[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 136 (Monday, July 16, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36989-36991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-17785]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 20

[CC Docket No. 94-102; DA 01-1623]


Wireless E911 Compatibility; Public Safety Answering Points

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document solicits further comment regarding a petition 
for clarification and/or a declaratory ruling concerning the process by 
which a Public Safety Answering Point (``PSAP'') makes a valid request 
for Phase II enhanced 911 (``E911'') service from a wireless carrier as 
provided for in the Commission's rules. It seeks comment on whether the 
rule should be amended to clarify its meaning and/or adopt criteria.

DATES: Comments are due on or before July 25, 2001, and reply comments 
are due on or before August 6, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 
Room TW-A325, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter Wolfe, 202-418-1310.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
document in CC Docket No. 94-102; DA 01-1623, released July 10, 2001. 
The complete text of this document is available for inspection and 
copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information 
Center, Courtyard Level, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC, and also 
may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Services (ITS, Inc.), CY-B400, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC.

Synopsis

    1. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (``the Bureau'') seeks 
comment on whether 47 CFR 20.18(j) should be amended to clarify its 
meaning and/or adopt some criteria as to when a PSAP has made a valid 
request for Phase II E911 service. Comments were initially sought in a 
public notice published at 66 FR 19781, April 17, 2001. The Commission 
seeks now further comment to expand the record.
    2. Specifically, the Bureau seeks comment on what objective 
criteria a PSAP could be required to meet to demonstrate at the time it 
makes a request that it has taken sufficient steps to assure that it 
will be able to receive and utilize the E911 data prior to the

[[Page 36990]]

delivery of service by the carrier. For example, what kinds of 
identifiable, measurable criteria could be put in place that would 
reasonably predict for the Commission, carrier, and PSAP whether a PSAP 
will be ready to receive and utilize Phase II information within six 
months of a request? Would it be sufficient for the PSAP to show (1) 
that it has the necessary funding available; (2) that it has purchase 
orders with vendors that will install the necessary facilities with 
obligations that the vendors must perform within the 6 month period; 
and (3) that it has made arrangements with local exchange carriers to 
supply the necessary trunking, the ALI database, and any other 
necessary facilities or capabilities in a timely fashion? Would it be 
sufficient if the PSAP shows that it has implemented Phase I using a 
Non-Call Path Associated Signaling (NCAS) capability? Would it also be 
necessary for the PSAP to have a state-of-the-art mapping capability 
versus a less sophisticated plotting mechanism, or is that a matter of 
the efficiency of the PSAP's handling the information, not its 
capability to use it?

Procedural Matters

    3. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Secs. 1.415 and 
1.419 of the Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments 
in response to the document in CC Docket No. 94-102 on or before July 
23, 2001, and reply comments on or before July 30, 2001. Comments and 
reply comments should be filed in CC Docket No. 94-102 and should 
include a separate heading to identify the comments for the Docket 
Number. All relevant and timely comments will be considered by the 
Commission before final action is taken in this proceeding. To file 
formally, interested parties must file an original and four copies of 
all comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If interested 
parties want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of their 
comments, they must file an original plus nine copies. Interested 
parties should send comments and reply comments to the Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-A325, 445 Twelfth 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, with copies to Peter Wolfe, Policy 
Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at 445 Twelfth Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    4. Comments also may be filed using the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS). Comments filed through the ECFS can be 
sent as an electronic file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-mail/ecfs.html. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission 
must be filed. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should 
include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the 
applicable docket or rulemaking numbers. Parties also may submit an 
electronic comment by Internet E-Mail. To obtain filing instructions 
for E-Mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to [email protected], 
and should include the following words in the body of the message, 
``get form your E-Mail address>.'' A sample form and directions will be 
sent in reply.
    5. Comments and reply comments will be available for public 
inspection during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Center, 
Room CY-A257, at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Copies of comments and reply 
comments are available through the Commission's duplicating contractor: 
International Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS, Inc.), 1231 20th 
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037, (202) 857-3800.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    6. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Bureau 
has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 
possible significant economic impact on small entities by the rule 
amendments suggested in this document in CC Docket No. 94-102. Written 
public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified 
as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines. The 
Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center 
will send a copy of the document, including the IRFA to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
    7. This document is to ascertain whether and to what extent the 
Commission should amend 47 CFR 20.18(j) to clarify the process by which 
a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) makes a valid request for Phase 
II E911 service. The suggested rule amendment is meant to ensure that 
all parties involved in providing critical E911 services are aware of 
their responsibilities in this regard. If the Commission adopts a 
requirement that PSAPs demonstrate compliance with specified criteria, 
the purpose will be to enable affected carriers to verify a PSAP's 
capability to receive and act on Phase II data, thus avoiding costly 
delays in response time.
    8. The suggested action is authorized under sections 1, 4(j), 7(a), 
301, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 308, and 309(j) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(j),157(a), 301, 303(c), 
303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 308, and 309(j).
    9. 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 proposed rules, if adopted. 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 section 3 of the 
Small Business Act, unless the Commission has developed one or more 
definitions that are appropriate for its activities. Under the Small 
Business Act, a ``small business concern'' is one that: (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). A small organization is generally 
``any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and 
operated and is not dominant in its field.'' Nationwide, as of 1992, 
there were approximately 275,801 small organizations.
    10. The definition of ``small governmental entity'' is one with 
populations of fewer than 50,000. There are 85,006 governmental 
entities in the nation. This number includes such entities as states, 
counties, cities, utility districts and school districts. There are no 
figures available on what portion of this number has populations of 
fewer than 50,00. However, this number includes 38,978 counties, cities 
and towns, and of those, 37,556, or ninety-six percent, have 
populations of fewer than 50,000. The Census Bureau estimates that this 
ratio is approximately accurate for all government entities. Thus, of 
the 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that ninety-six percent, 
or about 81,600, are small entities that may be affected by our rules.
    11. Nationwide, there are 4.44 million small business firms, 
according to SBA reporting data. The applicable definition of small 
entity is the definition under the SBA rules applicable to 
radiotelephone (wireless) companies. This provides that a small entity 
is a radiotelephone company employing no more than 1,500 persons. 
According to the a report issued by the Federal Communications 
Commission's Common Carrier Bureau in December 2000, of the 1,495 
current wireless service providers, 989 employ l,500 or fewer workers, 
and 506 employ more than 1,500 workers.

[[Page 36991]]

    12. The Commission is unable at this time to precisely quantify the 
specific impact of the suggested actions on these entities at this 
early point in the proceeding, but invites comment on this issue. The 
impact will depend on what type of demonstration and criteria (if any) 
the Commission ultimately adopts. If a demonstration and criteria are 
adopted, small carriers would find it less burdensome to confirm that a 
PSAP is indeed capable of participating in E911 service provision. The 
Commission is acutely aware of its responsibility to balance the needs 
of the PSAPs, who presumably would need to comply with any 
demonstration requirement adopted. Therefore, the Commission will 
carefully consider the affects in time and money on PSAPs of any 
demonstration requirement or inherent criteria before adopting final 
rule amendments.
    13. The reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements 
will depend on what format the demonstration requirement, if adopted, 
ultimately takes and on what criteria, if any, are adopted. The 
document is inviting public comment on this issue and is open to any 
suggestions submitted in this regard. All comments will be carefully 
considered before final rules are adopted.
    14. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, 
which may include the following four alternatives: (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 or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; 
(3) the use of performance, rather than design standards; (4) an 
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities.
    15. The Commission is severely limited in this proceeding as to 
minimizing the burden on small entities. The proceeding originates in 
Congressional mandate with the intention of ultimately offering the 
most reliable, responsive emergency services technologically possible. 
The critical nature of this goal demands that all entities involved, 
regardless of size, bear the same responsibility for complying with 
requirements adopted to expedite reaching this goal. A delay in 
response caused by a small entity could result in the same fatal 
consequences as a delay cased by a large entity. However, if the rule 
is amended as suggested in the document is adopted, all entities will 
benefit as indicated in criteria 2 cited above, the clarification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule. The alternatives 
at this early point in the proceeding seem to be to leave the rule as 
it stands, to amend the rule without placing a demonstration burden and 
criteria on PSAPs, or, if the Commission finds after reviewing the 
comments filed in response to the document that the benefits of 
amending the rule and adopting criteria and a demonstration requirement 
outweigh the additional onus placed on PSAPs, whether a detailed 
demonstration of compliance or a more general demonstration will 
suffice to verify PSAP capability to participate in Phase II of the 
Commission's E911 program. For example, if the rule is amended and 
PSAPs are asked to demonstrate their compliance with certain criteria, 
the Commission could allow PSAPs the flexibility to comply with this 
requirement in whatever manner they believe best demonstrates their 
capability. This alternative would place a minimal additional reporting 
burden on PSAPs, but small carriers may find this an inadequate means 
for determining capability. On the other hand, the Commission could 
adopt a requirement that clearly states what a satisfactory 
demonstration must include, thus increasing the reporting burden on 
PSAPs but allowing no room for confusion over when a PSAP may be 
considered E911 capable. These are issues on which this document 
invites comment from all sources.
    16. There are no federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or 
conflict with the proposed rules.
    17. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference 
Information Center, will send a copy of this document including the 
IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration. See 5 U.S.C. 604(b).

Ordering Clauses

    18. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 201, 251, 303, 309, and 332 of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201, 
251, 303, 309, and 332, this document is adopted.

    Federal Communications Commission.
Thomas J. Sugrue,
Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
[FR Doc. 01-17785 Filed 7-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P