be activated upon receipt of a CMAS
alert.
3. If the end user has both muted the mobile device audio and
alarms and has deselected or turned off the vibration capabilities
of the mobile device, neither the CMAS audio attention signal nor
the special emergency alert vibration cadence will be activated upon
receipt of a CMAS alert.
4. Subject to the limitations of the CMSP selected broadcast
technologies and the mobile devices, the presentation of the
received CMAS alert message should take priority over other mobile
device functions except for the preemption of an active voice or
data session.
5. If the end user does not acknowledge the CMAS alert to the
mobile device, the mobile device should support the capability to
activate and deactivate the CMAS audio attention signal and/or
should activate and deactivate the special emergency alert vibration
cadence, if mobile device has vibration capabilities. The frequency
and interval of the activation and deactivation of the CMAS audio
attention signal and/or the special emergency alert vibration
cadence is dependent on CMSP policies and mobile device
capabilities.
6. In order to minimize the possibility of network congestion
and false alerts, mobile devices should not support any user
interface capabilities to forward received CMAS alerts, to reply to
received CMAS alerts, or to copy and paste CMAS alert contents.
7. The presentation of CMAS alert messages to the subscriber on
the mobile device should be distinguishable from any other types of
textual messages received by the mobile device subject to mobile
device capabilities.
a. Color cannot be a required method for distinguishing CMAS
alert messages from other types of text messages on the mobile
device since all mobile devices do not have color display
capabilities.
b. Color cannot be used as the sole method for convening
information. (See Section 5.5 above)

7.4 Impact to Mobile Device Battery Life

The CMSAAC recommends that the Alert Aggregator support a policy
of ensuring that the aggregate CMAM rate does not adversely impact
mobile device battery life.
The CMSAAC recommends that the CMSPs give consideration to
modifications to network infrastructure, mobile devices and/or
standards, and to the proper selection of the criteria below, in
order to limit the reduction of battery life.
This analysis was limited in scope to text based messages, and
does not analyze the impacts of other profiles, such as audio, video
or multimedia. The delta impact on portable device battery life of
text based alert messages of CMAS depends upon the following input
criteria:
(a) Delivery Technology (GSM, UMTS, CDMA2000 1x, Flex, Re-Flex,
etc.).
(b) Initial system network parameters before implementation of
broadcast messaging.
(c) Maximum latency to deliver the message over the E interface.
(d) Retransmission interval.
(e) Number of languages supported.
(f) Number of alerts sent.
(g) Alert Duration, and number of times the portable device
alerts the user.
Each technology implements text broadcast messaging differently.
In addition, each technology is deployed with different hardware and
software, as well as, different standards releases. During the
battery life evaluation, these issues explain the wide range of
reported battery life impact of text Broadcast Messaging. The
battery life impact of CMAS on a state of the art deployment of
infrastructure and portable devices targeting optimized battery life
could be as high as 40% or more.
When using older technology or different network parameters, the
impact to battery life can be quoted as a lower percentage, although
battery life will be lower than the optimized solution with cell
broadcast enabled.
Although there are limitations in today's implementation of Cell
Broadcast, it can be utilized for transmission of Emergency Alerts.
The impact to portable device battery life can be managed through
careful selection of the above parameters. The high impact
parameters influenced by the CMSAAC are maximum latency to deliver
the message over the E interface, Retransmission interval, Number of
languages supported, Number of alerts sent, and Alert Duration. With
modifications to network infrastructure, mobile devices and/or
standards, and proper selection of the above criteria, the reduction
of battery life can be less than 10% of today's capability for
monitoring the Cell Broadcast channel without sending alerts
messages. These modifications could potentially adversely affect the
timeline given in Section 12.2.1 below. When alert messages are
sent, e.g. a disaster situation with multiple alerts sent from
multiple agencies, the reduction of battery life increases
proportionally to the number of messages sent and can approach up to
40% of the battery life.
To design and deploy a system with the performance described
above, modifications to the portable devices, network infrastructure
and/or standards are required. These changes are scheduled in the
proposed timeline for deployment of CMAS.

8 Security for CMAS Alerts

8.1 Alert Interface & Aggregator Trust Model

8.1.1 Trust Model Definitions

The following definitions are offered for clarity and
specificity.
Identity--A trusted agent will verify the identity of
each individual that will be requesting credentials.
Responsibility--The individual will have the duties of
issuing public alerts and warnings on behalf of their respective
jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction--The area a person has authority to send
public alert and warning messages.
Authority--Any public servant that is permitted by
their jurisdiction to send a public alert and warning message.
Capability--The nominated individual must demonstrate
the knowledge of process,

[[Page 591]]

content and policy pertaining to the issuance of public alerts and
warnings. The minimum requirement shall be a national level computer
based training course. States and or local jurisdictions may require
further training if they so desire.
Credential--A specified form of evidence that an
individual has completed the verification of identity,
responsibility and capability. This credential will allow the
individual to send or countersign a public alert and warning
message.
Certified system--will support the Trust Model and
counter-signatory function to send public alert and warning
messages.
Countersigned--A public alert and warning message must
be digitally signed by two credentialed personnel for acceptance
into the CMAS.
Originator--Can be a Federal, State, Tribal, or local
jurisdiction.

8.1.2 Trust Model Requirements

The CMSAAC makes the following recommendations regarding Trust
Model requirements:
1. All messages will be attributed reliably to an individual
sender.
2. All messages will be accepted from individuals holding a
specified credential or from a certified system which required
individual credentials.
3. All messages must be countersigned by a second credentialed
sender. All messages not countersigned will be rejected and not be
sent. The sender must be notified if the message was rejected for
this reason.
4. The CMSAAC recommends that a process be established by which
credentials can be certified upon demonstration of identity,
responsibility and capability.
5. Identity, responsibility and capability must be recertified
annually. All credentials will expire in 12 months.
6. All messages entered into the system will be logged, this log
will be maintained for a reasonable period of time to support an
audit.
7. The digital signatures will be bound to the message and
carried from the originator to the Alert Gateway.
8. The message transport layer from the originator to the Alert
Gateway will utilize an existing open non-proprietary transport
standard and shall be Internet Protocol based.

8.2 Alert Gateway Security Requirements

The CMSAAC recommends that the Alert Gateway be protected
against the potential for misuse such as hoax emergency alerts,
illegal distribution of offensive content, Denial of Service (DoS/
DDoS) attacks and SPAM. The CMSAAC recommends the following
requirements to achieve the necessary level of security:
1. The Alert Gateway will be subject to and administered in a
manner consistent with the Trust Model and shall be in compliance
with Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 199 and FIPS
200. The Alert Gateway shall also be in compliance with security
requirements for National Critical Infrastructure/Key Resources.
2. The Alert Gateway will be part of the government alert
distribution network. The interface between the Alert Aggregator and
the Alert Gateway shall support the Trust Model specified in Section
8.1 above. The C interface is outside the scope of the Trust Model
and therefore the Alert Gateway shall support standardized
authentication and authorization mechanisms to interface with the
CMSP Gateways.
3. A single authorized source such as a designated government
agency, or their authorized agent, will serve as the sole operator
for the Alert Gateway.
4. The Alert Gateway will authenticate the source of all alert
transactions. If the source cannot be authenticated, the message
will not be sent and a warning issued to the Alert Gateway's
monitoring system.
5. The Alert Gateway will inform the alert originator via Alert
Aggregator if the CMAS message was not accepted by the CMSP Gateway.

8.3 Reference Point C Security

The CMSAAC recommends that the Reference Point C interface be IP
based. Therefore the security of the Reference Point C interface
should be based upon standard IP security mechanisms such as VPN
tunnels and IPSEC functionality.

8.4 Reference Points D & E Security

The CMSAAC recommends that the security of the Reference Points
D and E be based upon CMSP policies and upon the capabilities of the
CMSP selected delivery technologies.

9 CMAS Reliability & Performance

The CMSAAC recommends that, to the extent feasible, prior to the
September 2008 CMSP Election, the statistical data on peak and
average alert traffic volume at least for the period October 2007
thru August 2008 be available to CMSPs to support the engineering
considerations for the CMSP Gateway and air interfaces. This
statistical data needs to be available at the geo-targeted areas
defined in Section 5.4 above.

9.1 Alert Gateway Performance Requirements

See Annex A--Anticipated Peak & Average CMAS Traffic Volume for
anticipated peak & average CMAS traffic volume. The CMSAAC makes the
following recommendations regarding Alert Gateway performance
requirements:
1. Based on available historical data presented to the
committee, and then applying a 2X factor, it is estimated that no
more than 25,000 alert messages per year will be delivered to the
Alert Gateway for transmission to the various CMSPs. It is also
assumed that peak rates as high as 12,000 alert messages per month
and 6,000 alert messages per day are possible. For a given hour, it
is also conceivable that there can be an alert for every county in
the U.S. and therefore the Alert Gateway should be capable of
receiving and processing 3,000 alert messages per hour and a peak
rate of 30 alert messages per second.
2. The Alert Gateway will have capabilities to monitor the
system utilization for capacity planning purposes and it shall be
scalable to accommodate the need for additional capacity.
3. The Alert Gateway will provide a transmission control
mechanism to buffer the CMAM traffic upon receiving an overload
warning from the CMSP Gateway.
4. The Alert Gateway will provide the capability for a CMSP or
CMSP Gateway to temporarily disable the transmission of all CMAMs to
the CMSP Gateway. While CMAM delivery to CMSP Gateway has been
stopped, the Alert Gateway shall establish an alert queue for the
specific CMSP Gateway.
a. The CMSP Gateway will notify the Alert Gateway to stop
sending CMAM using an error response as described in Section 10.4.6
below. Once the error condition has cleared, the CMSP Gateway will
notify the Alert Gateway to restart CMAM delivery and retry delivery
of CMAMs in the queue if the CMAMs have not expired.
b. The authorized government entity which manages the Alert
Gateway will establish a process where an authorized CMSP
representative can provide notification of a planned or unplanned
outage of a CMSP Gateway and during that outage period, CMAMs are
not delivered from the Alert Gateway to that specific CMSP Gateway.
During a planned or unplanned outage, the ability to support test
message across the Reference Point C interface will be supported as
defined in Section 10.4 below.
5. If the CMAM delivered over the Reference Point C interface
was rejected by a CMSP Gateway due to congestion or temporary
transient error conditions, the Alert Gateway will establish an
alert queue for the specific CMSP Gateway and retry delivering it to
the CMSP Gateway by a configurable interval, e.g. every 30 seconds,
if the CMAM has not expired.
6. There are two logical queues per CMSP Gateway, one logical
queue for Presidential alerts and another logical queue for all
other CMAMs. The processing of the Presidential queue takes priority
over the non-Presidential queue.
7. If an alert queue exists for a CMSP Gateway, all incoming
alerts shall be placed into the queue based upon the time the CMAM
was received by the Alert Gateway.
8. The Alert Gateway will support separate alert queues for each
CMSP Gateway so that queuing for one or more CMSP Gateway shall not
affect alerts delivery to all other CMSP Gateways.
9. The Alert Gateway will be designed to have the service
availability of 99.999%.
10. System performance will be monitored in real-time 24 hours a
day seven days a week to ensure all levels of service are met and/or
exceeded.

9.2 Alert Delivery Latency

The CMSAAC recommends that, since latency will require
experience in deployment, end-to-end latency requirements be
addressed in the biennial review.
The CMSAAC recognizes the importance of delivering CMAMs as
quickly as possible from the alert initiators to the transmission
within the alert area. The CMSAAC also recognizes that there are
operational characteristics of the CMSP Infrastructure which impact
CMAM delivery latency. These operational characteristics include the
following factors:

--Mobile device battery life impact
--Call processing impact

[[Page 592]]

--Capabilities of the delivery technology
--Message queues
--Number of languages
--Number of targeted cell sites/paging transceivers for the alert
area
--Geo-targeting processing

It is difficult to predict or model systems that have not been
designed, built, or deployed.

9.3 CMAS End-to-End Reliability

The CMSAAC recommends that CMAS system reliability from alert
initiation to the transmission of the CMAM over the CMSP selected
delivery technology meet telecom standards for highly reliable
systems.
In order to achieve, a feasible and practical level of CMAS
reliability on an end-to-end basis:
The CMSPs will process CMAS alerts on a best effort.
The CMAS alert message may be retransmitted according
to CMSP policies and the capabilities of the CMSP selected delivery
technology.
Even though many components and elements of the end to end CMAS
solution have high reliability, the over-all reliability of CMAS is
unpredictable for the following reasons:
RF transmissions can be subject to noise and other
interference or environmental factors.
The capabilities of the cellular environment are not
predictable especially in a disaster environment. For example, it
cannot be predicted which and how many cell sites will remain
operational after a disaster.
The subscriber may currently be in a location that does
not have any RF signal.
The subscriber's mobile device may not have any
remaining power.

9.4 Message Logging

The CMSAAC recommends that the logs on the Alert Gateway be used
to identify messages received by or rejected by the CMSP Gateway.
These logs will be accessible by the alert originators and by the
CMSPs. These logs will be the only required audit methods for the
determination of which CMAS messages were sent to the CMSPs.
The CMSAAC further recommends that, upon receipt of an alert,
the CMSP Gateway will respond back to the Alert Gateway with an
acknowledgment that the alert message was received or rejected.
Message logging on the CMSP Gateway is a function of the system
performance part of the Commercial Mobile CMSP's business, and will
not be an audit trail.
The CMSAAC recommends that there be no requirements for the CMSP
to retain logs for any period of time.

9.4.1 Alert Gateway Logging

The CMSAAC makes the following recommendations regarding Alert
Gateway logging:
1. The Alert Gateway will maintain a log of messages with time-
stamps that verify when messages are received from the Alert
Aggregator and when the messages are acknowledged or rejected by the
CMSP Gateway. The log for rejected messages will include error codes
for rejection as specified in Section 10.4.6 below.
2. The Alert Gateway will maintain an online log of active and
cancelled alert messages for 90 days.
3. The Alert Gateway will maintain archived logs for a minimum
of 36 months.
4. The Alert Gateway will provide CMSPs access to online
messaging logs and archived logs for testing and troubleshooting
purposes.
5. The Alert Gateway will generate monthly system and
performance statistics reports based on CMA alerting category,
alerting originator, alerting area and other alerting attributes.
6. The Alert Gateway will provide the capability for a CMSP to
temporarily disable the transmission of all CMAMs to the CMSP
Gateway. This event will be captured in the log file. Cancellation
of the event should be noted in the log file as well.

9.5 CMAS Testing

End-to-end testing of the CMAS is defined to be testing from the
Alert Initiator to the CMSP Gateway. This testing will verify the A,
B, and C reference points, as well as the function of the Alert
Aggregator, Alert Gateway, and CMSP Gateway. It is undesirable to
send test messages over the CMSP infrastructure to the mobile
devices as these messages could cause considerable confusion to the
end user, as well as utilizing CMSP network resources.
Using real event codes for testing purposes poses the risk of
unintentionally alarming and confusing recipients. For this reason,
and to insure that a test message does not propagate to the CMSP
subscriber base, the CMSAAC recommends that all end-to-end testing
be indicated using the CAP status element with a value of ``test'',
which shall be mapped to a test message over Reference Point C. Upon
receipt of a test message, the CMSP Gateway will respond with an
acknowledgment of receipt of the message and log receipt of the
message according to CMSP policy.
The CMSAAC recommends that the CMSP Gateway support receiving a
test message from the Alert Gateway for testing Reference Point C.
This test message shall not be delivered to the CMSP Infrastructure
nor broadcast to subscribers.
The CMSAAC recommends that the CMSP Gateway support the receipt
and processing of Alert Gateway keep-alive test messages
periodically. The frequency shall be configurable based on policy to
be determined by the authorized government entity and the CMSPs.
The CMSAAC recommends that the keep-alive test messages not be
sent if there are real messages to be sent.

9.5.1 General CMAS Testing Recommendations

An important part of a successful CMAS will be the ability to
effectively test and troubleshoot the various components and
interfaces.
The CMSAAC recommends that this test and troubleshooting
capability be integrated into the architecture and protocol of the
CMAS up front, to maximize effectiveness.
The CMSAAC recommends the following primary aspects of CMAS
Testing and Troubleshooting capability to allow thorough testing and
troubleshooting of the end-to-end CMAS without wearying the public:
1. Provision for testing of the CMAS, including the delivery
mechanisms, without requiring all subscribers to see a test message.
a. This might be accomplished by providing signaling in the
application layer which indicates a test message--which would not be
displayed by `normal terminals', but could be displayed by `test
terminals'. CMSPs could configure which devices were `test
terminals'.
b. Provide the ability to send test messages to a single CMSP/
network without impact to other CMSPs.
c. Provide the ability to test the CMAS up to the CMSP Gateway
without impacting the CMSP infrastructure.
2. Provide CMSP access to the CMAM logs from the Alert Gateway.
3. Messages used for testing purposes shall be clearly
differentiated from messages for actual events.

9.5.2 Alert Gateway Testing

The CMSAAC recommends that the Alert Gateway support several
types of testing:
a. Functional testing for the C interface (not expected to be
sent to the subscribers)
b. Connection testing for new CMSP
The CMSAAC further recommends the following requirements for
Alert Gateway testing:
1. The Alert Gateway will support initiating a test message for
each service profile implemented for Reference Point C upon request
by a particular CMSP. The test message will only be sent to a
specific CMSP Gateway. The message will not be broadcast to
subscribers.
2. The Alert Gateway will support initiating a test message for
each service profile implemented for Reference Point C for all CMSP
Gateways. The message will not be broadcast to subscribers.
3. The Alert Gateway will support keep-alive test messages
periodically over the C interface. The frequency will be
configurable based on policy to be determined by the authorized
government entity and the CMSPs. The keep-alive test messages will
not be sent if there are real messages to be sent.
4. All test messages for the C interface will be clearly marked
and identified as test messages.

10 Interface Protocols for CMAS Alerts

The following two interfaces are applicable for the support of
CMAS alerts in the CMSP networks:
Alert Gateway--CMSP Interface which is Reference Point
C.
CMSP--Mobile Device Interface for CMAS alert content
which is Reference Point E.
Both of these interfaces are defined in this section.

10.1 Reference Point A Protocol

The CMSAAC recommends that Reference Point A interface
requirements consist of the following:
1. The message sent to the Alert Aggregator must consist of one
of the following:
a. A valid CAP 1.1 message with all mandatory elements.

[[Page 593]]

Message ID
Sender ID
Sent Date/Time
Message Status
Message Type
Scope
Event Category
Urgency
Severity
Certainty
Resource Description
Area Description--A FIPS geo-code, a polygon or circle
(WGS-84 format) will be used to support the area description.

2. The Alert Aggregator will provide a mechanism to validate the
identity of the individual sending the message to allow non-
repudiation.
3. The implementer of the Alert Aggregator will provide a
documented, non-proprietary, specification for transport that will
support appropriate security and reliability.

10.2 Reference Point B Protocol

The CMSAAC recommends that Reference Point B interface
requirements consist of the following:
1. The implementer of the Alert Gateway will provide a
documented non-proprietary specification for the B interface which
will support appropriate security and reliability.

10.3 Alert Gateway Interfaces & Mapping Requirements

10.3.1 Alert Gateway Interface Requirements

The CMSAAC recommends the following requirements for the Alert
Gateway interfaces:
1. The Alert Gateway will support an open, non-proprietary
interface to the Alert Aggregator (e.g. IP).
2. The Alert Gateway will initially support CAP v1.1 as the
application layer protocol for communicating with the Alert
Aggregator.
3. The Alert Gateway will uniquely identify each CMSP Gateway
identified by a unique IP address or domain name.
4. The Alert Gateway will support the ``C'' interface protocol
as defined in Section 10.4 below.
5. The Alert Gateway will support all CMAM formats that can be
delivered to CMSP Gateway.
6. The Alert Gateway will support the common service profile
formats as referred to in Section 6 above for text, audio, video and
multimedia transmission of alert messages to the CMSP Gateways.
7. The Alert Gateway will support receiving acknowledgment from
the CMSP Gateway that the CMAM has been received or rejected by the
CMSP Gateway.
8. If any mandatory parameter/attribute is not included in the
CAP message sent over the B interface, the Alert Gateway will use a
default parameter value if available, or reject the CAP message if a
default parameter value is not available.

10.3.2 Alert Gateway Interface Mapping Requirements

The Alert Gateway will map the CMAMs received in CAP format into
the CMAC format supported by the CMSP Gateway.
1. If eventCode = ``EAN'', the CMAM will be handled as a
Presidential Alert. The Alert Gateway will not forward messages with
eventCode = ``EAT'' or ``NIC'' to the CMSP Gateway.
2. The Alert Gateway will deliver CMAMs using the same language
as issued by the alert originator and will not do language
translation as a gateway function.
3. Each CMAM will only include one language. The CMA issued in
multiple languages will be issued by separate messages.
4. All CMAM alert, update and cancellation messages will come
only from the alert originators, including Presidential Alert. The
Alert Gateway will pass these messages to the CMSP Gateway. The
Alert Gateway is not required to generate alerts, alert updates and/
or cancellations.
5. The Alert Gateway will not alter the content of text alert
messages, with the exception of
a. If CAP expires is not available, the default parameter value
of one hour shall be used.
b. Constructing the text alert message using CAP elements such
as category, eventCode and responseType. The algorithm for
constructing the text alert message is described in Section 5.3
above.
6. For Presidential Alert, the Alert Gateway will use the
following CAP elements to construct the message:
a. Use CAP parameter (with valueName = CMAMtext), if available
and less than the maximum CMA message length limit. If not, then
b. Use Alert Gateway generated automatic text: ``The President
has issued an emergency alert. Check local media for more details.''
7. For AMBER Alert, the Alert Gateway will use the following CAP
elements to construct the message:
a. Use CAP parameter (with valueName = CMAMtext), if available
and less than the maximum CMA message length limit. If not, the
Alert Gateway will reject the message.
8. For alerts other than the Presidential Alert or AMBER Alert,
the Alert Gateway will support free-format text generation or
automatic text generation.
9. For free-format text generation, the Alert Gateway will use
the CAP parameter (with valueName = CMAMtext) to construct the
message. If the CAP parameter (with valueName = CMAMtext) is not
available or exceeds the maximum CMA message length limit, the Alert
Gateway will reject the message.
10. For automatic text generation, the Alert Gateway will
support the following rules to construct the message:
a. What's happening: The Alert Gateway will use the expanded
text as defined in Table 5.1 for the CAP eventCode element if
available. If eventCode is not provided, the Alert Gateway will use
the expanded text as defined in Table 5.1 for the CAP category
element.
b. Area Affected: The Alert Gateway will use the phrase ``in
this area''.
c. Recommended action: The Alert Gateway will use the CAP
responseType element if available. If responseType is not provided,
the Alert Gateway will not include this information.
d. Area Affected: The Alert Gateway will use the phrase ``in
this area''.
e. Expiration time with time zone: The Alert Gateway will
translate the time according to Table 5.1 for the CAP expires
element if provided. The Alert Gateway will use the time zone
provided in the CAP expires element or may use the time zone in the
affected area. If not provided, the Alert Gateway will use one hour
from the current time as a default. If the affected area has more
than one time zone, the Alert Gateway will use one of the time
zones.
f. Sending Agency: The Alert Gateway will translate it according
to Table 5.1 for the CAP sender element. The translated sending
agency should not exceed the maximum length of 12 characters in
order to fit into the maximum CMA message length limit. The
translated sending agency will be truncated to 12 characters if it
causes the constructed message to exceed the maximum CMA message
length limit.
11. If the CAP message received by the Alert Gateway is not
formatted correctly, the Gateway will reject the message and inform
the alert originator.
12. If a CAP message contains multiple INFO blocks with the same
headline but different area elements, the Alert Gateway will
collapse it into a single CMAM with a single INFO block and multiple
area elements before sending it to the CMSP Gateway.
13. If a CAP message contains multiple INFO blocks with the
different headlines, the Alert Gateway will create separate CMAM
with each INFO block. The Alert Gateway will process the INFO blocks
in the order contained in the CAP message.
14. The Alert Gateway will not do translations of the character
sets.
15. The Geo-mapping of targeted area (cell sites) will be the
responsibility of CMSPs and not a function of the Alert Gateway.
16. The Alert Gateway will provide the geo-targeting information
over Reference Point C in accordance with the CMSP profile stored
within the Alert Gateway.
17. The Alert Gateway will provide Geocode as specified in
Section 10.4 below to the CMSP Gateway.
18. The Alert Gateway will translate latitude/longitude
coordinates into appropriate State or County Geocode if no State or
County Geocode is provided by the alert originator.
19. The Alert Gateway will not be required to translate State or
County Geocode into latitude/longitude coordinates.
20. The Alert Gateway will specify an agreed upon maximum number
of latitude/longitude coordinates per polygon to be sent to the CMSP
Gateway.
21. If Geocode, polygon or circle is not provided for a
Presidential Alert, the Alert Gateway will use ``Nation wide'' by
default.
22. If Geocode, polygon or circle is not provided for any non-
presidential alert or update, the Alert Gateway will reject the
message and return an error to the alert originator.
23. For audio, video and multi-media CMAMs, if the CAP message
includes the associated files, the Alert Gateway will
a. Re-format, if necessary, the associated files into
standardized format as specified in the associated service profile
(see Section 6 above).

[[Page 594]]

b. Store the associated files on the Alert Gateway to be
retrieved by the CMSP Gateways.
c. Send the message with proper URL so that CMSP Gateways can
retrieve the files if they so choose.
24. For audio, video and multi-media CMAMs, if the CAP message
includes only the URL but not the associated files, the Alert
Gateway will
a. Retrieve the associated files from the URL in the CAP
message.
b. Re-format, if necessary, the associated files into
standardized format as specified in the associated service profile
(see Section 6 above).
c. Store the associated files on the Alert Gateway to be
retrieved by the CMSP Gateway.
d. Send the message with proper URL so that CMSP Gateway can
retrieve the files if they so choose.
25. The Alert Gateway, via Reference Point C, will always
provide the CMSP Gateway, the CMAC--geocode as defined in Section
10.4 below. Additionally, if available, the Alert Gateway will
provide one or more of the following parameters to identify the
alert area: CMAC--polygon, CMAC--circle or CMAC--gnis format.
26. The Alert Gateway will be responsible to generate the CMAC
geocode(s) corresponding to the alert area from the CAP ``area''
element. The CMAC geocode(s) corresponding to the alert area will be
generated from either the area described by the polygon or circle,
conversion of the SAME code or ZIP code for the alert area, or using
the FIPS value if specified in the original CAP alert message.
27. If the original CAP message does not contain a polygon,
circle, or geocode, the Alert Gateway will reject the message unless
the message originator was the President, in which case the alert
area will be assumed Nationwide in the absence of the area
information.
28. CAP will be the protocol used on the ``B'' interface to
carry the CMAM into the Alert Gateway. Not all the elements and
values allowed by CAP are useful for CMAMs. Also some elements are
optional in CAP but required by CMAMs. The Alert Gateway will apply
the following mapping and filtering rules for all the messages
received via the ``B'' interface as shown in Table 10-1. The
following is a description of the column shown in Table 10-1:
Column 1: Lists the CAP element.
Column 2: Lists the code values applicable to CMAMs.
Column 3: Lists the filtering and mapping rules to be used by
the Alert Gateway. ``Pass'' means the element and code value will be
passed from the ``B'' interface to the ``C'' interface. ``Mapped''
means the CAP element and code value will be mapped into the
appropriate CMAC attribute. ``Reject'' means the Alert Gateway will
reject the CAP message received from the ``B'' interface and no
message will be sent over the ``C'' interface. ``Ignored'' means the
CAP element is not applicable to CMAM and will be ignored by the
Alert Gateway. ``Generated'' means the Alert Gateway will generate
the appropriate CMAC elements and attributes.
Column 4: Lists the corresponding ``C'' interface CMAC elements
as defined in Section 10.4 below.

Table 10-1.--Parameter Mapping From ``B'' Interface CAP Message in to ``C'' Interface CMAC Message
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alert gateway filtering
CAP element (CMA) Permitted values rules CMAC element
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A.................................. ....................... Generated by the Alert CMAC protocol version.
Gateway.
N/A.................................. ....................... Generated by the Alert CMAC sending Alert
Gateway. Gateway id.
alert................................ N/A.................... Ignored................ N/A
identifier (free format)............. ....................... Mapped from the free CMAC--message--identifi
format into a 2 octet er (2 octet binary
binary number. number).
sender............................... ....................... Pass................... CMAC--sender.
sent................................. ....................... Mapped into UTC format. CMAC--sent--date--time.
status............................... ``Actual'' ``Exercise'' Pass with permitted CMAC--status.
``System'' ``Test''. values; Reject message
with ``Draft''.
msgType.............................. ``Alert'' ``Update'' Pass with permitted CMAC--message--type.
``Cancel'' ``Error''. values; Reject message
with ``Ack''.
source............................... N/A.................... Ignored................
scope................................ ``Public''............. Reject message if N/A.
``Public'' is not in
field..
restriction.......................... ....................... Reject message if this N/A.
element is included.
addresses............................ ....................... Reject message if this N/A.
element is included.
code................................. ....................... Ignored................ N/A.
note................................. ....................... Pass................... CMAC--cancel--error--no
de.
references........................... ....................... Mapped from the free CMAC--referenced--messa
format into a 2 octet ge--identifier (2-
binary number. octet binary number).
incidents............................ N/A.................... Ignored................ N/A.
N/A.................................. ....................... Generated by the Alert CMAC--original--cap--al
Gateway. ert--uri.
info................................. ....................... ....................... Ignored.
language............................. ....................... Pass................... CMAC--text--language.
category............................. ....................... Mapped................. CMAC--category.
event................................ N/A.................... Ignored................ N/A.
responseType......................... All but ``Assess''..... Reject message with CMAC--response--type.
``Assess'' in field,
pass all others.
urgency.............................. ``Immediate'' Pass with permitted CMAC--urgency.
``Expected''. values or rejecting
message with other
values.
severity............................. ``Extreme'' ``Severe''. Pass with permitted CMAC--severity.
values or rejecting
message with other
values.
certainty............................ ``Observed'' ``Likely'' Pass with permitted CMAC--certainty.
values or rejecting
message with other
values.
audience............................. N/A.................... Ignored................ N/A.

[[Page 595]]

eventCode............................ ``EAN''................ Map ``EAN'' to CMAC--special--handling
``CAE''................ ``Presidential'';. .
Map ``CAE'' to ``Child
Abduction'';.
Map other values to
``No special
handling''.
eventCode............................ ....................... Mapped................. CMAC--event--code.
effective............................ N/A.................... Ignored................ N/A.
onset................................ N/A.................... Ignored................ N/A.
expires.............................. ....................... Passed; Reject message CMAC--expires--date--ti
if already expired;. me.
Apply default value of
one hour if not
provided.
senderName........................... ....................... Mapped................. CMAC--sender--name.
headline............................. ....................... Passed conditionally CMAC--text--alert--mess
when eventCode= age.
``EAN'' or ``CAE'';.
Ignored when eventCode
has other values.
description.......................... N/A.................... Ignoring............... CMAC--text--alert--mess
age.
N/A.................................. ASCII 7-bit............ Ignoring............... CMAC--text--encoding.
N/A.................................. Less than 90 characters Generated by the Alert CMAC--text--message--le
Gateway. ngth.
N/A.................................. ....................... Generated by the Alert CMAC--text--alert--mess
Gateway as specified age.
in Section 5.5.
instruction.......................... N/A.................... Ignored................ N/A.
web.................................. ....................... Mapped to a local link CMAC--web--link.
on the Alert Gateway.
contact.............................. N/A.................... Ignored................ N/A.
parameter............................ N/A.................... Passed conditionally CMAC--text--alert--mess
when eventCode= age.
``EAN'' or ``CAE'';.
Passed conditionally
when eventCode has
other values and
parameter valueName =
``CMAMtext''; Ignored
otherwise.
resource............................. N/A.................... Ignored................ N/A.
resourceDesc......................... ....................... Mapped................. CMAC--resource--descrip
tion.
mimeType............................. ....................... Mapped................. CMAC--mime--type.
size................................. ....................... Mapped................. CMAC--resource--size.
uri.................................. ....................... Mapped to a local link CMAC--uri.
on the Alert Gateway.
derefUri............................. N/A.................... Ignored................ N/A.
degest............................... ....................... ....................... Ignored
area................................. N/A.................... Ignored................ N/A.
areaDesc............................. ....................... Passed................. CMAC--area--description
.
polygon.............................. ....................... Passed................. CMAC--polygon.
circle............................... ....................... Passed................. CMAC--circle.
geocode.............................. ....................... Passed, or generated CMAC--cmas--geocode.
based on polygon and/
or circle.
geocode.............................. ....................... Generated based on CMAC--cmas--gnis.
polygon and/or circle.
altitude............................. N/A.................... Ignored................ N/A.
ceiling.............................. N/A.................... Ignored................ N/A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

29. If an incoming CAP message fails the Alert Gateway
validation or filtering rules, an error message will be sent over
the ``B'' interface to the alert originator. The error message may
contain additional information in the ``note'' element. The ``note''
element in the error response to the alert originator may contain
multiple error messages. The following are some examples of error
responses.
a. CMA error 1: Unsupported code value of ``''
in element ``'' (e.g. scope = ``Private'')
b. CMA error 2: Missing required element ``'' (e.g. element Y = eventCode)
c. CMA error 3: Unsupported element ``''
(e.g. element Z = restriction)
d. CMA error 4: Text message length exceeds maximum
limit.

10.4 Reference Point C Protocol

The C reference point is the interface from the Alert Gateway to
the CMSP Gateway. The C reference point is used to map the CAP
elements into the CMSP protocol on the C reference point (``CMAC''),
as follows:

[[Page 596]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JA08.016

10.4.1 Structure of the CMA ``C'' Reference Point Protocol

The CMSAAC recommends that each CMAC Alert message consist of
the following segments:

--CMAC Alert Attributes segment
--CMAC Alert Info segment
--CMAC Alert Area segment
--CMAC Alert Resource segment

The CMSAAC recommends that the
CMAC Alert Message document object model be as follows:

[[Page 597]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JA08.017

BILLING CODE: 6712-01-C
The CMSAAC recommends that a CMAC Alert Message must contain:

one CMAC--Alert--Attributes segment
one or more CMAC--Alert--Info segments
one or more CMAC--Alert--Area segements.

The CMAC--Resource segment is optional for future use in
streaming audio, streaming video, and multimedia CMAs.

10.4.2 CMAC Data Dictionary

10.4.2.1 CMAC--Alert--Attributes Segment

Table 10-2.--CMAC--Alert--Attributes Segment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory/optional/
CMAC element conditional CMAC definition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CMAC--alert............................. M.......................... (1) Surrounds CMAC alert message
subelements.
(2) MUST include the xmlns attribute
referencing the CMAC URN as the
namespace, e.g.: < cmac:CMAC--alert
xmlns:cmac=``urn:xxx:xxxxx:xx:cmac:1.0''
> [sub-elements]
(3) In addition to the specified
subelements, MAY contain one or more
blocks.
CMAC--protocol-- version................ M.......................... The version of the CMAC protocol. Used by
the CMSP Gateway only. Specified by the
Alert Gateway.
CMAC--sending-- alert--gateway-- id..... M.......................... URI of the Alert Gateway sending the CMAC
message. Specified by thet Alert
Gateway.
CMAC--message-- identifier.............. M.......................... A 2-octet binary value uniquely
identifying this message, assigned by
the Alert Gateway and derived from the
CAP identifier element. This element is
sent to the mobile device.

[[Page 598]]

CMAC--referenced--message--identifier... C.......................... A 2-octet binary value uniquely
identifying a referenced CMAM, assigned
by the Alert Gateway. Required for an
Update, Cancel or Ack CMAC--message--
type. Derived from the CAP references
element.
CMAC--special--handling................. O.......................... Specifies if this alert message requires
special handling. Specified by the Alert
Gateway, derived from CAP elements.
Code Values: ``Presidential'' ``Child
Abduction'' ``No Special Handling.''
CMAC--sender............................ M.......................... Identifies the originator of this alert.
Used by the CMSP for logging purposes
only. Alert Gateway uses the CAP sender
element to populate this element.
CMAC--sent--date--time.................. M.......................... The date and time the message is sent by
originator in UTC in XML dateTime
format. Derived from the CAP sent
element.
CMAC--status............................ M.......................... Alert Gateway uses the CAP status element
to populate this element. Code Values:
``Actual''--Actionable by all targeted
recipients.
``Exercise''--Actionable only by
designated exercise participants, for
CMSP use.
``System''--For messages that support
alert network internal functions. In
addition this is used for the ``keep
alive'' message between the Alert
Gateway and the CMSP Gateway.
``Test''--Technical testing of the C
Reference Point only, for CMSP Gateway
use only.
CMAC--message--type..................... M.......................... Alert Gateway uses the CAP msgType
element to populate this element. Code
Values:
``Alert''--Initial information requiring
attention by targeted recipients.
``Update''--Updates and supercedes the
earlier message(s) identified in < CMAC--
referenced--message--identifier>
``Cancel''--Cancels the earlier
message(s) identified in < CMAC--
referenced--message--identifier>
``Ack''--Acknowledges receipt and
acceptance of the message(s) identified
in < CMAC--referenced--message--
identifier > additional explanation may
appear in
``Error'' indicates rejection of the
message(s) identified in < CMAC--
referenced--message--identifier
>explanation SHOULD appear in
CMAC--note.............................. O.......................... Optional element. Used for CMSP logging
purposes for a cancel or error message
type, or to provide a response back to
the Alert Gateway. Alert Gateway uses
the CAP note element to populate this
element on messages from the Alert
Gateway to the CMSP Gateway. The CMSP
Gateway uses this element on messages to
the Alert Gateway.
CMAC--original--cap--alert--uri......... M.......................... This element contains the uri where the
CMSP may retrieve the original complete
CAP version of the alert from the Alert
Gateway. Specified by the Alert Gateway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10.4.2.2 CMAC--Alert--Info Segment

Multiple occurrences are permitted within the CAP from the alert
originator; the CMSAAC recommends that each occurrence be a separate
CMAM from the Alert Gateway. The CMSAAC further recommends that each
language be sent as a separate CMAM with a unique message
identifier. It is anticipated that a separate CMAS--Alert--Info
element with associated sub-elements will be created for the CMAMs
to be given to the CMSPs for broadcast via the CMSP selected
technologies consistent with the requirements and procedures defined
by the CMSAAC.

Table 10-3.--CMAC--Alert--Info Segment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory/ optional/
CMAC element conditional CMAC definition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CMAC--alert--info....................... (1) Only a single occurrence is permitted
within a single . If there
are multiple ``info'' segements in the
original CAP message, the Alert Gateway
shall format as separate CMAC messages
each with a unique identifier.
(2) In addition to the specified
subelements, MAY contain one or more
blocks and/or one or
more blocks.
CMAC--category.......................... M.......................... Alert Gateway uses the CAP category
element to populate this element. Code
Values used by CMSP Gateway only:
``Geo''--Geophysical (inc. landslide).
``Met''--Meteorological (inc. flood).
``Safety''--General emergency and public
safety.
``Security''--Law enforcement, military,
homeland and local/private security.
``Rescue''--Rescue and recovery.
``Fire''--Fire suppression and rescue.
``Health''--Medical and public health.
``Env''--Pollution and other
environmental.
``Transport''--Public and private
transportation.
``Infra''--Utility, telecommunication,
other non-transport infrastructure.
``CBRNE''--Chemical, Biological,
Radiological, Nuclear or High-Yield
Explosive threat or attack.
``Other''--Other events.
CMAC--event--code....................... O.......................... Alert Gateway uses the CAP eventCode
element to populate this element.
Optional element used by the CMSP
Gateway only.

[[Page 599]]

A system-specific code for event typing,
in the form: , valueName,
value, where the content of
``CMAC--valueName'' is a user assigned
string designating the domain of the
code, and the content of ``value'' is a
string (which may represent a number)
denoting the value itself (e.g., CMAC--
valueName =``SAME'' and value=``TOR'').
Values of ``CMAC--valueName'' that are
acronyms SHOULD be represented in all
capital letters without periods (e.g.,
SAME).
The following SAME codes are supported in
CMAS:
[cir] Civil Danger Warning CDW
[cir] Civil Emergency Message CEM
[cir] Evacuation Immediate EVI
[cir] Hazardous Materials Warning HMW
[cir] Law Enforcement Warning LEW
[cir] Local Area Emergency LAE
[cir] Nuclear Power Plant Warning NUW
[cir] Radiological Hazard Warning RHW
[cir] Shelter in Place Warning SPW
[cir] Avalanche Warning AVW
[cir] Blizzard Warning BZW
[cir] Child Abduction Emergency CAE
[cir] Coastal Flood Warning CFW
[cir] Dust Storm Warning DSW
[cir] Earthquake Warning EQW
[cir] Fire Warning FRW
[cir] Flash Flood Warning FFW
[cir] Flood Warning FLW
[cir] High Wind Warning HWW
[cir] Hurricane Warning HUW
[cir] Severe Thunderstorm Warning SVR
[cir] Special Marine Warning SMW
[cir] Tornado Warning TOR
[cir] Tropical Storm Warning TRW
[cir] Tsunami Warning TSW
[cir] Volcano Warning VOW
[cir] Winter Storm Warning WSW
CMAC--response--type.................... O.......................... Alert Gateway uses the CAP responseType
element to populate this element. Code
values:
``Shelter''--Take shelter in place.
``Evacuate''--Relocate.
``Prepare''--Make preparations.
``Execute''--Execute a pre-planned
activity.
``Monitor''--Attend to information
sources.
``Assess''--Evaluate the information in
this message. (This value SHOULD NOT be
used in public warning applications.).
``None''--No action recommended.
Multiple instances MAY occur within a
single block. This element
is passed to the mobile device.
CMAC--severity.......................... M.......................... Alert Gateway uses the CAP severity
element to populate this element. Code
Values sent to the mobile device:
``Extreme''--Extraordinary threat to life
or property.
``Severe''--Significant threat to life or
property.
CMAC--urgency........................... M.......................... Alert Gateway uses the CAP urgency
element to populate this element. Code
Values sent to the mobile device:
``Immediate''--Responsive action SHOULD
be taken immediately.
``Expected''--Responsive action SHOULD be
taken soon (within next hour).
CMAC--certainty......................... M.......................... Alert Gateway uses the CAP certainty
element to populate this element. Code
Values sent to the mobile device:
``Observed''--Determined to have occurred
or to be ongoing.
````Likely''--Likely (probability > 50%).
CMAC--expires--date--time............... M.......................... The expiry time of the information of the
alert message for use by the CMSP
Gateway. The date and time is
represented in UTC [dateTime] format.
Maximum duration is 24 hours. Derived
from the CAP expires element.
CMAC--sender--name...................... O.......................... Optional element for logging purposes at
the CMSP Gateway. The human-readable
name of the agency or authority issuing
this alert. Alert Gateway uses the CAP
senderName element to populate this
element.
CMAC--text--language.................... M.......................... Specifies the language of the text in the
CMAC--text--alert--message, for use by
the mobile device.
Code Values: ``English'', ``Spanish'',
``French'' (future Canada use only),
``Other''--for future use.
Specified by the Alert Gateway and
derived from the CAP language element.

[[Page 600]]

CMAC--text--encoding.................... M.......................... Specifies the data encoding scheme of the
text in the CMAC--text--alert--message,
for use by the mobile device.
Code Values: ``UTF-8''.
Specified by the Alert Gateway.
CMAC--text--alert--message--length...... M.......................... The length, in characters, of the text in
the CMAC--text--alert--message. Note the
number of octets in the CMAC--text--
alert--message can be derived from this
parameter and the CMAC--text--encoding
parameter. Specified by the Alert
Gateway.
CMAC--text--alert--message.............. M.......................... The text of the alert message for use by
the mobile device. This field is defined
by the CMAS Text Profile and may contain
up to 90 English characters using a 7-
bit encoding scheme. Other languages or
data encoding schemes will change the
number of characters supported.
Specified by the Alert Gateway, which
may be derived or obtained via CAP
elements.
CMAC--web--link......................... O.......................... Optional element for future use. The
identifier of the hyperlink associating
additional information with the alert
message. This data must be in a domain
accessible by the CMSP Gateway. Alert
Gateway uses the CAP web element to
populate this element.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10.4.2.3 CMAC--Area Segment

Multiple occurrences are permitted.

Table 10-4.--CMAC--Area Segment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory/ optional/
CMAC element conditional CMAC definition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CMAC--area.............................. M.......................... (1) Multiple occurrences permitted, in
which case the target area for the
block is the union
of all the included blocks.
(2) MAY contain one or multiple instances
of or ,
and shall contain at least one instance
of . If multiple , or elements are included, the area
described by this is the union of
those represented by the included
elements.
CMAC--area--description................. M.......................... The text describing the affected area of
the alert message for use by the CMSP
for logging purposes only. Alert Gateway
uses the CAP areaDesc element to
populate this element.
CMAC--polygon........................... O.......................... Optional element. The paired values of
points defining a polygon that
delineates the affected area of the
alert message. Alert Gateway uses the
CAP polygon element to populate this
element.
CMAC--circle............................ O.......................... Optional element. The paired values of a
point and radius delineating the
affected area of the alert message.
Alert Gateway uses the CAP circle
element to populate this element.
CMAC--cmas--geocode..................... M.......................... The CMAS-defined geographic code
delineating the affected area of the
alert message. This is an extension to
the FIPS code (see Section 10.4.5).
Alert Gateway uses the CAP geocode,
polygon, circle, and/or sender elements
to derive this element.
CMSC--gnis.............................. O.......................... Optional element. This value is the
geographic code delineating the affected
area of the alert message using the
U.S.G.S. Geographic Names Information
System (GNIS) code. Derived by the Alert
Gateway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10.4.2.4 CMAC--Resource Segment

Multiple occurrences are permitted. The CMAC--Resource segment
is not used for the Text Profile but may be applicable to future
streaming audio, streaming video, and multimedia alerts.

Table 10-5.--CMAC-- Resource Segment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory/optional/
CMAC element conditional CMAC definition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CMAC--resource.......................... O.......................... (1) Refers to an additional file with
supplemental information related to this
element; e.g., an
image or audio file.
(2) Multiple occurrences MAY occur within
a single block.
CMAC--resource--description............. O.......................... Optional element. The human-readable text
describing the content and kind, such as
``map'' or ``photo,'' of the resource
file. For use by the CMSP Gateway for
logging purposes only. Alert Gateway
uses the CAP resourceDesc element to
populate this element.
CMAC--mime--type........................ O.......................... Optional element. The identifier of the
MIME content type and sub-type
describing the resource file. Alert
Gateway uses the CAP mimeType element to
populate this element.
CMAC--resource--size.................... O.......................... Optional element. The integer indicating
the size of the resource file. Alert
Gateway uses the CAP size element to
populate this element.
CMAC--resource--uri..................... O.......................... Optional element. The identifier of the
hyperlink for the resource file. Alert
Gateway uses the CAP uri element to
populate this element.

[[Page 601]]

CMAC--digest............................ O.......................... Optional element. The code representing
the digital digest (``hash'') computed
from the resource file. Calculated using
the Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA-1) per
[FIPS 180-2]. Alert Gateway uses the CAP
digest element to populate this element.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10.4.3 Example CMAC XML Schema

< schema xmlns = ``http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema''

targetNamespace = ``cmac:1.0''
xmlns:cmac = ``cmac:1.0''
xmlns:xs = ``http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema''

elementFormDefault = ``qualified''
attributeFormDefault = ``unqualified''>

CMAC Alert Message (version 1.0)

< element name = ``CMAC--sending--alert--gateway--id'' type =
``anyURI''/>

< element name = ``CMAC--referenced--message--identifier'' type =
``string'' minOccurs = ``0'' />

< element name = ``CMAC--original--cap--alert--uri'' type =
``anyURI''/>

< element name = ``CMAC--event--code'' minOccurs = ``0'' maxOccurs =
``unbounded''>

< element name = ``CMAC--expires--date--time'' type = ``dateTime''
minOccurs = ``0''/>
< element name = ``CMAC--sender--name'' type = ``string'' minOccurs =
``0''/>

< element name = ``CMAC--text--alert--message--length'' type =
``string''/>

< element name = ``CMAC--alert--resource'' minOccurs = ``0''
maxOccurs = ``unbounded'' >

< element name = ``CMAC--mime--type'' type = ``string'' minOccurs =
``0''/>
< element name = ``CMAC--resource--size'' type = ``integer''
minOccurs = ``0''/>
< element name = ``CMAC--resource--uri'' type = ``anyURI'' minOccurs
= ``0''/>
< element name = ``CMAC--digest'' type = ``string'' minOccurs =
``0''/>

< element name = ``area'' minOccurs = ``0'' maxOccurs =
``unbounded''>

[[Page 602]]

< element name = ``CMAC--polygon'' type = ``string'' minOccurs =
``0'' maxOccurs = ``unbounded''/>
< element name = ``CMAC--circle'' type = ``string'' minOccurs = ``0''
maxOccurs = ``unbounded''/>
< element name = ``CMAC--cmac--geocode'' type=''string'' maxOccurs =
``unbounded''>
< element name = ``CMAC--gnis'' type = ``string'' minOccurs = ``0''
maxOccurs = ``unbounded''/>

10.4.4 Element Mapping From B Reference Point (CAP) to C Reference
Point (CMAC) to E Reference Point (CMAE) Elements

Note: elements listed in bold are mandatory.

Table 10-6.--Mapping Reference Point B Elements to Reference Point C
Elements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAP element CMAC element CMAE element
------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A............................. CMAC--protocol--ve N/A.
rsion.
N/A............................. N/A............... CMAE--protocol--ve
rsion.
N/A............................. CMAC--sending--ale N/A.
rt--gateway--id.
identifier...................... CMAC--message--ide CMAE--identifier.
ntifier.
references...................... CMAC--referenced-- N/A.
message--identifi
er.
N/A............................. CMAC--special--han CMAE--alert--handl
dling. ing.
sender.......................... CMAC--sender...... N/A.
sent............................ CMAC--sent--date-- N/A.
time.
status.......................... CMAC--status..... N/A.
msgType......................... CMAC--message--typ CMAE--alert--type.
e.
source.......................... N/A............... N/A.
scope........................... N/A............... N/A.
restriction..................... N/A............... N/A.
code............................ N/A............... N/A.
note............................ CMAC-- note....... N/A.
incidents....................... N/A............... N/A.
N/A............................. CMAC--original--ca N/A.
p--alert--uri.
category........................ CMAC--category.... CMAE--category.
event........................... N/A............... N/A.
eventCode....................... CMAC--event--code. N/A.
responseType.................... CMAC--response--ty CMAE--response--ty
pe. pe.
severity........................ CMAC--severity.... CMAE--severity.
urgency......................... CMAC--urgency..... CMAE--urgency.
certainty....................... CMAC--certainty... CMAE--certainty.
audience........................ N/A............... N/A.
effective....................... N/A............... N/A.
onset........................... N/A............... N/A.
expires......................... CMAC--expires--dat CMAE--expires.
e--time.
senderName...................... CMAC--sender--name N/A.
language........................ CMAC--text--langua CMAE--language.
ge.
N/A............................. CMAC--text--encodi CMAE--char--set.
ng.
N/A............................. CMAC--text--alert- CMAE--alert--text-
-message--length. -length.
parameter (when value = ``CMAM CMAC--text--alert- CMAE--alert--text.
text''). -message.
headline........................ N/A............... N/A.
description..................... N/A............... N/A.
instruction..................... N/A............... N/A.
web............................. CMAC--web--link... N/A.
contact......................... N/A............... N/A.
parameter (when value not = N/A............... N/A.
``CMAMtext'').
areaDesc........................ CMAC--area--descri N/A.
ption.
polygon......................... CMAC--polygon..... N/A.
circle.......................... CMAC--circle...... N/A.
geocode......................... CMAC--cmas--geocod N/A.
e.
geocode......................... CMSC--gnis........ N/A.
altitude........................ N/A............... N/A.
ceiling......................... N/A............... N/A.
resourceDesc.................... CMAC--resource--de N/A.
scription.
mimeType........................ CMAC--mime--type.. N/A.
size............................ CMAC--resource--si N/A.
ze.
uri............................. CMAC--resource--ur N/A.
i.
derefUri........................ N/A............... N/A.
digest.......................... CMAC--digest...... N/A.
N/A............................. N/A............... CMAE--associated--
multimedia--indic
ator.
N/A............................. N/A............... CMAE--CMSP--define
d--parameter.
N/A............................. N/A............... CMAE--reserved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 603]]

10.4.5 Definition of CMAC--cmas--geocode Element

The CMAC--cmas--geocode is five characters where the first two
characters or digits identify the state or region and the last three
digits identify the specific counties, regions, or equivalent
entities. The CMSAAC recommends that the CMAC--cmas--geocode be
assigned as follows:
1. The CMAC--cmas--geocode indication for a specific county will
be as defined in Federal Information Processing Standard 6-4 (FIPS
6-4), titled ``Counties and Equivalent Entities of the United
States, Its Possessions, and Associated Areas'', dated 31 August
1990.
2. The CMAC--cmas--geocode indication for an entire state will
be the two digit FIPS State Numeric Code as defined in Federal
Information Processing Standard 5-2 (FIPS 5-2), titled ``Codes for
the Identification of the States, the District of Columbia and the
Outlying Areas of the United States, and Associated Areas'', dated
28 May 1987 followed by three zeroes (000).
3. The CMAC--cmas--geocode indication for an entire United
States including all states, the District of Columbia, possessions,
and associated areas will be US000.
4. In the future, it is possible that alerts may be targeted for
regions of the country (e.g., Gulf States). The more efficient and
error resistant solution would be to have CMAC--cmas--geocode values
for regional areas such as FEMA regions or National Weather Service
(NWS) regions. The FEMA regions would be assigned values in the
format of US0xx and the NWS regions would be assigned values in the
format of US1xx.
The following table defines the CMAC--cmas--geocode value
assignments.

Table 10-7.--CMAC--cmas--geocode Assignments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CMAC--cmas geocode Definition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
00000............................. Not used.
00001 thru 99999.................. For identification of states and
counties.
US000............................. Entire United States.
US001............................. FEMA Region 1 (Maine, Vermont, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island,
Massachusetts, and Connecticut).
US002............................. FEMA Region 2 (New York, New Jersey,
Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands).
US003............................. FEMA Region 3 (Delaware, District of
Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, and West Virginia).
US004............................. FEMA Region 4 (Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and
Mississippi).
US005............................. FEMA Region 5 (Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and
Wisconsin).
US006............................. FEMA Region 6 (Arkansas, Louisiana,
New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas).
US007............................. FEMA Region 7 (Iowa, Kansas,
Missouri, and Nebraska).
US008............................. FEMA Region 8 (Colorado, Montana,
North Dakota, South Dakota, and
Utah).
US009............................. FEMA Region 9 (Arizona, California,
Hawaii, Nevada, American Samoa,
Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, Republic of the
Marshall Islands, and Federated
States of Micronesia).
US010............................. FEMA Region 10 (Alaska, Idaho,
Oregon, and Washington).
US011 thru US100.................. Not Assigned.
US101............................. National Weather Service (NWS)
Central Region (Colorado, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, and
Nebraska).
US102............................. National Weather Service (NWS)
Eastern Region (Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and
Vermont).
US103............................. National Weather Service (NWS)
Southern Region (Alabama, Arkansas,
Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
Puerto Rico, Tennessee, and Texas).
US104............................. National Weather Service (NWS)
Western Region (Arizona,
California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada,
Oregon, Utah, and Washington).
US105............................. National Weather Service (NWS)
Alaska Region (Alaska).
US106............................. National Weather Service (NWS)
Pacific Region (Hawaii, Guam,
America Samoa).
US107 thru US999.................. Not Assigned.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

10.4.6 Definition of CMAC Response Codes

The CMSAAC recommends the following as the response codes that
may be returned from the CMSP Gateway to the Alert Gateway in the
CMAC--note element in response a received CMAS message via the
Reference Point C interface:

CMAC--Error--100 Invalid Alert Gateway ID
CMAC--Error--101 Unsupported protocol version
CMAC--Error--102 Segment XXX missing
CMAC--Error--103 Invalid message length
CMAC--Error--104 Mandatory element XXX missing
CMAC--Error--105 Conditional element XXX missing which is required
based upon value of element YYYY
CMAC--Error--106 Optional element XXX not allowed
CMAC--Error--107 Unrecognized value in element XXX
CMAC--Error--108 Value in element XXX is out of acceptable range
CMAC--Error--109 Value XXX of element YYY not supported
CMAC--Error--110 Invalid length of element XXX
CMAC--Error--111 Expiration time greater than allowed interval
CMAC--Error--112 Failure to convert text message into alphabet
encoding scheme
CMAC--Error--113 Text encoding not compatible with specified text
language
CMAC--Error--114 Special handling element not consistent with
message content
CMAC--Error--115 Polygon element contains more than maximum number
of coordinates
CMAC--Error--200 Failure to retrieve additional alert info from
Alert Gateway
CMAC--Error--201 Message received after expiration time
CMAC--Error--203 Message update failed
CMAC--Error--204 Message cancellation failed
CMAC--Error--300 Alert message failed due to insufficient system
storage
CMAC--Error--301 CMSP server error
CMAC--Error--302 Maximum number of sessions reached (if C interface
is session based)
CMAC--Resp--400 CMAS test successful
CMAC--Resp--401 CMAS test failed due to XXX
CMAC--Resp--500 Transient error on CMSP Gateway--Discontinue
transmission of alerts
CMAC--Resp--501 Resume transmission of alerts to CMSP Gateway
CMAC--Resp--502 Keep alive message response

10.4.7 Example CMAS ``C'' Interface Alert Messages

As an example of a CMAS Alert Message, consider the following CAP
alert message from the National Weather Service:
http://www.incident.com/cap/1.0''>

NOAA-NWS-ALERTS Arizona 2007-08-01T18:22:17-
04:00
w-nws.webmaster@noaa.gov
2007-08-01T18:22:17-04:00
Actual
Alert
Public

[[Page 604]]

Current Watches, Warnings and Advisories for Arizona
Issued by the National Weather Service
http://www.weather.gov/alerts/az.html

Met
Flash Flood Warning
Expected
Severe
Likely
2007-08- 01T22:11:00
2007-08-01T23:15:00
Flash Flood Warning
FLASH FLOOD WARNING AZC005-012315--BULLETIN--
EAS ACTIVATION REQUESTED FLASH FLOOD WARNING NATIONAL WEATHER
SERVICE FLAGSTAFF AZ 311 PM MST WED AUG 1 2007 THE NATIONAL WEATHER
SERVICE IN FLAGSTAFF HAS ISSUED A * FLASH FLOOD WARNING FOR... SOUTH
CENTRAL COCONINO COUNTY IN NORTH CENTRAL ARIZONA... * UNTIL 415 PM
MST * AT 306 PM MST...NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE DOPPLER RADAR
INDICATED FLASH FLOODING FROM A THUNDERSTORM OVER THE WARNED AREA. *
LOCATIONS IN THE WARNING INCLUDE HIGHWAY 89 THROUGH OAK CREEK CANYON
BETWEEN SLIDE ROCK STATE PARK AND MIDGELY BRIDGE. THE HEAVY RAINS
WILL LIKELY TRIGGER LIFE-THREATENING ROCKSLIDES... MUDSLIDES...AND
DEBRIS FLOWS NEAR THE BRINS FIRE BURN AREA IN OAK CREEK CANYON...AS
WELL AS FLOODING OF CREEKS...ROADS...AND NORMALLY DRY WASHES. DO NO
ATTEMPT TO DRIVE THROUGH THIS AREA UNTIL THE THREAT HAS DIMINISHED.
LAT...LON 3488 11177 3489 11169 3499 11169 3498 11177 $$ DB < /
cap:description>
http://www.weather.gov/alerts/AZ.html
AZC005.FGZFFWFGZ.221100

Kaibab Plateau, Marble, Glen Canyons, Grand Canyon
Country, Coconino Plateau, Northeast Plateaus, Mesas Hwy, Little
Colorado River Valley in, Western Mogollon Rim, Eastern Mogollon
Rim, Oak Creek, Sycamore Canyons, Northeast Plateaus, Mesas Sou
(Arizona)
004005

This Alert Gateway would construct a CMAS ``C'' Interface
message based on this CAP alert as follows:

1.0
http://cmas_alert_gateway.gov
1056
2003-06-17T14:57:00-07:00
Actual
Alert
http://cmas_alert_gateway.gov/CMAM1056

Met
Severe
Expected
Likely
2007-08-01T23:15:00
English
ISO-6739-2
56
Severe Weather Warning until 4:15pm MST

Kaibab Plateau, Marble, Glen Canyons,
Grand Canyon Country, Coconino Plateau, Northeast Plateaus, Mesas
Hwy, Little Colorado River Valley in, Western Mogollon Rim, Eastern
Mogollon Rim, Oak Creek, Sycamore Canyons, Northeast Plateaus, Mesas
Sou (Arizona)
004005

This CMAM would be broadcast as:
Severe Weather Warning in this area until 4:15pm MST NWS

10.5 Reference Point E Protocols

The protocols that will be used for Reference Point E are
dependent upon the capabilities of the delivery technology or
technologies that have been selected by the CMSP.
The following is the CMA specific information that must be
delivered over Reference Point ``E'' to support the CMAS text
profile; mapping of this information to the delivery technology is
beyond the scope of the CMSAAC:

Table 10-8.--Reference Point E Protocol Elements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter Function
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CMAE--protocol--version........... CMAE protocol version.
CMAE--identifier.................. A number uniquely identifying this
message.
CMAE--alert--handling............. Identifies special handling for the
alert:
--Presidential Alert.
--Child Abduction Emergency (i.e.,
AMBER Alert)
Additional values are reserved for
future use.
CMAE--alert--type................. Alert message is new, update or
cancel CMAS alert.
CMAE--language.................... Language of the alert message in the
CMAE--Alert--Text parameter.
CMAE--char--set................... Character set for the alert message
in the CMAE--Alert--Text parameter
(e.g., GSM 7-bit encoding, ISO 639-
2, UCS-2, UTF-16).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

11 Annex A--Anticipated Peak & Average CMAS Traffic Volume

In 2006, there was a total of 9239 tornado and flash flood
warnings in the U.S. as reported by the National Weather Service.
The following has a breakdown by state of these warnings:

[[Page 605]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JA08.018

It can be assumed that these warnings account for approximately
50% of all warnings issued in 2006. In addition, there are
approximately 1200 child abduction emergency/Amber Alerts per year.
Given the above statistics and adding a factor of uncertainty
in, the anticipated initial yearly CMAMs for a single language of
English which meet the criteria for CMAs is assumed to be 25,000
alerts per year. This number is expected to grow due to increased
usage and due to the potential support of additional languages in
the future.
On a monthly basis, the tornado and flash flood data is as
follows:

[[Page 606]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JA08.019

Using these actual alert statistics as a percent of the total
per month, and applying to the 25,000 estimate number yields the
following estimate of alerts per month:

Table 11-3.--Estimated CMA Volume by Month
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
CMA Estimate Per Month:
January.................................................... 658
February................................................... 273
March...................................................... 3158
April...................................................... 3123
May........................................................ 2695
June....................................................... 3802
July....................................................... 3001
August..................................................... 2473
September.................................................. 2535
October.................................................... 1786
November................................................... 1050
December................................................... 446
----------
Total.................................................... 25000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note there is significant uncertainty in these estimates as one
cannot predict ``mother nature'' or human activities. These
estimates should only serve as guidelines to the anticipated message
traffic in the CMAS.

12 Annex B--WARN Act Statutory Requirements

12.1 WARN Act Requirements

1. Transmission of emergency alerts via commercial mobile
service is voluntary.
a. Commercial mobile service operators may voluntarily elect to
transmit emergency alerts {Sec. 602(a){time} .
2. A commercial mobile service operator who elects to transmit
emergency alerts agree to do so in a manner consistent with the
technical standards, protocols, procedures, and other technical
requirements implemented by the Commission.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ WARN Act, Sec. 602(b)(2)(B)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. A commercial mobile service operator who elects to transmit
emergency alerts can elect to transmit the emergency alert services
in whole or in part.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ WARN Act, Sec. 602(b)(1)(B). The Committee interprets the
definition of ``in whole or in part'' to include the following: All
or a subset of the mobile operator's service area and/or all or a
subset of current and future mobile devices supported by the mobile
operator network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. A commercial mobile service operator who elects in whole or
in part NOT to transmit emergency alerts:
a. Must provide clear and conspicuous notice at 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.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ Id. Sec. 602(b)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Must provide notification of this decision to its existing
subscribers.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ Id. Sec. 602(b)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Shall not by itself provide a basis for liability against the
provider (including its officers, directors, employees, vendors, and
agents).\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ Id. Sec. 602(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Commercial mobile service licensee may not impose a separate
or additional charge for such transmission or capability.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ Id. Sec. 602(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Any commercial mobile service licensee electing to transmit
emergency alerts may offer subscribers the capability of preventing
the subscriber's device from receiving such alerts, or classes of
such alerts, other than an alert issued by the President.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ Id. Sec. 602.(b)(2)(E) & Sec. 603(c)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. CMSPs who elect to transmit emergency alerts may transmit in
languages in addition to English to the extent practical and
feasible.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ Id. Sec. 603(c)(4){time} .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Any CMSP (including its officers, directors, employees,
vendors, and agents) that transmits emergency alerts and meets its
obligations under this title shall not be liable to any subscriber
to, or user of, such person's service or equipment for
a. Any act or omission related to or any harm resulting from the
transmission of, or failure to transmit, an emergency alert.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ Id. Sec. 6022(e)(1)(A){time} .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. The release to a government agency or entity, public safety,
fire service, law enforcement official, emergency medical service,
or emergency facility of subscriber information used in connection
with delivering such an alert.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ Id. Sec. 602(e)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

12.2 WARN Act Interpretations

12.2.1 CMSP Election

The WARN Act specifies the election process for a CMSP that
elects to transmit CMAs as follows:

602(b)(2) ELECTION--
(A) IN GENERAL--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.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ Id. Sec. 602(b)(2).

The above mentioned election process must be complete in
September, 2008 as specified in the timelines in the WARN Act.
The CMAS requires new technology development and deployments,
including development of mobile device functionality for CMAS and
new mobile devices. The requirements for this new technology will
not be available until the completion of the CMSAAC process and the
completion of the FCC Report and Order in April, 2008 as specified
by the WARN Act. Typical development cycles for a development of
this magnitude require up to 12 months of standardization work in
the appropriate standards bodies once the requirements are finalized
followed by 18-24 months implementation and deployment before
availability of the service and supporting mobile devices.
Thus, a CMSP that files an election with the Commission in
September 2008 with the intent to transmit emergency alerts is
making a commitment to support the development and deployment of
technology for the following:

--``C'' reference point
--CMSP Gateway
--CMSP Infrastructure
--Mobile Device with CMAS functionality and support of the CMSP
selected technology

However, the technology, capabilities for deployment, and mobile
devices may not be

[[Page 607]]

available for initial deployment and subscriber purchase potentially
12 months plus 18-24 months (approximately 30-36 months) following
the CMSAAC recommendation, due to the required standardization and
development cycles for the technology and capabilities of the mobile
devices. Full deployments may not occur until a much later timeframe
via a phased implementation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JA08.020

The above potential deployment timeline is based upon the
assumptions that (1) the CMSAAC recommendations contained within
this document are accepted without any major technical changes and
(2) the government documentation and deliverables are available at
the milestone dates indicated on the timeline. The industry will
begin standardization efforts at the completion of the CMSAAC
recommendations but any major technical changes to the CMSAAC
recommendations will adversely affect the above potential deployment
timeline.
There are factors outside of the CMSP's direct control that will
influence the deployment and availability of CMA service. These
factors include manufacturer development cycles for equipment in the
CMSP infrastructure, manufacturer commitment to support the delivery
technology of choice by the CMSP, and mobile device manufacturer
development of the required CMAS functionality on the mobile
devices. Typically, a CMSP will have equipment from multiple
manufacturers deployed in the CMSP infrastructure. Multi-vendor
environments require feature availability and deployment alignment,
and require interoperability testing between the different
manufacturers equipment. Also, if a CMSP chooses a particular
technology to transmit alerts (e.g., cell broadcast), if a vendor
with which a CMSP has a relationship chooses not to develop the same
capability, then the CMSP may be forced into not electing to
transmit alerts (at least not ``in whole'').
It is also assumed the requirements, development, and
deployments of the Alert Gateway and Alert Aggregator align with the
CMSP developments to allow for testing during the development
process and prior to CMAS deployments.

12.3 Licensees and Permittees of Noncommercial Educations Broadcasting
Stations or Public Television Stations

The WARN Act requires in section 602(c) that:

Within 90 days after the date on which the Commission adopts
relevant technical standards based on recommendations of the
Commercial Mobile Service Alert Advisory Committee, established
pursuant to section 603(a), the Commission shall complete a
proceeding to require licensees and permittees of noncommercial
educational broadcast stations or public broadcast stations (as
those terms are defined in section 397(6) of the Communications Act
of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 397(6))) to install necessary equipment and
technologies on, or as part of, any broadcast television digital
signal transmitter to enable the distribution of geographically
targeted alerts by commercial mobile service providers that have
elected to transmit emergency alerts under this section.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ Id. Sec. 602(c).

This Committee acknowledges the potential relevance of the
rulemaking described in section 602(c) of the WARN Act to this
Committee's recommendations. Accordingly, the Committee recommends
that the equipment and technologies described in Section 602(c) of
the WARN Act be deployed promptly and in a manner consistent with
the Committee's recommendations. The Committee further recommends
that the national organization representing the licensees and
permittees of non-commercial broadcast stations work with the FCC
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
pursuant to Section 602(c) on the necessary equipment.

[FR Doc. E7-24876 Filed 1-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P